[MLB-WIRELESS] A letter I got....

[Andrew Griffiths]

Steven Haigh wrote:
> Got a letter today from the Attorney-General's Department....

Uh oh... How about we invite whomever onto this list for the duration of 
this discussion?

>  
> it follows:
>  
> --- Begin Letter ---
> Dear Mr Haigh
>  
>     WIRELESS BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDERS
> OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997
>  
> I understand Melbourne Wireless is operating or intending to operate a 
> wireless broadband network to facilitate access by customers to the 
> Internet and/or the PSTN.

Ouch. Possibly a Internet connection may not be in our interests (though 
  I suspect places like the various mirrors wouldn't joining our network 
but not routing for us..).

 > I am writing to all wireless broadband access
> providers to inform them of their obligations under section 313 of the 
> /Telecommunications Act 1997/.
>  
> Under the Act, carriers and carriage service providers must do their 
> best to prevent telecommunications networks and facilities from being 
> used to commit offences. 

Does this mean we have to monitor everything? (Censorship). If so, how 
about when people see material they do not agree with and so on.

What about cryptography?

> They must also give the authorities such help 
> as is reasonably necessary for the purposes of enforcing the criminal 
> law and laws imposing pecuniary penalties; protecting the public 
> revenus; 

Myself, so long as it is of a criminal nature (such as some person going 
around breaking into computers and using our network for a launch pad) 
and not something commerical related (like pirating), I don't mind so much.

> and safeguarding national security. 

"They" seem to through this one around; possibly because its hard to 
refute. However, at what line is freedom and safety drawn?

 > This may help include
> provision of interception services, including services in executing an 
> interception warrant under the /Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979/.

Mmmmkay.. I rememeber a draft of a Law/something mentioning the various 
security people would like all the (cryptographic) keys used.

So lets say I had an account on some box, and some .gov agency wanted to 
break into this box (assuming they have whatever is needed to say they 
can) does this mean, for example, I might have to hand over SSH keys or 
whatever?

And if SSH, why not say, GPG keys?

And if you don't comply (for the public's safety of course) why not jail 
  time?

If I can find a link to what they where proposing a while ago, you'll 
find I'm not joking.


>  
> An Overview of these obligations, including a link to the manual 
> 'Telecommunications and Law Enforcement', is available at the Australian 
> Communications Authority website:
>  
> http://www.aca.gov.au/licence/public_interestobligations.htm

erm. Mozilla returns

Not Found
The requested URL /licence/public_interestobligations.htm was not found 
on this server.

>  
> An officer from my office, the Australian Security Intelligence 
> Organisation or a law enforcement agency may have already made contact 
> with you to discuss details of the services offered by your company 

Company? AFAIK, we are not a commerical entity. Does anyone know if this 
changes anything wrt .gov agencys?

> and the assistance that may be requested. If not, you should expect contact 
> to be made in the near future. Specific issues to be discussed will include:
>  
> a.    architecture/technical details of the service being offered, the 
> customer base and distribution, and roll out plans;

WGPrivacy/Security?

>  
> b.    the nature of subscriber and historical traffic 

Historical data? I guess they will be giving us data storage stuff as well.

 > data that might be
> requested, the information that might be provided as part of the 
> request, and the format in which the information can be provided;
>  
> c.    the telecommunications interception warrant process;
>  

And people will have to keep secrets about this and thusly will create 
distrust in our/the community.

> d.    identifiers for each service;

Service types?

>  
> e.    technical implementation facilities, and interception product 
> delivery arrangements;

interception products? Someone want to find out

>  
> f.    service level agreements; and

Hrm. Seriously, is anyone going to gaurentee that they will offer X 
bandwidth over a network with no centeralised control? (Even possibly, 
once someone has decided they want in, we can't keep them off it).

>  
> g.    physical security arrangements and security clearance requirements 
> for the handling of classified information.

Does this mean people running an access point / backbone whatever have 
an agreement with melb-wireless, or does the various .gov agencies make 
there own arrangements with said person?

>  
> I would appreciate your advice of the most appropriate point of contact 
> within your organisation. If you have any queries, please do not 
> hesitate to contact myself or <name withheld>, (xx) xxxx.xxxx or email 
> her at: xxx at xx.xxx.xx <mailto:xxx at xx.xxx.xx>
>  
> Yours sincerely
>  
>  
> Joan Sheedy
> A/g Agency Coordinator.
>  
> --- End Letter ---
>  
>  
> Any comments on this? I'm not sure if I like what it's implying.....

Myself included... I can see this as being problematic and headache 
causing. Why do I get the feeling that its time to leave .au? (Someone 
read to me a quote when talking about various things happening, "The 
Jews who could see what was happening left Germany as quickly as 
possible" or something like that..)

> 
> Signed,
> Steven Haigh
> http://wireless.org.au
> (Visit https://wireless.org.au to install our Root Certificate.)


This can possibly be seen as overreacting, but when I read in the paper 
that "People shouldn't question the government over how its acting" and 
so on, it starts to really worry me.

For example, the recent article in the Herald Sun about "kids going to 
libraries to look at pr0n", and people saying we should install filters. 
(Which
   1) Don't work (Moving targets)
	The only solution is to white list sites? Now, would this be possible 
with all the content on the 'net?
   2) Are not open (I've read many reports saying that various filtered 
places do not agree with the creaters political beliefs and thereforce 
are blocked, amongst other things)
   3) Do not have an easy recourse of removing said blocked sites.
   4) And people sign agreements saying they won't bring up 
"objectionable material" at the library.
)

Well, lets get this discussion rolling..

Andrew Griffiths.



To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message