The meetings (now 4 in total) have been listed on the Committee website for several weeks. We (IA) were notified of our invitation to appear and speak two weeks ago while they were putting together the detailed runsheet.
FWIW tomorrow I'll be appearing for Internet Australia at 2:30pm, and we've brought in Martin Thomson from the IAB to speak to the IAB submission in the same session (the program says Mark Nottingham, but Mark couldn't make it.) The morning session kicks off at 9am with Prof Danny Weitzner from MIT in Boston on audio conference, followed by Stanford Law. Both made excellent submissions, and should be entertaining listening. I plan to be there in the room for the day, if anyone in Sydney turning up in person wants to say g'day. cheers, Paul. On 15/11/2018 10:41 AM, Nathan Brookfield wrote: > 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 > > <https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/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 > > <https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/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
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
