Forget Human Rights arguments...or the next few sessions of PJCIS... PM urges parliament to pass encryption law (within two weeks) https://www.9news.com.au/2018/11/22/14/44/pm-urges-parliament-to-pass-encryption-law
Australian PM insists on encryption-busting Bill being passed in next sitting fortnight https://www.zdnet.com/article/australian-pm-insists-on-encryption-busting-bill-being-passed-in-next-sitting-fortnight/ (Paul, FWIW, I raised the Human Rights arguments last time I was in Canberra. The UN Declarations of Human Rights include paragraphs enabling governments to curtail those human rights if needed to catch criminals, prevent crime, protect citizens. They be more what you'd call 'guidelines', than actual rules. The Govt thinks they are doing this to catch criminals and protect the public, and that these laws are perfectly compatible with the UN Human Rights ideas - despite the UN Rapporteur suggesting otherwise) On 22/11/2018 3:01 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote: > "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...'" > > Both technical criticisms and the human rights criticisms are valid, with > perhaps a > slight tilt towards the technical, because governments are less likely to try > to do > something impossible rather than unlawful. Because of our status as signatory > to the > Declaration of Human Rights, there are limits that invasions of the right to > privacy > and the right to private property, must be necessary and proportionate. The > Department of Home Affairs will do themselves no favours to create an > evidentiary > framework, only to be thrown out by the courts because the evidentiary chain > was > unlawful. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 14:34, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com > <mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > /"it's going to our government"/ > / > / > Well actually no. Not since Wentworth. The government can't pass bills > without > either Labor or the cross benchers, so it's highly risorous the Home > Affairs > Minister thinks this an opportune time to give the PJCIS the hurry along./ > / > > He also presents himself and department as unanswerable to the PJCHR, who > go to > volumes in their criticisms./ > / > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 10:43, Bradley Silverman > <bsilver...@staff.ventraip.com > <mailto:bsilver...@staff.ventraip.com>> wrote: > > /"no thinking person" - /That's the problem, it's not going to > thinking > people, it's going to our government... > VentraIP Australia logo > > *Bradley Silverman > *Technical Operations \\ VentraIP Australia > *M: *+61 418 641 103 | *P:* +61 3 9013 8464 | ventraip.com.au > <https://ventraip.com.au/> > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:17 AM Paul Wilkins > <paulwilkins...@gmail.com > <mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I can't agree that whether the Bill passes at this stage comes > down to > simple numbers along party lines. > > 1 - The Bill is simply too far reaching in consequences for > parliament > to wave it through. With power comes responsibility. The Bill is > attracting huge condemnation internationally, and those > supporting the > Bill risk looking like chumps. It's a bit like global warming, no > one > who knows what they're talking about thinks this is a good idea. > > 2 - The Department for Home Affairs put this Bill together, and > Dutton > arrived at the tail end of the process. Although he might like to > distance himself from the legislation, the buck ultimately stops > with > him as he introduced and commended the Bill to the House. > > 3 - The Bill is more Trumpist than Liberal. Even if it's bad law > and bad > for Liberal Democracy, it's good politics for the Liberal > Trumpists. > > 4 - If Labor knocks it back in the Lower House, I can't see it > getting > through without some sort of deal being struck with one of the > cross > benchers. Because no thinking person sees this Bill as a good > move, > there will be no Lower House deal without a serious quid pro quo. > Then > there would need to be another deal in the Upper House, with > differently > aligned cross benchers. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 22:44, Bryan O'Reilly > <br...@telcoindependent.com.au > <mailto:br...@telcoindependent.com.au>> > wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > I’m looking forward to your Lunchtime Lecture next week on > this topic! > > > > Kind regards, > > Bryan O'Reilly > Founder - Telco Independent Consulting > www.telcoindependent.com.au > <http://www.telcoindependent.com.au/> > > 0419 632 098 > > 30+ years experience to provide YOUR business with > independent advice. > > > > FaceBook; https://www.facebook.com/TelcoIndependent/ > > LinkedIN; https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanoreilly/ > > > > rsz_rsz_1rsz_screen_shot_2016-11-03_at_33423_pm > > > > Important: > This message may contain confidential or privileged > information. If > you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must > not > take any action based on the contents herein, except to > advise us of > the error and destroy the message. > > Any documents or other information that may be in this email > is > copyright © Telco Independent Consulting 2018. > > > > > > *From:*AusNOG <ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net > <mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net>> *On Behalf Of *Paul > Brooks > *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 November 2018 5:18 PM > *To:* ausnog@lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net> > *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Assistance and Access Bill moves to > PJCIS > > > > 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 <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
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
