[AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS

Sat Mar 30 13:35:39 EST 2019

It's a curious move for the PJCIS to refer the Assistance and Access Act to
the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. As they say, they've
never referred legislation to the INSLM ever before.

If the considerable resources at the disposal of the PJCIS, Attorney
General's, and the Dep't of Home Affairs haven't been sufficient to produce
workable law, then what hope the INSLM?

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 19:05, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com> wrote:

> 404 for the page on the ACS website..
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 12:40, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just for the info. There was an event yesterday "Safe Encryption
>> Australia Forum" in Sydney. Some highlights are here.
>>  https://www.innovationaus.com/2019/03/Labor-will-rewrite-encryption-laws
>>
>>
>> https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2019/tech-industry--fix-the-assistance-and-access-bill.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:33 PM Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The silence on the Assistance and Access Act since it passed in December
>>> has been deafening. It was firmly understood, on representations by the
>>> Liberal Government, that the bill passed was passed as an expedient, yet
>>> now we have the third report from PJCIS due 3rd April, and yet another
>>> round of submissions from corporations large and small, industry luminaries
>>> and human rights and legal experts, all saying that basically we're where
>>> we were back in September 2018, when Dutton rather disingenuously reported
>>> to the House that:
>>>
>>> "The government has consulted extensively with industry and the public
>>> on these measures and has made amendments to reflect the feedback in the
>>> legislation now before the parliament."
>>>
>>> Yet no matter how many submissions are made to how many parliamentary
>>> committees, we now seem stuck with a deeply flawed Act, the Liberals are
>>> walking backwards on the Labor amendements, while the country's police
>>> forces now operate with sweeping interception powers well beyond what's
>>> necessary and proportional.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ACIC in their submission seem to be making the case, that as police now
>>>> have EA powers under the Act to surveil targets, so too should the ACIC
>>>> have EA powers to surveil the police.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=989cabd1-5e9f-4fc3-a961-9a8b94683e7b&subId=666446
>>>>
>>>> I think however this too is wrong, and that two wrongs don't make a
>>>> right. The police should never have been given EA powers to break
>>>> encryption when all they need is legal intercept. And then ACIC too could
>>>> have LI powers.
>>>>
>>>> As I point out in my latest PJCIS submission,
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4d150922-3809-4487-aa2f-f8976f2b3789&subId=666483
>>>> there's a basic difference between Legal Intercept and Exceptional
>>>> Access, where EA you need read/modify/write/delete rights, whereas LI is
>>>> read only.
>>>>
>>>> If you restrict access by the police to read only, a very large chunk
>>>> of the ensuant vulnerabilities go away. Further, the amount of damage the
>>>> police can do on a magical mystery tour of your data centre is contained.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>>
>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:27, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The government said they'd consider them, not that they'd implement
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have very little faith at all that without significant pressure
>>>>> being brought to bear, that the government response would be anything more
>>>>> than "we consider them, and decided no, we're happy as we are".
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:03, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Labor's amendments haven't been forgotten, and will have to be dealt
>>>>>> with eventually, when the time comes for the PJCIS to table their April
>>>>>> recommendations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Noone is forgetting that the Act was passed as an interim measure, to
>>>>>> allow law enforcement to deal with the Christmas break with new powers. It
>>>>>> would be a serious breach of faith for the government to renege on the
>>>>>> outstanding amendments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Wilkins
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 13:24, Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins wrote:
>>>>>>> > Obviously this has been in limbo over the Christmas break. There's
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> > really important issues, on hold because of this.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > 1 - When or if the PJCIS will call for public comment on the Act
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> > passed.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > 2 - The appearance of the Labor amendments.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > So we probably won't see any developments until Parliament resumes
>>>>>>> > 12th February.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll lay money there will be no amendments (passed), there will be
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> attempt to force Apple etc to write in a weakness which will be
>>>>>>> challenged.  There will be many people that will not update their
>>>>>>> iOS/Andriod anytime soon.  Personally I stopped updating the moment
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> bill was passed - particularly as there is at least one Apple update
>>>>>>> that stated, "No bug/security fixes"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you will most likely find (and the idiots over in the ACT
>>>>>>> haven;'t
>>>>>>> worked it out yet) is that the terrorists have some very smart
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> "working" for them and they probably already jailbreak their phones
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> install their own messaging software on it.. (not that you need to
>>>>>>> jailbreak when you can use the 'team' functionality in xcode to
>>>>>>> install
>>>>>>> non apple approved apps on your phone.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course the highly amusing part is how easy it is to plugin to
>>>>>>> online
>>>>>>> services and how easy it is to run your own asymmetric
>>>>>>> cryptography... I
>>>>>>> suspect it would be trivial to put your own encryption over the top
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> any of those services/apps that allow such (and some already do -
>>>>>>> recently came across a plugin to the mailapp that has a custom
>>>>>>> encryption/decryption mechanism which is used by a bank for secure
>>>>>>> messaging.  This means as posted elsewhere any interception would
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to be by screen capture and keyboard interception on the device,
>>>>>>> which I
>>>>>>> personally would immediately class as a systemic weakness because if
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> were doing it i'd be cut/pasting messages into my own non-internet
>>>>>>> connected app for encryption/decryption so you can capture what you
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> off imessage, facebook messenger etc... you'd still be getting
>>>>>>> encrypted
>>>>>>> blocks of data.. and if you capture everything you have online
>>>>>>> banking
>>>>>>> passwords and everything else that goes with that and there one
>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>> about who else can see the captures....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what you get when you have people in charge that have
>>>>>>> interest
>>>>>>> in obtaining data they are not entitled to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least the Queensland police will not get voice recorded giving
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> new locations to abusive ex-husbands, now they can protect
>>>>>>> themselves by
>>>>>>> just accessing the phone of the wife in hiding..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... anyone seen my foil hat today I seem to have misplaced it....? :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Michelle Sullivan
>>>>>>> http://www.mhix.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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/20190330/9f33c956/attachment.html>