#facepalm On Tue, 4 Dec. 2018, 8:23 pm Christopher Hawker <[email protected] wrote:
> https://apple.news/AOnumlAB9THOmg_8mnMS9DA > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 4 Dec 2018, at 2:30 pm, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
