Paul B - is that agency explicitly referred to or inferable readily in the legislation?
Otherwise Paul W does have a point, there is the potential for the thus empowered agencies to proliferate as happened in the data retention system before it was changed. Narelle On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:42 AM Paul Brooks <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/09/2018 6:17 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote: > > I'd encourage others making submissions to raise the same point. Government > > has > > clearly not considered this dimension, otherwise the first cab off the rank > > in the > > bill's phrasing would be to create a new agency, or identifying a single > > agency on > > which to confer these powers. > > No new agency is required - there is already the CAC, now sitting in Home > Affairs, who > manages existing lawful interception and metadata activities on behalf of the > various > agencies behind it. I would have thought the CAC would be the 'natural home' > for the > single-point-of-interface, even though they don't currently (that I know of) > deal with > device manufacturers. > -- Narelle [email protected] _______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
