[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Paul Wilkins]

Seems Dutton is about to get a lesson in constitutional law:

S44 (iv)  holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the
Commonwealth; or

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member
of the House of Representatives.

Kind regards


Paul Wilkins

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 10:34, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> After the Department Home Affairs sitting on this Bill for over a year and
> conducting industry consultation they claim is confidential (ie: they have
> no one who'll go on record supporting the Bill) suddenly it's a priority,
> and the Minister for Home Affairs writes a wheedling letter to PJCIS to
> pass the Bill before Christmas.
>
> The lack of public and industry consultation, the vague and poor drafting,
> and then a sudden push to pass the Bill in a couple of weeks, rather
> suggest a deliberate strategy to pass a Bill that's out of all proportion
> to the need to combat terrorism and serious crime in the context of rising
> use of encryption.
>
> Rising use of encryption is hardly news to anyone. After all, a rising
> tide lifts all boats.
>
>
>
> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a46f0ed4-fc0d-4e95-bbd3-ef8fafe419ab&subId=663130
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 13:56, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *"In practice, if they balls-up the change request given to the device
>> manufacturer or app/website developer, anything could happen."*
>>
>> Then you recall the obligation under the Telecommunications Act 1997 for
>> carriers to "do their best to  protect networks and facilities". No such
>> obligation attaches to the Crown under the powers of the  Assistance and
>> Access Bill 2018.
>>
>> So, even if in the cases of misfeasance, non feasance, or malfeasance on
>> the part of the Crown or its  agents in the implementation of
>> TCNs/TANs/TARs, and their impact on carriers businesses, liability rests,
>> not with the Crown as you might ingenuously assume, but with the carrier
>> who unwittingly acted as directed.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 06:38, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------
>>> ...the drafting certainly seems loose enough for a future
>>> government to establishthe machinery of a police state.
>>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> I'm seeing this in *NOG lists and elsewhere all over the
>>> world.  It's going to be an interesting next buncha years!
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20181127/6b1548e6/attachment.html>