Over at ZDNET Stilgherrian wrote an article on the AG’s new proposal to make 
the supposedly strictly secure ‘held only by the government' metadata collected 
by the government available to un-named third parties (IP holders, moral 
crusaders, marriage partners … who knows) in CIVIL actions.

See: 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/brandis-rushes-to-release-telco-metadata-for-civil-proceedings/

I fired off a quick response to the proposal, basically condemning it on 
security grounds (see below) but that are any number of reasons that this 
proposal is a REALLY BAD IDEA on other ‘good government’, 'trust in government’ 
ethical, legal and technical grounds for opposing same.

Anyway, I’d encourage people to lodge submissions to this Committee by 
mid-January … as establishing a Review and requiring submissions on the topic 
during the short window of the  holiday season usually means there are plans 
afoot to rush ahead with some questionable policy initiatives - hopefully out 
from under the radar of public scrutiny.

Such is democracy in Australia today …    :(

Just my 2 cents worth ...
—
My Submission:

"At the risk of pointing out the obvious, proceeding with this proposal will 
simply make life far more difficult for our various security agencies.

At the moment, very few Australian Internet users take advantage of secure 
proxy services (like TOR), or strongly encrypted IP tunnelling (through a 
plethora of private VPN’s), or other application based (secure e-mail, routine 
browser based SSL connections, software update applications, gaming, 
proprietary - e.g.Apple, Windows etc etc - applications and protocols et alia) 
point-to-point encryption measures … but the proposal to make the already 
collected metadata available to non-government third parties for civil 
litigation (and possibly other purposes in future? Perhaps later on you could 
sell the data to the highest bidder?) will no doubt see an explosion of traffic 
on these high level encryption and data security services. 

At present it only makes sense for either the nefarious or the more 
technologically informed to do so. (And at what currently amounts to between $3 
and $5 per month, the economics of comprehensive encrypted data and 
communications security are within the reach of all.)

Threaten to make your data available to non-government third parties - and the 
incentives to use said anonymising and encryption services increases. And given 
that many packages to do same are much more available, advertised and user 
friendly than they were say even two years ago, said services are much more 
accessible to the average Internet user that you perhaps realise.

Which means that Joe Public will have an incentive to subscribe to ‘secure 
communications’ protocols, VPN’s and secure applications protocols like never 
before. Strong encryption and data tunnelling will become de-riguer and 
increasingly common, rather than a manageable (by our security agencies) 
exception to the rule. And in the case of the services mentioned I might remind 
you what we are talking about is private keys assigned at the moment of 
establishing the socket by the secure remote server. (In other words, the 
client has no idea of how to decrypt the data, because they don’t possess the 
keys and can’t give same to security agencies no matter what they are 
threatened with.)

Now ask yourselves whether Australian security agencies have either the 
computing power and resources to track all this real-time ‘false positive’ 
encrypted traffic between ‘innocent’ clients and servers across the world, or 
whether their metadata analysis efforts would be severely impacted. Do they 
need to be monitoring a thousand times the encrypted traffic that they 
currently do? Do their packet traffic analysis techniques depend on examining 
data packet characteristics. Do they need to have even the metadata from the 
packet headers buried deep in encrypted packets between the local client and 
overseas based (in God knows what friendly and/or unfriendly jurisdictions) 
secure server on an effectively impenetrable encrypted link?

Because that is what will happen if the average Internet user activates even 
routine IP security. Ever more ubiquitous strongly encrypted real-time data 
communications means that our security agencies will be buried under data that 
is to all intents and purposes useless.

And the quality of the collected metadata will drop through the floor to the 
point of being unusable, whilst the quantity of ‘junk’ metadata increases 
astronomically.

… and that is what will happen if you carry through with this idea of making 
metadata available to non-government third parties. Australians trust their 
government with their metadata - especially in the current security situation, 
but they don’t trust unelected anonymous private third parties. And they will 
take measures to secure their communications from eyes they don’t trust."
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Reply via email to