[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS
Paul Brooks
pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au
Thu Nov 22 16:47:33 EST 2018
Forget Human Rights arguments...or the next few sessions of PJCIS...
PM urges parliament to pass encryption law (within two weeks)
https://www.9news.com.au/2018/11/22/14/44/pm-urges-parliament-to-pass-encryption-law
Australian PM insists on encryption-busting Bill being passed in next sitting fortnight
https://www.zdnet.com/article/australian-pm-insists-on-encryption-busting-bill-being-passed-in-next-sitting-fortnight/
(Paul, FWIW, I raised the Human Rights arguments last time I was in Canberra. The UN
Declarations of Human Rights include paragraphs enabling governments to curtail those
human rights if needed to catch criminals, prevent crime, protect citizens. They be
more what you'd call 'guidelines', than actual rules. The Govt thinks they are doing
this to catch criminals and protect the public, and that these laws are perfectly
compatible with the UN Human Rights ideas - despite the UN Rapporteur suggesting
otherwise)
On 22/11/2018 3:01 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> "And FWIW, I've found arguments that lean towards demonstrating the measures are
> impractical, infeasible, risky, or likely to cause embarassment tend to be more
> powerful than arguments leaning on philosophy - arguments like "you shouldn't even
> be wanting to do this because we're a liberal democracy" aren't likely to wash as
> much as 'if thats what you're trying to achieve, doing like that won't work or is
> very risky because...'"
>
> Both technical criticisms and the human rights criticisms are valid, with perhaps a
> slight tilt towards the technical, because governments are less likely to try to do
> something impossible rather than unlawful. Because of our status as signatory to the
> Declaration of Human Rights, there are limits that invasions of the right to privacy
> and the right to private property, must be necessary and proportionate. The
> Department of Home Affairs will do themselves no favours to create an evidentiary
> framework, only to be thrown out by the courts because the evidentiary chain was
> unlawful.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 14:34, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> /"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
> <mailto: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...
> VentraIP Australia logo
>
> *Bradley Silverman
> *Technical Operations \\ VentraIP Australia
> *M: *+61 418 641 103 | *P:* +61 3 9013 8464 | ventraip.com.au
> <https://ventraip.com.au/>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:17 AM Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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/
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:surfer at mauigateway.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 18:12, Christian Heinrich
> <christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
> <mailto: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 <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> AusNOG mailing list
>
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto: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/ff720b54/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list