Could they possibly give less notice.... Unbelievable!
Nathan Brookfield
Chief Executive Officer
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd
http://www.simtronic.com.au
On 15 Nov 2018, at 10:40, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Media Release: Issue date: 14 November 2018
*Second public hearing on the Encryption Bill*
The second public hearing on the Telecommunication and Other
Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 will be held
on *Friday, 16 November 2018* in Sydney. The Committee will hear from
academics, statutory oversight agencies, and industry peak bodies.
Details of the public hearing:
*9:00 am – 3.15pm
SMC Conference & Function Centre, 66 Goulburn St, Sydney (Carrington
Room)*
The hearing will be live streamed (audio only) at www.aph.gov.au/live
<http://www.aph.gov.au/live>.
The full program of the hearing is available at
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Public_Hearings
Additional hearings will be held in *Canberra on 27 and 30 November*.
Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the
Committee’s website.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 11:36, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Communications Alliance submission
<https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=789049aa-edfc-48e2-a79c-0dd1c28f95b8&subId=662644>**makes
the**point both s313 and s280 (1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act
1997 are current extensively used to access metadata.
It follows that under the new bill, about a dozen LEAs will
similarly be able to rely on s313 and s280(1)(b) to get
warrantless metadata access.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 13:09, Paul Wilkins
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Coexistence with Data Retention Regime (Under
Telecommunications Act)
Passage of this Bill will set the stage for mass surveillance,
where carriers are already subject to data retention, but the
Minister may further declare any service provider subject to
the metadata regime.
187A Service providers must keep certain information and documents
(3A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare a
service to be a service to which this Part applies.
Such declaration has a statutory limitation of 40 sitting days
of Parliament, however nothing in the Act prevents such a
declaration being rolled over by the Minister, maintaining a
metadata regime in perpetuity for any service they should
designate. All this would lie within the provisioned scope of
the Minister's powers without any further legislation.
Access to such metadata does not necessarily require a
warrant. Access under the Telecommunications Act can be
rendered by the service provider as voluntary assistance.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:50, Paul Wilkins
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Rob,
Check your inbox/spam folder 29/10.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 08:33, Robert Hudson
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Paul,
On Mon,
Oct 22,
2018 at
2:12 PM
Paul
Wilkins
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
