Solid interview on ABC News Paul! Unfortunately it’s very much a case of, let’s see what gets passed at this stage.
- Tim > On 4 Dec 2018, at 20:34, Robert Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > > #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 shows the Bill scheduled for debate tomorrow. >>> >>> Last media release from PJCIS 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
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
