I guess the point is Paul, the Attorney General's Department and/or CAC could fulfill this function, if the bill were drafted that way. There's also need for a budget for the staff and infrastructure.
However it's clear the intent and current direction is for individual agencies to approach service providers directly, eg: 32(2)(2A) An emergency authorisation for access to data held in a computer may authorise anything that a computer access warrant may authorise. Where the emergency authorisation can be issued by any senior officer from an array of law enforcement agencies, including the police. Kind regards Paul Wilkins On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 11:43, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-aus...@layer10.com.au> wrote: > On 4/09/2018 6:17 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote: > > > > I'd encourage others making submissions to raise the same point. > Government has > > clearly not considered this dimension, otherwise the first cab off the > rank in the > > bill's phrasing would be to create a new agency, or identifying a single > agency on > > which to confer these powers. > > No new agency is required - there is already the CAC, now sitting in Home > Affairs, who > manages existing lawful interception and metadata activities on behalf of > the various > agencies behind it. I would have thought the CAC would be the 'natural > home' for the > single-point-of-interface, even though they don't currently (that I know > of) deal with > device manufacturers. > > Paul. > _______________________________________________ > 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
