[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Fri Nov 23 11:37:15 EST 2018

Wondering what the implications of this bill and the recent China was
stealing our traffic....

So in theory could china steal / sniff our traffic and because of these
weakening of encryption allow china to snope on our stuff

A

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 11:32, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, we're being played, by the Trumpist rump in the Liberal
> Party.
>
> Problem for the rest of the Liberals is that they're expected to fall into
> line behind a minority of the party.
>
> The PJCIS will hear and consider Human Rights arguments, because they're
> not all Liberals, and not all the Liberals on the PJCIS are invested in
> blowing up our democratic institutions.
>
> Morrison can't pass this Bill without Labor's support and hopes to wedge
> them on terrorism.
>
> I can't see that Labor are especially invested in this Bill passing. As
> things look today, it will be a Labor government administering it, and they
> are more likely to want to pass their own rather than have to deal with the
> Human Rights gaps, mass surveillance implications, technical anomalies, and
> broken multi agency framework.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 16:48, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing listAusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://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/20181123/c5ec4fa2/attachment-0001.html>