Upcoming Public Hearings <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/Dataretentionregime>
*06 Dec 2019:* Canberra, ACT On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 10:21, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > NSW Police Force submission #39 > <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=75170998-0442-4a5d-823e-3ed3898e44a1&subId=670049> > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 10:51, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Home affairs unlawfully accessed stored metadata, ombudsman reveals >> <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/11/home-affairs-unlawfully-accessed-stored-metadata-ombudsman-reveals> >> >> >> The home affairs department ordered companies to preserve metadata and >> used warrants to access it “without proper authority” and twice >> unlawfully accessed stored communications, according to an ombudsman’s >> report. >> >> In a sequel to the report revealing 116 illegal metadata searches by the >> ACT police >> <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/23/police-made-illegal-metadata-searches-and-obtained-invalid-warrants-targeting-journalists>, >> later admitted to number more than 3,000 >> <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/26/act-police-admit-unlawfully-accessed-metadata-more-than-3000-times>, >> the Commonwealth Ombudsman has declared that unlawful access by government >> agencies has “reduced significantly” since 2016-17. >> >> But despite improved compliance, the ombudsman still found a litany of >> errors between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018 such as 31 instances of >> agencies receiving data outside the parameters of the authority, including >> 26 at the home affairs department. >> >> In 2015 law enforcement agencies gained the power to access individuals’ >> metadata – information about a communication which does not include its >> content – when investigating certain offences, subject to oversight from >> the ombudsman. >> >> In its latest report, tabled in parliament on Tuesday, the ombudsman >> concluded that agencies were “generally exercising their powers … >> appropriately” but highlighted lapses including:... >> >> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 15:53, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I found this rather cryptic observation in the submission >>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=0076905f-bd1c-4536-8ff3-a90dd3ac6b18&subId=668584> >>> from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. It points out >>> where metadata retained under the Data Retention regime, may be accessed >>> without a warrant, where the data in question is not content. Such would >>> obviously be the case where LEAs sought access to metadata datastreams >>> using a TCN as the enabling authorisation. After due consideration of a >>> number of other PJCIS submissions, I'm yet more confident than where I >>> first laid out the case to PJCIS back last November, that a combination of >>> s280/s313 or s177 and TCN would be sufficient for LEAs to gain access to >>> metadata datastreams without warrant or any judicial or parliamentary >>> oversite. >>> >>> It should also be noted that although the obligations in the >>> Telecommunications Act 1997 prevent carriers and carriage service providers >>> from disclosing telecommunications data without a warrant or authorisation >>> in place, these obligations do not prevent agencies from accessing that >>> data using other means. Any access by an agency to telecommunications data >>> that does not require disclosure by a carrier or carriage service provider >>> would therefore not require a warrant or authorisation, unless it also >>> involved accessing content or unauthorised access to a computer. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Access to telecommunications data outside Chapter 4 of the TIA ActThe >>> Committee may wish to discuss with relevant agencies the extent, if any, to >>> which telecommunications data is accessed outside the framework provided by >>> Chapter 4 of the TIA Act.* >>> >>> The Australian Information Commissioner's submission >>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8e675437-b875-4863-87cc-71b721280d8f&subId=668240> >>> could >>> also be regarded as making the case that s280/s313 substantiate warrantless >>> access to metadata. >>> >>> The OAIC recommends that the Committee consider implementing an >>> enforceable restriction on the agencies that are permitted to access >>> telecommunications data, noting this was a safeguard that provided privacy >>> protections in the absence of more formal mechanisms such as a >>> warrant-based access regime. As the law currently stands, there appears to >>> be mechanisms for accessing telecommunications data outside of the TIA Act >>> that, while permitted, have the practical impact of reducing the >>> effectiveness of safeguards in the TIA Act. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Paul Wilkins >>> >>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 at 14:56, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Report in the Guardian today of judicial and governance experts >>>> increasingly concerned Australia is stifling journalism and State >>>> accountability playing the security trump card. >>>> >>>> National security being used to stifle public interest journalism, >>>> former judges warn >>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/27/national-security-being-used-to-stifle-public-interest-journalism-former-judges-warn> >>>> >>>> As regards the consequences of this, Data Retention means that >>>> conventional avenues for whistleblowers to contact national media are >>>> severely curtailed, where the Feds can apply for journalist warrants, as >>>> they have recently, to go after the ABC et al. And as has been pointed out, >>>> no warrant is required to access data retention of non journalist sources >>>> suspected of leaking, which gives police an end around the journalist >>>> warrant process anyway. >>>> >>>> Now from a jurisprudential prism within the Australian jurisdiction, >>>> this looks like a simple conflict of security versus accountability, but >>>> not so. Because of the reach of the internet beyond Australia's >>>> jurisdiction, the Data Retention regime creates a situation where >>>> whistleblowers have options. They can either leak their concerns to an >>>> Australian media organisation, and run the gambit of being exposed, or, >>>> they may prefer to leak to organisations outside the Australian >>>> jurisdiction, to organisations who won't have the national interest as a >>>> concern, nor the constraints of operating as a media organisation within >>>> the Australian jurisdiction. Which is kind of germane if you were say, >>>> inclined towards leaking matters pertaining to national security. >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> Paul Wilkins >>>> >>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 11:29, Mark Smith <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 10:32, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Comms Alliance submission >>>>>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=10156360-86ba-4fff-93c9-f2caa3577dd6&subId=668168> >>>>>> makes the case that the costs of Data Retention are not being properly >>>>>> compensated, with substantial incurred costs being a carrier expense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The initial capital costs incurred by industry to meet the >>>>>> requirements of the regime were >>>>>> partially – but not fully – met via grants from Government. As has >>>>>> been highlighted in >>>>>> information presented to the committee, industry has incurred a net >>>>>> cost to meet its >>>>>> obligations under the regime of *at least $171m over a four year >>>>>> period*, despite cost-recovery mechanisms being in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> This gets more interesting still, when you begin to consider the >>>>>> substantially more expensive and complex TCNs/TANs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The less carriers there are, the better suited it is to the >>>>> government's surveillance agenda. It must have been really easy for LEAs >>>>> to >>>>> only have to deal with PMG and then Telecom. So if they cost a carrier out >>>>> of business, they'll only be crying crocodile tears. >>>>> >>>>> There are many threats to many parties in this agenda, that's perhaps >>>>> one not really recognised. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 11:50, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This enquiry has data retention back in the news, that and recent >>>>>>> AFP execution of search warrants on journalists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Link to PJCIS submissions >>>>>>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/Dataretentionregime/Submissions> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 11:38, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> News this morning that the Victorian government is developing plans >>>>>>>> to use mobile apps to track commuters. The government argues the data >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> be used to improve travel times. This however, ignores the larger >>>>>>>> picture, >>>>>>>> that across all Australian governments, both State and Federal, >>>>>>>> there's a >>>>>>>> forward going agenda to widen the meta data kept on citizens - CCTV >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> recognition, license plate capture, and that these data bases are being >>>>>>>> integrated by law enforcement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So where there exists the theoretical possibility that data >>>>>>>> retention metadata can now, under existing law, be integrated into >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> law enforcement databases under TANs/TCNs, there is a genuine concern >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> blandishments by law enforcement that "we wouldn't do that" may not >>>>>>>> actually be an effective check on creeping extensions of police >>>>>>>> powers, and >>>>>>>> that there should in fact be legislated protections against the use of >>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>> retention datasets. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 17:05, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Submissions close 1st July for those so foolhardy as to throw >>>>>>>>> their random stream of consciousness into the void of Dep't Home >>>>>>>>> Affairs' >>>>>>>>> accountability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And when you throw your random stream of consciousness into the >>>>>>>>> void, the void throws its random stream of consciousness back at you, >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> something. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 11:26, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I raised the point in my PJCIS submissions regarding the >>>>>>>>>> Assistance and Access Act, that TANs/TCNs are potentially sufficient >>>>>>>>>> grounds to serve as authorisation under s280/s313 of the >>>>>>>>>> Telecommunications >>>>>>>>>> Act for the access of Data Retention datasets, and so provide the >>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>> enabling legislation for law enforcement to institute access to >>>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>>> datastreams. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I had thought with the election announced, there'd be some >>>>>>>>>> respite from this rinse/repeat cycle of calling for public >>>>>>>>>> submissions. >>>>>>>>>> Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 19:29, Robert Hudson <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>>>> From: ITPA President <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 20:27 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: PJCIS: REVIEW OF THE MANDATORY DATA RETENTION >>>>>>>>>>> REGIME, INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION >>>>>>>>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> FYI >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Little, Robert (REPS) <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 13:23 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: PJCIS: REVIEW OF THE MANDATORY DATA RETENTION REGIME, >>>>>>>>>>> INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION >>>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *REVIEW OF THE MANDATORY DATA RETENTION REGIME* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION* >>>>>>>>>>> The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security >>>>>>>>>>> has commenced a review of the mandatory data retention regime >>>>>>>>>>> proscribed by >>>>>>>>>>> Part 5-1A of the *Telecommunications (Interception and Access) >>>>>>>>>>> Act 1979 (TIA Act).* >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00010> On behalf >>>>>>>>>>> of the Committee I am writing to invite you to make a submission to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Committee’s review. >>>>>>>>>>> The mandatory data retention regime is a legislative framework >>>>>>>>>>> which requires carriers, carriage service providers and internet >>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>> providers to retain a defined set of telecommunications data for >>>>>>>>>>> two years, >>>>>>>>>>> ensuring that such data remains available for law enforcement and >>>>>>>>>>> national >>>>>>>>>>> security investigations. >>>>>>>>>>> Section 187N of the TIA Act provides for the review and requires >>>>>>>>>>> the Committee to report by 13 April 2020. Terms of reference are >>>>>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/Dataretentionregime/Terms_of_Reference> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> The Committee has resolved to focus on the following aspects of >>>>>>>>>>> the legislation: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - the continued effectiveness of the scheme, taking into >>>>>>>>>>> account changes in the use of technology since the passage of >>>>>>>>>>> the Bill; >>>>>>>>>>> - the appropriateness of the dataset and retention period; >>>>>>>>>>> - costs, including ongoing costs borne by service providers >>>>>>>>>>> for compliance with the regime, any potential improvements to >>>>>>>>>>> oversight, >>>>>>>>>>> including in relation to journalist information warrants; >>>>>>>>>>> - any regulations and determinations made under the regime; >>>>>>>>>>> - the number of complaints about the scheme to relevant >>>>>>>>>>> bodies, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the >>>>>>>>>>> Inspector-General of >>>>>>>>>>> Intelligence and Security; >>>>>>>>>>> - security requirements in relation to data stored under the >>>>>>>>>>> regime, including in relation to data stored offshore; >>>>>>>>>>> - any access by agencies to retained telecommunications data >>>>>>>>>>> outside the TIA Act framework, such as under the >>>>>>>>>>> Telecommunications Act >>>>>>>>>>> 1997; and >>>>>>>>>>> - developments in international jurisdictions since the >>>>>>>>>>> passage of the Bill. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Making a submission* >>>>>>>>>>> The Committee invites written submissions addressing any or all >>>>>>>>>>> of the areas of focus for the Committee’s inquiry. Submissions >>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>> clearly identify which areas of focus are being addressed. >>>>>>>>>>> Prospective submitters are advised that any submission to the >>>>>>>>>>> Committee’s inquiry must be prepared solely for the inquiry and >>>>>>>>>>> should not >>>>>>>>>>> be published prior to being accepted by the Committee. Documents do >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> attract parliamentary privilege until they are accepted by the >>>>>>>>>>> Committee. >>>>>>>>>>> Documents submitted during the election period will be held by the >>>>>>>>>>> Secretariat and provided to the Committee as established in the 46th >>>>>>>>>>> Parliament. >>>>>>>>>>> Submissions are requested by *1 July 2019*. Further information >>>>>>>>>>> about making a submission to a parliamentary committee inquiry is >>>>>>>>>>> available >>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Making_a_submission> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Robert >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Robert Little** |* *Inquiry Secretary* >>>>>>>>>>> *Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security* >>>>>>>>>>> *Department of the House of Representatives* >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 6021 | Parliament House | Canberra ACT 2600 >>>>>>>>>>> Ph. (02) 6277 4589 | *www.aph.gov.au/pjcis* >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.aph.gov.au/pjcis> >>>>>>>>>>> *Facebook:* @AusHouseofRepresentatives >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/aushouseofrepresentatives> | *Twitter:* >>>>>>>>>>> @AboutTheHouse <http://twitter.com/aboutthehouse> >>>>>>>>>>> Don’t take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them >>>>>>>>>>> here. Register to be an organ donor *here.* >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/services/aodr/index.jsp> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Hudson >>>>>>>>>>> President, ITPA >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> 0408 860 595 >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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
