Communications Alliance submission <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=789049aa-edfc-48e2-a79c-0dd1c28f95b8&subId=662644> makes the point both s313 and s280 (1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 are current extensively used to access metadata.
It follows that under the new bill, about a dozen LEAs will similarly be able to rely on s313 and s280(1)(b) to get warrantless metadata access. Kind regards Paul Wilkins On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 13:09, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: > Coexistence with Data Retention Regime (Under Telecommunications Act) > > > Passage of this Bill will set the stage for mass surveillance, where > carriers are already subject to data retention, but the Minister may > further declare any service provider subject to the metadata regime. > > > 187A Service providers must keep certain information and documents > > (3A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare a service to be > a service to which this Part applies. > > > Such declaration has a statutory limitation of 40 sitting days of > Parliament, however nothing in the Act prevents such a declaration being > rolled over by the Minister, maintaining a metadata regime in perpetuity > for any service they should designate. All this would lie within the > provisioned scope of the Minister's powers without any further legislation. > > Access to such metadata does not necessarily require a warrant. Access > under the Telecommunications Act can be rendered by the service provider as > voluntary assistance. > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Rob, >> Check your inbox/spam folder 29/10. >> >> Kind regards >> Paul Wilkins >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 08:33, Robert Hudson <hud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Odd. I signed up to track the enquiry, but have had no notifications at >>> all that additional hearings had been scheduled. >>> >>> There's an another additional day according to the committee website - >>> 27th November. >>> >>> Where did you see if information that they're asking for supplementary >>> submissions? >>> >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:28, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy* has weighed in on >>>> the PJCIS review with incandescent criticism: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8012483f-e421-41a7-8bd4-1e8eb5eb39eb&subId=661745 >>>> >>>> In my considered view, the Assistance and Access Bill is an example of >>>> a poorly conceived national security measure that is equally as likely to >>>> endanger security as not; it is technologically questionnable if it can >>>> achieve its aims and avoid introducing vulnerabilities to the cybersecurity >>>> of all devices irrespective of whether they are mobiles, tablets, watches, >>>> cars, etc., and it unduly undermines human rights including the right to >>>> privacy. It is out of step with international rulings raising the related >>>> issue of how the Australian Government would enforce this law on >>>> transnational technology companies. >>>> >>>> I can't but think that if the Minister for Home Affairs to be doing >>>> well to attract the ire of the United Nations and his timing couldn't be >>>> better, just as the Government has lost control of the House. I'm hopeful >>>> the Australian media will pick up on the interest of the UN in the Bill, >>>> fingers crossed. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, the PJCIS, after announcing two additional hearings 16/30 >>>> Nov, are also asking for *supplementary submissions, to be received no >>>> later than 26 November.* >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> Paul Wilkins >>>> >>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:07, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We're at a critical juncture where the Minister for Home Affairs may >>>>> get his way and steam roll this Bill through Parliament (how this could >>>>> play out in both Houses would be interesting, as they'll need either Labor >>>>> or one of the independents in the Lower House). Or the Bill gets >>>>> substantially modified or sent back to the Dep't Home Affairs to start >>>>> over. >>>>> >>>>> What's of deep concern is that the Minister represents to the House >>>>> consultation has been extensive, and that modifications of the Bill >>>>> represent a consensus view. Yet industry has been vocal in opposition to >>>>> the Bill, and have criticised the level of consultation and the >>>>> Government's preparedness to receive advice: >>>>> >>>>> While DIGI appreciates the challenges facing law enforcement, we >>>>> continue to have concerns with the Bill, which, contrary to its stated >>>>> objective, we believe may undermine public safety by making it easier for >>>>> bad actors to commit crimes against individuals, organisations or >>>>> communities. We also remain concerned at the lack of independent oversight >>>>> of Notices and the absence of checks and balances with this legislation, >>>>> which we discuss in more detail in this submission. >>>>> Submission to PJCIS - DIGI (includes Google, Amazon, Facebook...)(78) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We urge the government to seriously consider the comments submitted by >>>>> industry and civil society and consider changes that would protect the >>>>> security and privacy of Apple’s users and all Australians. >>>>> Submission to PJCIS - Apple (53) >>>>> >>>>> Given the complexity of the Bill, the sensitivity of the subject >>>>> matter, and the limited consultation period, the summary above is not an >>>>> exhaustive list of BSA's concerns and recommendations in respect of the >>>>> Bill. There are other aspects of the Bill that require further >>>>> consideration in order to find the right balance between the legitimate >>>>> rights, needs, and responsibilities of the Australian Government, >>>>> citizens, >>>>> providers of critical infrastructure, third party stewards of data, and >>>>> innovators. >>>>> >>>>> As such, we respectfully encourage the Australian Government to engage >>>>> in further dialogue with industry to consider the broader issues at play >>>>> and the implications (and possible unintended consequences of the Bill). >>>>> Submission to PJCIS - BSA (Cisco, IBM et al.)(48) >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:48, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm determined the Minister for Home Affairs doesn't get to drop a >>>>>> deeply flawed Bill on a supine and compliant Parliament, and have taken >>>>>> measures, to whit, written 22 MPs in positions where they can influence >>>>>> policy, and provided links to submissions which point out the Bill as >>>>>> proposed is neither proportionate nor necessary: >>>>>> >>>>>> Law Council of Australia: >>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=859d9cda-0f99-4bef-994f-edc6006c87bf&subId=661321 >>>>>> >>>>>> Joint Councils for Civil Liberties: >>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6a26c1ce-15f3-4229-9b45-dd4ad7cfb8f2&subId=661197 >>>>>> >>>>>> Australian Human Rights Commission: >>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a7b9ff25-7c09-41e9-b97a-56dae1ac0e94&subId=661055 >>>>>> >>>>>> PJCHR,starts @ p24: >>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:20, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> *New PJCIS Public Hearings* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *16 Nov 2018:* Sydney, NSW >>>>>>> *30 Nov 2018:* Canberra, ACT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/TelcoAmendmentBill2018 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 13:23, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Has anyone yet had the opportunity to think through the use of >>>>>>>> force provisions? Does use of force extend beyond physical forced >>>>>>>> entry, to >>>>>>>> say, hacking? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 18:03, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>> paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Compare: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CHAIR: So the big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, >>>>>>>>> over-the-top messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp? >>>>>>>>> Mr Hansford: A range of different industry companies. >>>>>>>>> CHAIR: *A good percentage of those?* >>>>>>>>> Mr Hansford: *A reasonable percentage, I'd say.* >>>>>>>>> (Public) FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2018 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The government has consulted *extensively* with industry and the >>>>>>>>> public on these measuresand has made amendments to reflect the >>>>>>>>> feedback in >>>>>>>>> the legislation now before the parliament." >>>>>>>>> Minister for Home Affairs - Speech to Parliament 20 Sept 2018 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:01, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>> paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DIGI's submission (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Oath, and Twitter) >>>>>>>>>> has just appeared: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d48c3c35-221d-4544-a7d7-109a82c72dc1&subId=661549 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On August 14, 2018, the Government released for Public Exposure a >>>>>>>>>> draft of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment >>>>>>>>>> (Assistance >>>>>>>>>> and Access) Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) together with an Exposure >>>>>>>>>> Document, to >>>>>>>>>> which DIGI made a submission (attached). A revised Bill was >>>>>>>>>> introduced to >>>>>>>>>> Parliament ten days following the close of submissions, with only >>>>>>>>>> minor >>>>>>>>>> amendments that fail to address its potential impacts on public >>>>>>>>>> safety, >>>>>>>>>> cybersecurity, privacy and human rights, raising concern among >>>>>>>>>> industry, >>>>>>>>>> consumer and civil society groups. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The PJCHR express extensive concerns with the bill. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/humanrights_ctte/reports/2018/Report%2011/c01.pdf?la=en >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The following demonstrates a posture where they will likely >>>>>>>>>>> oppose the bill without further safeguards: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1.109 Another relevant factor in assessing whether a measure is >>>>>>>>>>> proportionate is whether there is the possibility of oversight and >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> availability of review. The power to give a technical assistance >>>>>>>>>>> notice or >>>>>>>>>>> request, or technical capability notice, is not exercised by a >>>>>>>>>>> judge, nor >>>>>>>>>>> does a judge supervise its application. Section 317ZFA provides a >>>>>>>>>>> discretionary power to a court, in relation to proceedings before >>>>>>>>>>> it, to >>>>>>>>>>> make such orders as the court considers appropriate in relation to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> disclosure, protection, storage, handling or destruction of >>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>> assistance information, if the court is satisfied that it is in the >>>>>>>>>>> public >>>>>>>>>>> interest. The bill does not otherwise provide for court >>>>>>>>>>> involvement in the >>>>>>>>>>> process of giving a technical assistance notice or request, or >>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>> capability notice. The bill additionally seeks to amend the >>>>>>>>>>> Administrative >>>>>>>>>>> Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to exclude >>>>>>>>>>> decisions under >>>>>>>>>>> Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act (which would include a >>>>>>>>>>> decision to >>>>>>>>>>> issue a technical assistance notice or request, or technical >>>>>>>>>>> capability >>>>>>>>>>> notice) from judicial review under the ADJR Act. 47 In these >>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, >>>>>>>>>>> further information from the minister as the adequacy of the >>>>>>>>>>> safeguards in >>>>>>>>>>> terms of oversight and review would assist in determining the >>>>>>>>>>> proportionality of the measures. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:12, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 21 October AEC had received 6890 postal votes out of 12,788 >>>>>>>>>>>> issued. Today, received postal votes is 7,789. Sharma is trailing >>>>>>>>>>>> by 1,552. >>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm calling it a Phelps' win and we will have minority >>>>>>>>>>>> government. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phelps will win by at least 500 votes so no recount. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Wilkins >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 18:19, Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Transcript of public hearing 19th October: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2a1771c8-f314-43f2-b9b0-cd09ad8123ae%2F0000%22 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:46, Christian Heinrich < >>>>>>>>>>>>> christian.heinr...@cmlh.id.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:12 PM Paul Wilkins < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Except that where subject to an order under 317j to conceal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of a TCN/TAN forms part of the terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PCI-DSS Requirement 4 Telstra [as an example I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have mandated that their customer is responsible for both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and software [as a service] within >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telstra.com.au/content/dam/tcom/personal/consumer-advice/pdf/business-a-full/cloud-h.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are therefore unable to assist with the implementation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TCN/TAN. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian Heinrich >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cmlh.id.au/contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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