On 21/11/2018 6:33 PM, Robert Hudson wrote: > I sent an email to my local (LNP) MP, who forwarded it to Dutton, who sent a > letter > back on lovely heavy paper stock. > > Dutton of course completely missed the point, not least of all because he > wants to > miss the point as it is inconvenient for his agenda).
Its a reasonable start, and good on you for writing the letter - Dutton of course will feel that you are completely missing the point, because you're both arguing different points. The important thing is that, if this thing is pushed back into Parliament, its the lower house MPs and Upper House Senators that will be voting on this, and probably voting along party lines. Neither you, now I, or anybody else on this list gets to participate in that vote. Minister Dutton is unlikely to change his mind, no matter how many people write to him - in his mind he's doing this to protect the people, and anyone thinking thats a poor idea must be against protecting the people. Also, now its a matter of pride and personal embarrassment if he was to back down now - so that is unlikely to happen, even if you manage to shake his private conviction that its all for the greater good. To influence that vote, letters and briefings to other MPs and senators on all sides, to work to influence each major Party (and the independents) view of the Bill is more likely to have an effect on the voting numbers. And FWIW, I've found arguments that lean towards demonstrating the measures are impractical, infeasible, risky, or likely to cause embarassment tend to be more powerful than arguments leaning on philosophy - arguments like "you shouldn't even be wanting to do this because we're a liberal democracy" aren't likely to wash as much as 'if thats what you're trying to achieve, doing like that won't work or is very risky because...' Paul. > > If anyone wants a scanned copy (could be useful for determining a point of > weakness > in the argument he and DOHA are pushing, I'm happy to share. > > On Wed, 21 Nov. 2018, 5:18 pm Paul Brooks <pbrooks-aus...@layer10.com.au > <mailto:pbrooks-aus...@layer10.com.au> wrote: > > Thanks Rob. > In the latest, Dutton wants to speed up the Bill and have it passed "next > week", > and has apparently asked the PJCIS to cut short its evaluation, according > to > reporting of an interview on Sky News. > > Dutton tries to speed up encryption bill > > <https://www.itnews.com.au/news/dutton-tries-to-speed-up-encryption-bill-515862> > > (Point of clarification - that bit about smart and dumb criminals was > while > trying to explain the difference between a system having a capability > that can > be used by the operator to implement a "act or thing", and an operator > actually > using that capability in a particular instance against a particular > target - and > that the existence of the capability isn't and shouldn't be secret, even > if the > actual use in response to a warrant was still kept a secret. That > distinction > has been difficult for the committee to understand without a simple > illustration.) > > > Paul. > > > On 21/11/2018 2:00 PM, Robert Hudson wrote: >> (Not necessarily a direct response to Paul's email, just additional data >> for >> the thread). >> >> Traditional media are starting to pick this up, and they're just >> parroting the >> govt position. Macquarie Radio news at 8am ran a story on it this >> morning, and >> it was all about Dutton saying he wants the legislation passed quickly >> so they >> can catch more terrorists. >> >> Other than the point well made by Paul Brooks that the only criminals >> who will >> be caught by this are the dumb ones (there was a link made between this >> proposed legislation and three potential terrorists were were arrested - >> without this legislation in place), and the smarter criminals (ie those >> capable >> of tieing their own shoe laces) will simply use software that is not >> subject to >> the legislation, there is an extension - to break the encryption WILL >> involve >> creating vulnerabilities (there's simply no way around this), and those >> vulnerabilities will then be available for criminals (the bar may be >> higher >> than shoelaces, maybe they can button their own shirts as well) to >> exploit and >> compromise data that is legitimately encrypted. >> >> In summary - there is no upside to this proposed legislation as far as >> encryption goes, and there is a significant potential downside. >> >> It cannot be allowed to pass. >> >> On Wed, 21 Nov. 2018, 12:09 pm Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com >> <mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm wondering when the other shoe will drop that the Bill enables >> mass >> collection and analysis of metadata without any further legislation >> needed. >> Or the implications that metadata from multiple sources (phone >> towers/CCTV/Social Media), lays the foundations for the >> establishment of >> the machinery of a police state. Of course, this will make >> prosecution of >> crime straightforward (the police will only need to correlate crime >> against >> a database of the public's electronic fingerprints). However, such >> powerful >> machinery can be used for oppressive purposes, and the Bill is >> absent the >> checks and balances consistent with the traditions and institutions >> of >> Liberal Democracy. >> >> If one were cynical you might think the Bill's outrageous overreach >> is >> deliberate, a Trumpist ploy to enrage the unthinking. And when we see >> critics of the Bill slandered for being weak on terrorism, maybe not >> so >> wide of the mark or so cynical. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Paul Wilkins >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 04:15, Scott Weeks <sur...@mauigateway.com >> <mailto:sur...@mauigateway.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 18:12, Christian Heinrich >> <christian.heinr...@cmlh.id.au >> <mailto:christian.heinr...@cmlh.id.au>> >> wrote: >> > >> >> https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/victoria-police-arrest-three-people-allegedly-planning-a-terror-attack-in-melbourne/news-story/e6a92273b37dce750937e1e0f86a7dcd >> > has quoted Mr Dutton on WhatsApp again but from my reading >> WhatsApp >> > was not used in this specific case? >> >> This has now been alleged within >> >> https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/mobile-phones/unacceptable-risk-the-secret-way-terrorists-and-criminals-are-communicating/news-story/731ca32e7432601d6b3ce5ca4f34bf80 >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> These stories read like gov't scare tactics. Scare people >> enough and they'll 'give up liberty for a little safety'. >> They do not read like objective journalism.' >> >> How did they catch everyone without eliminating privacy >> anyway? Good ol' police work? >> >> scott >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net <mailto: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
