[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

[Paul Wilkins]

If Dutton is in fact ineligible to sit, then so too is his motion to
introduce the Bill to Parliament. Or such is the stuff of dreams?

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:39, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20181127/1eff5867/attachment.html>