Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to PJCIS
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Paul Wilkins wrote: > Australia is bound under international law against arbitrary or unlawful > incursions of the right to privacy. That's black letter > law. We are also bound under international law the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Australian government removed references to the convention from the laws of Australia, so the courts can no longer enforce it. See also this great quote: The Court held that Australian courts are bound to apply Australian statute law “even if that law should violate a rule of international law.” http://ilareporter.org.au/2018/04/australias-disengagement-from-international-refugee-law-the-principle-of-non-refoulement-and-the-doctrine-of-jurisdiction-sophie-capicchiano-young/ http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/1.html p462 So as Mark said, these international "laws" mean nothing here unless enacted by the Australian parliament. And specific bills, like the Assistance and Access Bill can override them at will. -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Paul Wilkins wrote: > 1 - I take a dim view of the implied bad faith. You need to have a > think about the implications of what you're saying before posting in a > public space. Perhaps you are not familiar with Mark's comments on similar issues in the past? > 2 - Per the ordinary conventions of debate, contradiction is not an > argument. If you believe a statement to be in error, there is an onus > to offer evidence. I on the other hand, have posted extensively on this > thread, and quoted the relevant legislation. You have not, however, replied to me when I made the same point about Signal and Telegram that Mark did. I'll cop to not having read the exposure draft of the bill (it's not legislation yet thankfully) but I've had other things to do with my time. Also the debate is not just on the text of the bill, but also the stated reasons for governments wanting such power vs the practicalities and actual uses it would see. -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Chad Kelly wrote: > On 9/3/2018 12:00 PM, ausnog-requ...@lists.ausnog.net wrote: > > > The government is going to be able to enforce the Assistance and Access > > Bill, because to operate a business in Australia, requires a local > > presence. Your trade marks and intellectual property need recognition, and > > you require a registered company to conduct business and to hold bank > > accounts. If you won't comply with assistance/capability notices, you won't > > be able to conduct business in Australia. > Yeah I'm not sure I particularly like how dam vague the wording of the > bill is though. > We are heading more in the direction of places like Singapore and China > with these bills and that isn't great for the industry. > Not sure we will be able to do much though as its a bit of a dammed if > you do, dammed if you don't type situation, because on the one hand you > don't want to be hosting abusive material on your networks / servers, > but on the other hand, someone could impersonate a police officer and > gain the equipment, Datacentres are going to have to spend more time > validating ID's and conducting manual checks which only means that > prices will only increase as having extra security staff costs money. > As you don't want just anyone turning up with fake identities and > grabbing hardware and having legit businesses shut down in the process > particularly if its a shared hosting server. > With this new bill, something like the following could easily happen > hear in Au http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1716143 its a > bit of a worry. And all the five eyes are saying they want this now: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/five-eyes-nations-to-force-encryption-backdoors-511865 Telegram remains outside US control, not sure about Signal but they and Facebook would resist any attempt to break e2e encryption (Facebook already is https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/dont-shoot-messenger ) As for a good use of these technologies, let me refer you to this tweet: https://twitter.com/RealHughJackman/status/1036215115442540550 -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Paul Wilkins wrote: > "Sure they will be able to enforce it against others, but their whole > argument for these laws is to go after those actors when it is manifestly > ineffective for that." > > Yes, and no. There's actors, and then there's their actions. There's 2 > different sorts of traffic on the internet that law > enforcement & security services want to go after - broadcast (eg: social > media), and point to point. When it comes to > identifying users of social media using it for illegal ends, this is > something that should have been done ages ago, should have > been a priority before Data Retention. When it comes to isolating actors with > a serious agenda to use end to end to encryption > for nefarious means, I figure most everybody realises this is like looking > for a needle in a haystack. This law is not about the first type of traffic. Well maybe it is, but it's certainly not the bit that requires forcing companies to break end-to-end encryption that the bill is trying to do. -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / ___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
On Sun, 2 Sep 2018, Paul Wilkins wrote: > The government is going to be able to enforce the Assistance and Access Bill, > because to operate a business in Australia, > requires a local presence. Your trade marks and intellectual property need > recognition, and you require a registered company to > conduct business and to hold bank accounts. If you won't comply with > assistance/capability notices, you won't be able to conduct > business in Australia. Telegram and Signal have none of those and work fine here. Arguably neither is a business, certainly in the traditional sense of the word. And yet they offer precisely what the "worst of the worst" desire - end-to-end encryption that, as you so clearly point out, the Australian government has no power to prevent. Sure they will be able to enforce it against others, but their whole argument for these laws is to go after those actors when it is manifestly ineffective for that. -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / ___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Voda and TPG Merge
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Paul Julian wrote: > Interesting times ahead, looks like the TPG and Vodafone merger is forging > ahead as expected. But also, they're doing a joint venture for 5G spectrum and RAN that will proceed regardless of whether the merger is approved. -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / ___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
And it covers anyone running a website in Australia: https://www.afr.com/news/cyber-security-laws-to-cover-all-businesses-angus-taylor-confirms-20180814-h13zdo -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / ___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] .au Domain Registrations
Afilias are promising to provide email-based password recovery at some point, as is required by the auDA registry technical specifications. Why they didn't comply with this policy to start with is a good question. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2735778 On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Ted Cooper wrote: > It would be much better if we could return to the previous function of > immediate email of the password to the registrant contact email address. > There is no benefit to forcing engagement with the losing registrar, > especially when they are non-cooperative or cactus. > > Case in point - the "this is not an invoice" scams. > > After 5 years of falling victim to the scam, the original scam company > being closed down by ASIC or similar, all positive control over the > domain was lost by the client. The contact email address was still valid > but Afilias refused to pass on the password to it to allow me to fix the > domain by transferring to a responsible registrar. The scam company > refused to cooperate with the Afilias phone call, effectively blocking > the ability get the password. > > In the end I emailed _everyone_ in the chain (scam company, TuCows, > Afilias, auDA) about the situation and _one_ of them did the deed and > sent it to the contact address. A week after starting and the domain is > finally transferred and fixed. > > For the love of all things good, just send the damn password to the > email address! Why does it have to be anything but automated?? I'll fix > the contact information when it gets here. > > > On 11/07/18 16:37, Bryce Telfer wrote: > > Unfortunately, the new Domain Password Recovery system that Afilias > > provide (https://afilias.com.au/about-au/domain-pw-recovery) is a poor > > substitute for the previous AusRegistry system. > > > > Rather than an immediate, automated email to the Registrant Contact, > > the new system involves someone at Afilias making a telephone call to > > the Registrant Contact Phone Number sometime in the next 2 days. > > > > Time to do a thorough clean-up of all the Registrant Contact Phone > > numbers on all our domains. > > > > *Bryce Telfer* > > > > p| 1300 720 790 e| brycetel...@allinternet.com.au > > <mailto:brycetel...@allinternet.com.au> > > > > > > On 21 June 2018 at 21:01, Nathan Brookfield > > > <mailto:nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au>> wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > The .AU domain registration agency is changing from AusRegistry o > > Afilias but that’s all, no real changes to the community except > > dealing with a new registrar body, no changes to .au domains are > > coming on that date. > > > > Nathan Brookfield > > Chief Executive Officer > > > > Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd > > http://www.simtronic.com.au > > > > On 21 Jun 2018, at 20:50, Christopher Hawker > <mailto:m...@chrishawker.com.au>> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > __ __ > > > > With the changes coming on 1^st July to the way .au domain > > registrations, is there a way to pre-register .au domains? Or is it > > a matter of “first in, first served”? > > > > __ __ > > > > Thanks, > > > > CH. > > > > ___ > > AusNOG mailing list > > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> > > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > > <http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog> > > > > ___ > > AusNOG mailing list > > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> > > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > > <http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog> > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > AusNOG mailing list > > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net > > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > > > > ___ > AusNOG mailing list > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Telstra mobile issues again?
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Mark Currie wrote: > There are dual SIM phones available as well.. Just sayin’ :-) Rapidly going off-topic, but make sure you get one that supports 3G simultaneous operation on the second SIM, not just 2G (which is of course fairly useless in Australia now). -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Vendors back charging on support and maintenance.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Richard Bayliss wrote: > The ACCC consumer guarantee states it doesn’t apply to second hand (private > sales) goods, which is the scenario the OP stated. Private (personal) sales, but businesses are still covered: https://legalvision.com.au/i-sell-second-hand-goods-do-the-consumer-guarantees-apply/ Again, none of this helps the customer deal with the original vendor asking for 18mo support in arrears. It might if the hardware died without support, since many vendors provide a lifetime hardware warranty and as such it would be reasonable to expect that under the ACL. -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Re: [AusNOG] Vendors back charging on support and maintenance.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Peter Tiggerdine wrote: > Seems to me it's a "just in time support" tax. If a business doesn't need > support for 2 years but then decides to get support > and use the TAC service, then they're paying for what they're using. To > charge customers a tax because they didn't require the > service or support for 2 years is just large Multinationals pork barrelling > and over-inflating their annuity numbers. > > I've spoken to the Office of Fair trade on this matter and they seem to share > my view (that's its unreasonable, however fair > trade is really a mediation service it appears) Hoping to have a conversation > later in the week with the ACCC. I do seriously > question the legality of the charge under Australian consumer law. I suspect > this is a North American policy. What if the vendor then just refuses to sell you support at all? They're under no obligation to do so. I don't like it either, and second-hand hardware is certainly different to having let support lapse then trying to reinstate it, but really how can you force them to the table since you didn't transact with them originally? Have you considered just selling what was bought and then buying new or second-hand hardware from a different vendor without such a policy? -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / ___ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
