APH calendar <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/About_the_House_News/This_week_in_the_House> shows the Bill scheduled for debate tomorrow.
Last media release from PJCIS <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018/Media_Releases> 28 Nov, they would hear evidence from security agencies as to the urgency of the Bill. Push meets shove? Kind regards Paul Wilkins On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 11:16, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > This morning I don't know what to think. > > Somehow a confidential submission, by the AFP no less, to the PJCIS has > leaked. > > So the government needs to pass new powers so police can investigate > serious crime, including I suppose where it's the government that leaks. > > Or on the other hand, if the government can't maintain the security of > their own papers, how can the public and industry ever rely on government > for the security of their business and personal data? > > By the way, where you see Liberals arguing police need the same powers as > ASIO and AFP, this actually is not correct. The intelligence services need > Exceptional Access powers. I see no reason for the extent of judicial writ > for the police to go anything beyond Legal Intercept. Which requires a > different set of powers, different technical implementations, and > diminished consequences for data security, and different rules of evidence. > > How you avoid a dozen different agencies all kicking in the doors on data > centres without stepping on each others toes is an exercise for the reader. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 15:31, Mark Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
