4 ms·

This is a follow-on news story as people slowly try and digest the content of the new bill. One of the main issues with this is it's being tried to push throug

by lysp 8y ago

This is a follow-on news story as people slowly try and digest the content of the new bill. One of the main issues with this is it's being tried to push through as quickly and quietly as possible. The original draft bill was open for public submissions for less than a month (Aug 15 - Sept 10). * http://web.archive.org/web/20180814010356/https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/the-assistance-access-bill-2018.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20180814010356/https://www.homeaf... The draft was 176 pages of legislation and quite complex in it's language so required a lot of time to comprehend - which is quite difficult to do effectively in a 3 week time period. Quite a few large organisations put forward submissions (a couple of them are linked here): * https://internet.org.au/news/209-submission-internet-australia-s-submission-on-draft-assistance-and-access-bill https://internet.org.au/news/209-submission-internet-austral... Submissions included a few internet bodies, EFF and privacy organisations, major ISPs and Telcos, the Law Council, Human Rights Commission, device makers (Apple/Sumsung/Google) as well as others. The bill was then submitted into parliament 10 days later. There is no way possible that they have reviewed and considered all public submissions in 10 days. The government also stated that they had "widely consulted industry" to which the major IPSs denied. It's basically a shambles. What the cynic in me thinks is this is basically being made in collaboration with the five-eyes countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States). As agencies in those 5 countries share information, the spyware/encryption keys/backdoors gained will be openly shared amongst all. I think they all believe Australia is the easiest place to try and get the legislation through.

girvo 8y ago
> I think they all believe Australia is the easiest place to try and get the legislation through. And they're correct. Australia is used for all sorts of unsavoury things, from spec-ops operations that other countries don't want to take the risk on, to taking over PlayPen(?) and operating it for months -- we don't have strongly enumerated rights, and our authoritarian past has never actually been dealt with. The same people, or those they trained are still in power.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  Not to mention the general public is largely apathetic to practically anything that affects them other than the Grand Final.
  - Arbalest 8y ago
    Now that you've said that, I am reminded that that is coming this weekend. That especially makes the timing slimey.
King-Aaron 8y ago
> What the cynic in me thinks is this is basically being made in collaboration with the five-eyes countries This is the most likely reason, however.
FerretFred 8y ago
> Submissions included a few internet bodies, EFF and privacy organisations, major ISPs and Telcos, the Law Council, Human Rights Commission The problem seems to be that one side there's the Government(s) pushing this legislation through, and on the other side we have the above organisations along with increasingly outraged Netizens. In the middle there's a gaping abyss, and no matter what we try (so far) we can't seem to bridge the abyss to get ourselves properly represented. I don't know of a way that would enable us to effectively protest and actually get some results. Goodness knows, my "elected reprsentative" does eff-all to represent me!
rstuart4133 8y ago
> There is no way possible that they have reviewed and considered all public submissions in 10 days. The government also stated that they had "widely consulted industry" to which the major IPSs denied. Normally both side of politics are happy for ideas to be discussed in civil society for months if not years. The internet filter, or NEG, the "meta data" discussion - so many examples. There is no practical reason this should not go the same route. But there might be a political one. The strong response means it's probably going to be opposed by just about everybody. My guess is the Libs are hoping it will create a long and loud debate on of their favoured topics - law and order. They desperately need something, anything, to get their own internal turmoil off the front pages, and this must seem like what the doctor ordered. One way of stoking the debate it to get it before the parliament, and quickly. I'm sure they see it as no different to the meta data debate. The arguments against that were subtle - explaining how big data can be used to knit together a fairly complete picture of a persons life from just the addresses on envelopes is hard. But explaining what is do bad about this won't be so hard: they are demanding the be allowed to legally hack all devices we own so they can install spyware. The concept has been explored in the popular media through movies like Minority Report and TV shows like Person of Interest. If the government makes it easy for themselves to do this, the idea that criminals and rogue states will use it too has already been implanted. I suspect the debate may go a bit differently this time.

by lysp 8y ago

girvo 8y ago

> I think they all believe Australia is the easiest place to try and get the legislation through. And they're correct. Australia is used for all sorts of unsavoury things, from spec-ops operations that other countries don't want to take the risk on, to taking over PlayPen(?) and operating it for months -- we don't have strongly enumerated rights, and our authoritarian past has never actually been dealt with. The same people, or those they trained are still in power.

King-Aaron 8y ago
Not to mention the general public is largely apathetic to practically anything that affects them other than the Grand Final.
- Arbalest 8y ago
  Now that you've said that, I am reminded that that is coming this weekend. That especially makes the timing slimey.

King-Aaron 8y ago

> What the cynic in me thinks is this is basically being made in collaboration with the five-eyes countries This is the most likely reason, however.

FerretFred 8y ago

> Submissions included a few internet bodies, EFF and privacy organisations, major ISPs and Telcos, the Law Council, Human Rights Commission The problem seems to be that one side there's the Government(s) pushing this legislation through, and on the other side we have the above organisations along with increasingly outraged Netizens. In the middle there's a gaping abyss, and no matter what we try (so far) we can't seem to bridge the abyss to get ourselves properly represented. I don't know of a way that would enable us to effectively protest and actually get some results. Goodness knows, my "elected reprsentative" does eff-all to represent me!

rstuart4133 8y ago

> There is no way possible that they have reviewed and considered all public submissions in 10 days. The government also stated that they had "widely consulted industry" to which the major IPSs denied. Normally both side of politics are happy for ideas to be discussed in civil society for months if not years. The internet filter, or NEG, the "meta data" discussion - so many examples. There is no practical reason this should not go the same route. But there might be a political one. The strong response means it's probably going to be opposed by just about everybody. My guess is the Libs are hoping it will create a long and loud debate on of their favoured topics - law and order. They desperately need something, anything, to get their own internal turmoil off the front pages, and this must seem like what the doctor ordered. One way of stoking the debate it to get it before the parliament, and quickly. I'm sure they see it as no different to the meta data debate. The arguments against that were subtle - explaining how big data can be used to knit together a fairly complete picture of a persons life from just the addresses on envelopes is hard. But explaining what is do bad about this won't be so hard: they are demanding the be allowed to legally hack all devices we own so they can install spyware. The concept has been explored in the popular media through movies like Minority Report and TV shows like Person of Interest. If the government makes it easy for themselves to do this, the idea that criminals and rogue states will use it too has already been implanted. I suspect the debate may go a bit differently this time.