Wondering what the implications of this bill and the recent China was stealing our traffic....
So in theory could china steal / sniff our traffic and because of these weakening of encryption allow china to snope on our stuff A On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 11:32, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, we're being played, by the Trumpist rump in the Liberal > Party. > > Problem for the rest of the Liberals is that they're expected to fall into > line behind a minority of the party. > > The PJCIS will hear and consider Human Rights arguments, because they're > not all Liberals, and not all the Liberals on the PJCIS are invested in > blowing up our democratic institutions. > > Morrison can't pass this Bill without Labor's support and hopes to wedge > them on terrorism. > > I can't see that Labor are especially invested in this Bill passing. As > things look today, it will be a Labor government administering it, and they > are more likely to want to pass their own rather than have to deal with the > Human Rights gaps, mass surveillance implications, technical anomalies, and > broken multi agency framework. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 16:48, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-aus...@layer10.com.au> > wrote: > >> 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> >> 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> wrote: >>> >>>> *"no thinking person" - *That's the problem, it's not going to >>>> thinking people, it's going to our government... >>>> [image: VentraIP Australia logo] >>>> >>>> >>>> *Bradley Silverman *Technical Operations \\ VentraIP Australia >>>> *M: *+61 418 641 103 | *P:* +61 3 9013 8464 | ventraip.com.au >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:17 AM Paul Wilkins <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> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: 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> *On Behalf Of *Paul >>>>>> Brooks >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 November 2018 5:18 PM >>>>>> *To:* 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 >>>>>> 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> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 18:12, Christian Heinrich >>>>>> <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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> AusNOG mailing list >>>>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net >>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >>>>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing >> listAusNOG@lists.ausnog.nethttp://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 >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog