On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 11:17, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well obviously taking the time to read and consider the public and industry > submissions is preferable to pronouncements of "extensive" consultation, then > trying to second guess what's on the 5 Eyes' "Letter to Santa" so we can push > the Bill through before Christmas. > > There does need to be a settlement between the State's need to enforce the > rule of law, and citizen rights of privacy and private property. The problem > is if you say it can't be done at all, governments will simply proceed > without your input. > > So I think EA is going to happen, regardless.
Until the legislation is passed, EA hasn't happened. > So we need a debate how that can be accommodated, minimising the adverse > impacts, while maximising the benefits for national security, and coming to > some kind of settlement with Law Enforcement that preserves citizens rights. > Of course, this isn't possible under the current Dep't Home Affairs' > timeline, though if Labor stalls the Bill, that will be some welcome respite. > Nobody is obligated to spend any time on something the government proposes unless it becomes law. If you want to work on the idea of EA it is up to you, however this is not a EA development forum, so I think any ideas you have regarding the mechanics are off-topic for this list. > While we're at it, suggestions that EA could be achieved by pushing the onus > for EA authentication to service provider mechanisms, is deeply flawed, but > the security experts pushing this will get the ear of governments if no one > else has anything constructive to say. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > > On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 14:38, Mark Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 13:17, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > “We have said we are willing to pass a bill by Thursday, which gives >> > appropriate powers, these powers, to national security agencies with >> > appropriate oversight to target criminals and people who are being >> > investigated for child sex crimes." >> > Penny Wong >> > So that's settled. Without Labor's support, the Bill can't proceed. The >> > Liberal's are too invested to compromise, and they need this in play only >> > for the politics. So 50/50 the Bill is sunk, or we get ASIO/AFP powers, a >> > sunset clause, and a considered bill somewhere down the track. >> > >> >> Not properly considered, because the politicians aren't listening to >> the information security technology experts about how feasible it is >> to build this securely. >> >> Legislating the impossible doesn't make it possible. >> >> >> >> >> > Kind regards >> > >> > Paul Wilkins >> > >> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 13:00, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Scott Morrison 'blew up' bipartisan compromise on encryption, says Labor >> >> >> >> Government and opposition locked in battle over laws to allow security >> >> and intelligence agencies access to encrypted telecommunications >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 11:39, I <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Paul Wilkins wrote: >> >>> Parliamentary Calendar is showing the Bill listed for debate Wed 5th >> >>> December. Not sure by what process it gets listed. >> >>> >> >>> Perhaps the appointment for debate is the equivalent of a mention in the >> >>> court process and it will be returned to the committee. >> >>> >> >>> Rob >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> AusNOG mailing list >> >>> [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 _______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
