Odd. I signed up to track the enquiry, but have had no notifications at all that additional hearings had been scheduled.
There's an another additional day according to the committee website - 27th November. Where did you see if information that they're asking for supplementary submissions? On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:28, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > *UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy* has weighed in on the > PJCIS review with incandescent criticism: > > > https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8012483f-e421-41a7-8bd4-1e8eb5eb39eb&subId=661745 > > In my considered view, the Assistance and Access Bill is an example of a > poorly conceived national security measure that is equally as likely to > endanger security as not; it is technologically questionnable if it can > achieve its aims and avoid introducing vulnerabilities to the cybersecurity > of all devices irrespective of whether they are mobiles, tablets, watches, > cars, etc., and it unduly undermines human rights including the right to > privacy. It is out of step with international rulings raising the related > issue of how the Australian Government would enforce this law on > transnational technology companies. > > I can't but think that if the Minister for Home Affairs to be doing well > to attract the ire of the United Nations and his timing couldn't be better, > just as the Government has lost control of the House. I'm hopeful the > Australian media will pick up on the interest of the UN in the Bill, > fingers crossed. > > Furthermore, the PJCIS, after announcing two additional hearings 16/30 > Nov, are also asking for *supplementary submissions, to be received no > later than 26 November.* > > Kind regards > Paul Wilkins > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We're at a critical juncture where the Minister for Home Affairs may get >> his way and steam roll this Bill through Parliament (how this could play >> out in both Houses would be interesting, as they'll need either Labor or >> one of the independents in the Lower House). Or the Bill gets substantially >> modified or sent back to the Dep't Home Affairs to start over. >> >> What's of deep concern is that the Minister represents to the House >> consultation has been extensive, and that modifications of the Bill >> represent a consensus view. Yet industry has been vocal in opposition to >> the Bill, and have criticised the level of consultation and the >> Government's preparedness to receive advice: >> >> While DIGI appreciates the challenges facing law enforcement, we continue >> to have concerns with the Bill, which, contrary to its stated objective, we >> believe may undermine public safety by making it easier for bad actors to >> commit crimes against individuals, organisations or communities. We also >> remain concerned at the lack of independent oversight of Notices and the >> absence of checks and balances with this legislation, which we discuss in >> more detail in this submission. >> Submission to PJCIS - DIGI (includes Google, Amazon, Facebook...)(78) >> >> >> We urge the government to seriously consider the comments submitted by >> industry and civil society and consider changes that would protect the >> security and privacy of Apple’s users and all Australians. >> Submission to PJCIS - Apple (53) >> >> Given the complexity of the Bill, the sensitivity of the subject matter, >> and the limited consultation period, the summary above is not an >> exhaustive list of BSA's concerns and recommendations in respect of the >> Bill. There are other aspects of the Bill that require further >> consideration in order to find the right balance between the legitimate >> rights, needs, and responsibilities of the Australian Government, citizens, >> providers of critical infrastructure, third party stewards of data, and >> innovators. >> >> As such, we respectfully encourage the Australian Government to engage in >> further dialogue with industry to consider the broader issues at play and >> the implications (and possible unintended consequences of the Bill). >> Submission to PJCIS - BSA (Cisco, IBM et al.)(48) >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:48, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm determined the Minister for Home Affairs doesn't get to drop a >>> deeply flawed Bill on a supine and compliant Parliament, and have taken >>> measures, to whit, written 22 MPs in positions where they can influence >>> policy, and provided links to submissions which point out the Bill as >>> proposed is neither proportionate nor necessary: >>> >>> Law Council of Australia: >>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=859d9cda-0f99-4bef-994f-edc6006c87bf&subId=661321 >>> >>> Joint Councils for Civil Liberties: >>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6a26c1ce-15f3-4229-9b45-dd4ad7cfb8f2&subId=661197 >>> >>> Australian Human Rights Commission: >>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a7b9ff25-7c09-41e9-b97a-56dae1ac0e94&subId=661055 >>> >>> PJCHR,starts @ p24: >>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en >>> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Paul Wilkins >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:20, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *New PJCIS Public Hearings* >>>> >>>> *16 Nov 2018:* Sydney, NSW >>>> *30 Nov 2018:* Canberra, ACT >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018 >>>> >>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 13:23, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Has anyone yet had the opportunity to think through the use of force >>>>> provisions? Does use of force extend beyond physical forced entry, to say, >>>>> hacking? >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Compare: >>>>>> >>>>>> CHAIR: So the big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, >>>>>> over-the-top messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp? >>>>>> Mr Hansford: A range of different industry companies. >>>>>> CHAIR: *A good percentage of those?* >>>>>> Mr Hansford: *A reasonable percentage, I'd say.* >>>>>> (Public) FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2018 >>>>>> >>>>>> "The government has consulted *extensively* with industry and the >>>>>> public on these measuresand has made amendments to reflect the feedback >>>>>> in >>>>>> the legislation now before the parliament." >>>>>> Minister for Home Affairs - Speech to Parliament 20 Sept 2018 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:01, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> DIGI's submission (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Oath, and Twitter) has >>>>>>> just appeared: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d48c3c35-221d-4544-a7d7-109a82c72dc1&subId=661549 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On August 14, 2018, the Government released for Public Exposure a >>>>>>> draft of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment >>>>>>> (Assistance >>>>>>> and Access) Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) together with an Exposure Document, >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> which DIGI made a submission (attached). A revised Bill was introduced >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> Parliament ten days following the close of submissions, with only minor >>>>>>> amendments that fail to address its potential impacts on public safety, >>>>>>> cybersecurity, privacy and human rights, raising concern among industry, >>>>>>> consumer and civil society groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The PJCHR express extensive concerns with the bill. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following demonstrates a posture where they will likely oppose >>>>>>>> the bill without further safeguards: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1.109 Another relevant factor in assessing whether a measure is >>>>>>>> proportionate is whether there is the possibility of oversight and the >>>>>>>> availability of review. The power to give a technical assistance >>>>>>>> notice or >>>>>>>> request, or technical capability notice, is not exercised by a judge, >>>>>>>> nor >>>>>>>> does a judge supervise its application. Section 317ZFA provides a >>>>>>>> discretionary power to a court, in relation to proceedings before it, >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> make such orders as the court considers appropriate in relation to the >>>>>>>> disclosure, protection, storage, handling or destruction of technical >>>>>>>> assistance information, if the court is satisfied that it is in the >>>>>>>> public >>>>>>>> interest. The bill does not otherwise provide for court involvement >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> process of giving a technical assistance notice or request, or >>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>> capability notice. The bill additionally seeks to amend the >>>>>>>> Administrative >>>>>>>> Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to exclude decisions >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act (which would include a decision >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> issue a technical assistance notice or request, or technical >>>>>>>> capability >>>>>>>> notice) from judicial review under the ADJR Act. 47 In these >>>>>>>> circumstances, >>>>>>>> further information from the minister as the adequacy of the >>>>>>>> safeguards in >>>>>>>> terms of oversight and review would assist in determining the >>>>>>>> proportionality of the measures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:12, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 21 October AEC had received 6890 postal votes out of 12,788 >>>>>>>>> issued. Today, received postal votes is 7,789. Sharma is trailing by >>>>>>>>> 1,552. >>>>>>>>> So I'm calling it a Phelps' win and we will have minority government. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phelps will win by at least 500 votes so no recount. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:19, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Transcript of public hearing 19th October: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2a1771c8-f314-43f2-b9b0-cd09ad8123ae%2F0000%22 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:46, Christian Heinrich < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:12 PM Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > Except that where subject to an order under 317j to conceal >>>>>>>>>>> the existence of a TCN/TAN forms part of the terms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For PCI-DSS Requirement 4 Telstra [as an example I don't >>>>>>>>>>> recommend] >>>>>>>>>>> have mandated that their customer is responsible for both the >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and software [as a service] within >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telstra.com.au/content/dam/tcom/personal/consumer-advice/pdf/business-a-full/cloud-h.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> and are therefore unable to assist with the implementation of the >>>>>>>>>>> TCN/TAN. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Christian Heinrich >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://cmlh.id.au/contact >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
