Rob, Check your inbox/spam folder 29/10. Kind regards Paul Wilkins
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 08:33, Robert Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
