3 ms·
Under the new legislation, section 27KP(2)e(ii) refers to MITM attacks on network traffic if it'd be reasonable for the ISP to implement, or section 27KP(2)i re
by dhx 5y ago
Under the new legislation, section 27KP(2)e(ii) refers to MITM attacks on network traffic if it'd be reasonable for the ISP to implement, or section 27KP(2)i refers to a surveillance device being provided to the ISP which then must integrate with it for whatever purpose (MITM attack or something else).
Isn't this the purpose of the Assistance and Access Act where the ISP in question doesn't have a present ability to perform MITM attacks on network traffic, and would therefore have to build and engineer at a significant cost a new solution for law enforcement use? And once that is achieved, 27KP(2)e(ii) of this new legislation is then reasonable for an ISP to perform because the capability has been built and is now present?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Youden 5y agoI believe section 317ZK, subsection (3) of the act [0] prohibits a provider from bearing the costs of compliance. If I read correctly, the cost is negotiated between the provider and the government and the government bears the cost. And section 317ZGA [1] explicitly puts compliance with interception warrants (which I believe are the warrants in the new bill) out of scope. I _think_ the effort a provider has to put in to comply with the new act is primarily limited by 27KP(2)e's "reasonable" wording. [0]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s317zk.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997... [1]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s317zga.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...