[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Thu Nov 22 14:34:24 EST 2018

*"it's going to our government"*

Well actually no. Not since Wentworth. The government can't pass bills
without either Labor or the cross benchers, so it's highly risorous the
Home Affairs Minister thinks this an opportune time to give the PJCIS the
hurry along.

He also presents himself and department as unanswerable to the PJCHR, who
go to volumes in their criticisms.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 10:43, Bradley Silverman <
bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com> wrote:

> *"no thinking person" - *That's the problem, it's not going to thinking
> people, it's going to our government...
> [image: VentraIP Australia logo]
>
>
> *Bradley Silverman*Technical Operations \\ VentraIP Australia
> *M: *+61 418 641 103 | *P:* +61 3 9013 8464 | ventraip.com.au
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:17 AM Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I can't agree that whether the Bill passes at this stage comes down to
>> simple numbers along party lines.
>>
>> 1 - The Bill is simply too far reaching in consequences for parliament to
>> wave it through. With power comes responsibility. The Bill is attracting
>> huge condemnation internationally, and those supporting the Bill risk
>> looking like chumps. It's a bit like global warming, no one who knows what
>> they're talking about thinks this is a good idea.
>>
>> 2 - The Department for Home Affairs put this Bill together, and Dutton
>> arrived at the tail end of the process. Although he might like to distance
>> himself from the legislation, the buck ultimately stops with him as he
>> introduced and commended the Bill to the House.
>>
>> 3 - The Bill is more Trumpist than Liberal. Even if it's bad law and bad
>> for Liberal Democracy, it's good politics for the Liberal Trumpists.
>>
>> 4 - If Labor knocks it back in the Lower House, I can't see it getting
>> through without some sort of deal being struck with one of the cross
>> benchers. Because no thinking person sees this Bill as a good move, there
>> will be no Lower House deal without a serious quid pro quo. Then there
>> would need to be another deal in the Upper House, with differently aligned
>> cross benchers.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 22:44, Bryan O'Reilly <
>> bryan at telcoindependent.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m looking forward to your Lunchtime Lecture next week on this topic!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Bryan O'Reilly
>>> Founder - Telco Independent Consulting
>>> www.telcoindependent.com.au
>>>
>>> 0419 632 098
>>>
>>> 30+ years experience to provide YOUR business with independent advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FaceBook; https://www.facebook.com/TelcoIndependent/
>>>
>>> LinkedIN; https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanoreilly/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: rsz_rsz_1rsz_screen_shot_2016-11-03_at_33423_pm]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Important:
>>> This message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
>>> are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not take any
>>> action based on the contents herein, except to advise us of the error and
>>> destroy the message.
>>>
>>> Any documents or other information that may be in this email is
>>> copyright © Telco Independent Consulting 2018.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AusNOG <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> *On Behalf Of *Paul
>>> Brooks
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 November 2018 5:18 PM
>>> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Rob.
>>> In the latest, Dutton wants to speed up the Bill and have it passed
>>> "next week", and has apparently asked the PJCIS to cut short its
>>> evaluation, according to reporting of an interview on Sky News.
>>>
>>> Dutton tries to speed up encryption bill
>>> <https://www.itnews.com.au/news/dutton-tries-to-speed-up-encryption-bill-515862>
>>>
>>> (Point of clarification - that bit about smart and dumb criminals was
>>> while trying to explain the difference between a system having a capability
>>> that can be used by the operator to implement a "act or thing", and an
>>> operator actually using that capability in a particular instance against a
>>> particular target - and that the existence of the capability isn't and
>>> shouldn't be secret, even if the actual use in response to a warrant was
>>> still kept a secret.  That distinction has been difficult for the committee
>>> to understand without a simple illustration.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2018 2:00 PM, Robert Hudson wrote:
>>>
>>> (Not necessarily a direct response to Paul's email, just additional data
>>> for the thread).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Traditional media are starting to pick this up, and they're just
>>> parroting the govt position. Macquarie Radio news at 8am ran a story on it
>>> this morning, and it was all about Dutton saying he wants the legislation
>>> passed quickly so they can catch more terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Other than the point well made by Paul Brooks that the only criminals
>>> who will be caught by this are the dumb ones (there was a link made between
>>> this proposed legislation and three potential terrorists were were arrested
>>> - without this legislation in place), and the smarter criminals (ie those
>>> capable of tieing their own shoe laces) will simply use software that is
>>> not subject to the legislation, there is an extension - to break the
>>> encryption WILL involve creating vulnerabilities (there's simply no way
>>> around this), and those vulnerabilities will then be available for
>>> criminals (the bar may be higher than shoelaces, maybe they can button
>>> their own shirts as well) to exploit and compromise data that is
>>> legitimately encrypted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In summary - there is no upside to this proposed legislation as far as
>>> encryption goes, and there is a significant potential downside.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It cannot be allowed to pass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Nov. 2018, 12:09 pm Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering when the other shoe will drop that the Bill enables mass
>>> collection and analysis of metadata without any further legislation needed.
>>> Or the implications that metadata from multiple sources (phone
>>> towers/CCTV/Social Media), lays the foundations for the establishment of
>>> the machinery of a police state. Of course, this will make prosecution of
>>> crime straightforward (the police will only need to correlate crime against
>>> a database of the public's electronic fingerprints). However, such powerful
>>> machinery can be used for oppressive purposes, and the Bill is absent the
>>> checks and balances consistent with the traditions and institutions of
>>> Liberal Democracy.
>>>
>>> If one were cynical you might think the Bill's outrageous overreach is
>>> deliberate, a Trumpist ploy to enrage the unthinking. And when we see
>>> critics of the Bill slandered for being weak on terrorism, maybe not so
>>> wide of the mark or so cynical.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 04:15, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 18:12, Christian Heinrich
>>> <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/victoria-police-arrest-three-people-allegedly-planning-a-terror-attack-in-melbourne/news-story/e6a92273b37dce750937e1e0f86a7dcd
>>> > has quoted Mr Dutton on WhatsApp again but from my reading WhatsApp
>>> > was not used in this specific case?
>>>
>>> This has now been alleged within
>>>
>>> https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/mobile-phones/unacceptable-risk-the-secret-way-terrorists-and-criminals-are-communicating/news-story/731ca32e7432601d6b3ce5ca4f34bf80
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> These stories read like gov't scare tactics.  Scare people
>>> enough and they'll 'give up liberty for a little safety'.
>>> They do not read like objective journalism.'
>>>
>>> How did they catch everyone without eliminating privacy
>>> anyway?  Good ol' police work?
>>>
>>> scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181122/8636d7fb/attachment.html>