[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Tue Nov 13 11:36:12 EST 2018

Communications Alliance submission
<https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=789049aa-edfc-48e2-a79c-0dd1c28f95b8&subId=662644>
makes
the point both s313 and s280 (1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 are
current extensively used to access metadata.

It follows that under the new bill, about a dozen LEAs will similarly be
able to rely on s313 and s280(1)(b) to get warrantless metadata access.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 13:09, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Coexistence with Data Retention Regime (Under Telecommunications Act)
>
>
> Passage of this Bill will set the stage for mass surveillance, where
> carriers are already subject to data retention, but the Minister may
> further declare any service provider subject to the metadata regime.
>
>
> 187A Service providers must keep certain information and documents
>
> (3A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare a service to be
> a service to which this Part applies.
>
>
> Such declaration has a statutory limitation of 40 sitting days of
> Parliament, however nothing in the Act prevents such a declaration being
> rolled over by the Minister, maintaining a metadata regime in perpetuity
> for any service they should designate. All this would lie within the
> provisioned scope of the Minister's powers without any further legislation.
>
> Access to such metadata does not necessarily require a warrant. Access
> under the Telecommunications Act can be rendered by the service provider as
> voluntary assistance.
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20181113/89f28667/attachment.html>