[clug] The biggest mass surveillance scheme in Australian history

[Scott Ferguson]

Errata - corrections, (sorry Bob), and additional information (I was
distracted by multi-tasking earlier this morning)

On 28/02/15 01:14, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 28/02/15 00:17, Bob Edwards wrote:
>> On 27/02/15 23:01, Bryan Kilgallin wrote:
>>> {Parliament’s Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has ticked
>>> off on the government’s proposed mass surveillance scheme, with some
>>> minor amendments.
>>>
>>> Once legislated, the scheme will require communications companies to log
>>> and retain data about all customers’ usage of their services for two
>>> years.}
>>>
>>> http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/27/committee-recommends-data-retention-with-some-half-baked-protections/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Without wanting to be seen to be supporting this in any way, one
>> important difference between this scheme and PRISM is that each ISP
>> keeps it's own customers (meta)data, whereas in the U.S. it was all
>> being slurped up by the NSA into a single central govt. owned/controlled
>> database.
> 
> Not just the US. Five-Eyes*1 (here too). Providing it for police is the
> justification for being able to force ISPs to retain (in most cases they
> do for their own purposes anyway) *and* hand over the metadata. Brandis
> has two motivations - (neither of which is law enforcement):-
> 
> 1. make 5Eyes work easier - metadata is the key to the existing bulkdata
> collection. The metadata enables you to locate a needle in a haystack,
> the point is in the needle (not it's location). (i.e. you connected to a
> forbidden site - which your ISP already knows for billing purposes
> unless you use a VPN or Tor, but 5Eyes (and some peering providers) do
> stateful packet inspection


That 'should' have been "Deep Packet inspection" (examining the data),
*not* Stateful.

>... (BGPs compromised, likewise submarine
> cables*2).
> 
> 2. TPP, make it easier to prosecute "pirates" and protect the revenue
> streams of those that back the parties (or attack the parties) - the
> media giants. Political self-preservation to be expected by all parties
> when they are actually in power.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/digital-life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/metadata-laws-may-close-piracy-loopholes-20150227-13qobg.html

> 
> *1. This is well documented, *not* tin-foil hat stuff.
> 
> *2. See the innocuously titled "Dugong Protection" legislation passed
> late last year.
> 
> Note: the NSA "claimed" they "only" collected meta-data. Which is
> meta-semantically true (a lie by omission). Their partners (England)
> keep the bulk data, which they share on request to the partners*1. The
> separation is (theoretically) partially to avoid having to lie to
> Congress, and mainly to keep the status-quo in the tenuous ally arrangement.
> 
> *1 part of some of those "routine traffic stop" incidents?? (some 'are'
> the result of commercial spyware).

e.g. FinFisher

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/files/0/289_GAMMA-201110-FinSpy.pdf
> 
>>
>> What this means is that the law-enforcement officers still need to ask
>> a particular ISP to provide the (meta)data for a particular IP address.
> 
> 
> or activity of an account holder (which IP addresses were they allocated
> and when). I suspect you're referring to the specific instance of
> alleged pirating (which only applies to *non*-business accounts).

"but that telecommunications companies *continued* to store phone and
internet records and didn't delete them as some have done when they no
longer require them for business purposes."

Note, the amendments proposed by Labor do *not* include requiring a warrant.

"Labor argued to make law enforcement bodies seek warrants for data but
this was *rejected* and not included in the final bipartisan report
which makes 39 recommendations."

"the Attorney-General can allow its use in *civil* proceedings, at his
discretion,"

Hence my cynicism about "serious crime".

Quotes from
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web/metadata-retention-laws-will-pass-as-labor-folds-20150227-13qd4m.html
> 
<snipped>

I don't trust "reviews" of legislation by the same parties that enacted
it. In this instance their is "provision" for "reviews" every *four*
years of a *two* year retention requirement. I can't think of a
historical precedent for repealing reduction of liberties (something we
only have as a result of international treaties - unless willing to
believe the Constitutional "right" of free trade between States has ever
existed)


Kind regards