[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

[tor-relays] FW: Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill



 


-----Original Message-----
From: paulwilkins369@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:23:31 +1000
To: ausnog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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


On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 12:04, Narelle Clark <narellec@xxxxxxxxx> 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-ausnog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
narellec@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays