I hope my info is wrong but I got told it’s all agreed on following amendments today and tomorrow’s vote will see it passed.
Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ Sent from my iPad > On 04 Dec 2018, at 20:40, Tim Raphael <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
