-----Original Message-----
From: paulwilkins...@gmail.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:23:31 +1000
To: aus...@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
From: paulwilkins...@gmail.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:23:31 +1000
To: aus...@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill
Provision 28(1) amending the Surveillance Devices Act would already authorise data access for any senior officer of the law enforcement agencies.
50 After subsection 28(1)
Insert:
(1A) A law enforcement officer may apply to an appropriate authorising officer for an emergency authorisation for access to data held in a computer (the target computer) if, in the course of an investigation of a relevant offence, the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects that:
(a) an imminent risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property exists; and
(b) access to data held in the target computer is immediately necessary for the purpose of dealing with that risk; and
(c) the circumstances are so serious and the matter is of such urgency that access to data held in the target computer is
warranted; and
(d) it is not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a computer access warrant.
I was pretty gob smacked.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
50 After subsection 28(1)
Insert:
(1A) A law enforcement officer may apply to an appropriate authorising officer for an emergency authorisation for access to data held in a computer (the target computer) if, in the course of an investigation of a relevant offence, the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects that:
(a) an imminent risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property exists; and
(b) access to data held in the target computer is immediately necessary for the purpose of dealing with that risk; and
(c) the circumstances are so serious and the matter is of such urgency that access to data held in the target computer is
warranted; and
(d) it is not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a computer access warrant.
I was pretty gob smacked.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 12:04, Narelle Clark <narel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul B - is that agency explicitly referred to or inferable readily in
the legislation?
Otherwise Paul W does have a point, there is the potential for the
thus empowered agencies to proliferate as happened in the data
retention system before it was changed.
Narelle
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:42 AM 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.
>
--
Narelle
narel...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
aus...@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list aus...@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
