[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Thu Nov 1 11:50:51 EST 2018

Rob,
Check your inbox/spam folder 29/10.

Kind regards
Paul Wilkins

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 08:33, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Odd.  I signed up to track the enquiry, but have had no notifications at
> all that additional hearings had been scheduled.
>
> There's an another additional day according to the committee website -
> 27th November.
>
> Where did you see if information that they're asking for supplementary
> submissions?
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:28, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy* has weighed in on the
>> PJCIS review with incandescent criticism:
>>
>>
>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8012483f-e421-41a7-8bd4-1e8eb5eb39eb&subId=661745
>>
>> In my considered view, the Assistance and Access Bill is an example of a
>> poorly conceived national security measure that is equally as likely to
>> endanger security as not; it is technologically questionnable if it can
>> achieve its aims and avoid introducing vulnerabilities to the cybersecurity
>> of all devices irrespective of whether they are mobiles, tablets, watches,
>> cars, etc., and it unduly undermines human rights including the right to
>> privacy. It is out of step with international rulings raising the related
>> issue of how the Australian Government would enforce this law on
>> transnational technology companies.
>>
>> I can't but think that if the Minister for Home Affairs to be doing  well
>> to attract the ire of the United Nations and his timing couldn't be better,
>> just as the Government has lost control of the House. I'm hopeful the
>> Australian media will pick up on the interest of the UN in the Bill,
>> fingers crossed.
>>
>> Furthermore, the PJCIS, after announcing two additional hearings 16/30
>> Nov, are also asking for *supplementary submissions, to be received no
>> later than 26 November.*
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're at a critical juncture where the Minister for Home Affairs may get
>>> his way and steam roll this Bill through Parliament (how this could play
>>> out in both Houses would be interesting, as they'll need either Labor or
>>> one of the independents in the Lower House). Or the Bill gets substantially
>>> modified or sent back to the Dep't Home Affairs to start over.
>>>
>>> What's of deep concern is that the Minister represents to the House
>>> consultation has been extensive, and that modifications of the Bill
>>> represent a consensus view. Yet industry has been vocal in opposition to
>>> the Bill, and have criticised the level of consultation and the
>>> Government's preparedness to receive advice:
>>>
>>> While DIGI appreciates the challenges facing law enforcement, we
>>> continue to have concerns with the Bill, which, contrary to its stated
>>> objective, we believe may undermine public safety by making it easier for
>>> bad actors to commit crimes against individuals, organisations or
>>> communities. We also remain concerned at the lack of independent oversight
>>> of Notices and the absence of checks and balances with this legislation,
>>> which we discuss in more detail in this submission.
>>> Submission to PJCIS - DIGI (includes Google, Amazon, Facebook...)(78)
>>>
>>>
>>> We urge the government to seriously consider the comments submitted by
>>> industry and civil society and consider changes that would protect the
>>> security and privacy of Apple’s users and all Australians.
>>> Submission to PJCIS - Apple (53)
>>>
>>> Given the complexity of the Bill, the sensitivity of the subject matter,
>>> and the  limited consultation period, the summary above is not an
>>> exhaustive list of BSA's concerns and recommendations in respect of the
>>> Bill. There are other aspects of the Bill that require further
>>> consideration in order to find the right balance between the legitimate
>>> rights, needs, and responsibilities of the Australian Government, citizens,
>>> providers of critical infrastructure, third party stewards of data, and
>>> innovators.
>>>
>>> As such, we respectfully encourage the Australian Government to engage
>>> in further dialogue with industry to consider the broader issues at play
>>> and the implications (and possible unintended consequences of the Bill).
>>> Submission to PJCIS - BSA (Cisco, IBM et al.)(48)
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:48, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm determined the Minister for Home Affairs doesn't get to drop a
>>>> deeply flawed Bill on a supine and compliant Parliament, and have taken
>>>> measures, to whit, written 22 MPs in positions where they can influence
>>>> policy, and provided links to submissions which point out the Bill as
>>>> proposed is neither proportionate nor necessary:
>>>>
>>>> Law Council of Australia:
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=859d9cda-0f99-4bef-994f-edc6006c87bf&subId=661321
>>>>
>>>> Joint Councils for Civil Liberties:
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6a26c1ce-15f3-4229-9b45-dd4ad7cfb8f2&subId=661197
>>>>
>>>> Australian Human Rights Commission:
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a7b9ff25-7c09-41e9-b97a-56dae1ac0e94&subId=661055
>>>>
>>>> PJCHR,starts @ p24:
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>>
>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:20, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *New PJCIS Public Hearings*
>>>>>
>>>>> *16 Nov 2018:* Sydney, NSW
>>>>> *30 Nov 2018:* Canberra, ACT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 13:23, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone yet had the opportunity to think through the use of force
>>>>>> provisions? Does use of force extend beyond physical forced entry, to say,
>>>>>> hacking?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CHAIR: So the big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter,
>>>>>>> over-the-top  messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp?
>>>>>>> Mr Hansford: A range of different industry companies.
>>>>>>> CHAIR: *A good percentage of those?*
>>>>>>> Mr Hansford: *A reasonable percentage, I'd say.*
>>>>>>> (Public) FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2018
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The government has consulted *extensively* with industry and the
>>>>>>> public on these measuresand has made amendments to reflect the feedback in
>>>>>>> the legislation now before the parliament."
>>>>>>> Minister for Home Affairs - Speech to Parliament 20 Sept 2018
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:01, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DIGI's submission (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Oath, and Twitter) has
>>>>>>>> just appeared:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d48c3c35-221d-4544-a7d7-109a82c72dc1&subId=661549
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On August 14, 2018, the Government released for Public Exposure a
>>>>>>>> draft of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance
>>>>>>>> and Access) Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) together with an Exposure Document, to
>>>>>>>> which DIGI made a submission (attached). A revised Bill was introduced to
>>>>>>>> Parliament ten days following the close of submissions, with only minor
>>>>>>>> amendments that fail to address its potential impacts on public safety,
>>>>>>>> cybersecurity, privacy and human rights, raising concern among industry,
>>>>>>>> consumer and civil society groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The PJCHR express extensive concerns with the bill.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following demonstrates a posture where they will likely oppose
>>>>>>>>> the bill without further safeguards:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.109 Another relevant factor in assessing whether a measure is
>>>>>>>>> proportionate is whether there is the possibility of oversight and the
>>>>>>>>> availability of review. The power to give a technical assistance notice or
>>>>>>>>> request, or technical  capability notice, is not exercised by a judge, nor
>>>>>>>>> does a judge supervise its application.  Section 317ZFA provides a
>>>>>>>>> discretionary power to a court, in relation to proceedings  before it, to
>>>>>>>>> make such orders as the court considers appropriate in relation to the
>>>>>>>>> disclosure, protection, storage, handling or destruction of technical
>>>>>>>>> assistance information, if the court is satisfied that it is in the public
>>>>>>>>> interest. The bill does  not otherwise provide for court involvement in the
>>>>>>>>> process of giving a technical assistance notice or request, or technical
>>>>>>>>> capability notice. The bill additionally  seeks to amend the Administrative
>>>>>>>>> Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to exclude decisions under
>>>>>>>>> Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act (which would  include a decision to
>>>>>>>>> issue a technical assistance notice or request, or technical  capability
>>>>>>>>> notice) from judicial review under the ADJR Act. 47 In these circumstances,
>>>>>>>>> further information from the minister as the adequacy of the safeguards in
>>>>>>>>> terms of oversight and review would assist in determining the
>>>>>>>>> proportionality of the measures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:12, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 21 October AEC had received 6890 postal votes out of 12,788
>>>>>>>>>> issued. Today, received postal votes is 7,789. Sharma is trailing by 1,552.
>>>>>>>>>> So I'm calling it a Phelps' win and we will have minority government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phelps will win by at least 500 votes so no recount.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:19, Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Transcript of public hearing 19th October:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2a1771c8-f314-43f2-b9b0-cd09ad8123ae%2F0000%22
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:46, Christian Heinrich <
>>>>>>>>>>> christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:12 PM Paul Wilkins <
>>>>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Except that where subject to an order under 317j to conceal
>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of a TCN/TAN forms part of the terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For PCI-DSS Requirement 4 Telstra [as an example I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend]
>>>>>>>>>>>> have mandated that their customer is responsible for both the
>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and software [as a service] within
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telstra.com.au/content/dam/tcom/personal/consumer-advice/pdf/business-a-full/cloud-h.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>> and are therefore unable to assist with the implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> TCN/TAN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian Heinrich
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20181101/e37ca0b2/attachment.html>