On 28/11/2018 3:42 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote: > > I'm less concerned that the State may ask a judge for a computer warrant, > than I am > the Attorney General issuing TCNs to access carrier metadata datastreams and > using > that for mass surveillance, or law enforcement then forcing patches on service > providers for my phone/television to enable the mike and camera's for > surveillance > because I've triggered some kind of Minority Report scenario, because, you > know, > they're doing their job and in the AG's opinion it's reasonable.
Much as I hate to defend something that is indefensible on other grounds, part of this particular concern seems to be already protected. See Sect 317(T) (the bit regarding TCNs) Part (10): 'A technical capability notice has no effect to the extent (if any) to which it requires a designated communications provider to keep, or cause to be kept: (a) information of a kind specified in or under section 187AA of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979; or (b) documents containing information of that kind; relating to any communication carried by means of a service to which Part 5 1A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 applies. Note: Part 5 1A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 deals with data retention.' In other words - they can't issue a TCN to keep more metadata. Or to be sent a stream of metadata. Also Part (2): 'The specified acts or things must: (a) be directed towards ensuring that the designated communications provider *is capable* of giving listed help to ASIO, or an interception agency, in relation to: (i) the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, conferred by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, so far as the function or power relates to a relevant objective; or (ii) a matter that facilitates, or is ancillary or incidental to, a matter covered by subparagraph (i); or (b) be by way of giving help to ASIO, or an interception agency, in relation to: (i) the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, conferred by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, so far as the function or power relates to a relevant objective; or (ii) a matter that facilitates, or is ancillary or incidental to, a matter covered by subparagraph (i). ' In other words - they can ask you to do something to make sure you are *capable* of giving help under some other law. But you don't have to actually do the thing under that other law to satisfy the TCN, they'll issue you a separate warrant or request to actively use that capability, under that other law, if they need you to actively use it in practice. The TCN is to require you to make sure you have an easily undoable buckle on your belt, in case they have to ask you to bend over under another law, and to ensure you can't reply 'Sorry, I cant do that' when they do ask you to bend over under that other law. But they can't ask you to actually bend over in the TCN itself. Of course, this all relies on them not asking, or if they do, on the recipient of the notice having enough knowledge of the law to respond 'under Sect (XXX) you can't do that'. Which is where additional independent judiciary scrutiny of a request before it is issued is required. Paul. P. > > In the case of the computer warrant, Law Enforcement have to allege a specific > breach of the criminal code, and establish evidentiary grounds this crime is > being > committed to a judge's satisfaction. Much in the Assistance and Access Bill > leaves > Law Enforcement as the decision makers as to what and how is to be > investigated. It > is actually possible to simultaneously want to see the rule of law be > enforced, but > without establishing the machinery of a police state. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:43, Mark Smith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:29, Scott Weeks <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Paul Wilkins <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > I do think (and it's not a generally popular position) that > > the internet does need to, and is going to be, regulated. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > No. Absolutely does not need to be and cannot be anyway, > > unless you do a China. Maybe this is what they're jealous > > of? Total control over the media and all information. > > Like, you know, the Dark Ages... > > > > I agree. > > I wonder what Paul specifically thinks needs to be regulated. If it is > a general view, rather than a specific one, then Paul has > authoritarian beliefs (in other words, just the idea that somebody can > do something without first seeking and being given permission is an > anathema). > > The fundamental and most significant benefit of the Internet has been > that its architecture has permitted permissionless innovation, through > application protocol transparency in the network. To deploy a new > application or service over the Internet, you do not have to seek > permission of a telco for them to carry your traffic. > > IPv4 NATs have significantly limited the Internet's transparency, > which is why people have been creating an ad hoc and more transparent > virtual overlay network over the Internet using UDP - "UDP over IPv4 – > a stepping stone to IPv6?" - > https://blog.apnic.net/2017/03/24/udp-ipv4-stepping-stone-ipv6/ . > > Regards, > Mark. > > > > > > scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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] <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
