[MLB-WIRELESS] A letter I got....
Tyson Clugg
tyson at wireless.org.au
Wed Nov 13 00:29:05 EST 2002
MessageDear all,
Taking a deep breath...
Our network consists not of one-to-one connections between ourselves and one
large single and accountable entity, but between many distinct and often
anonymous connections between nodes dispersed across a very large area in a
haphazard fashion. The very nature of a decentralised network is still
foreign to policy makers in this country, and this puts us in an
unfavourable position. While not wanting to provide a safe haven for those
who have malicous intent, we do not want our communications to be hampered
by our own goodwill. Striking a balance between freedom and control will be
a tedious challenge, one that will see us at odds with law makers if we do
not attempt to cooperate. Whilst I empathise with those that wish to remain
anonymous when online and not be thrown at the mercy of an over zealous
legal system, I feel we must at least attempt to address the possibility
that some people are not as honourable as you or I. It is with a healthy
dose of cynicism that I say this, the potential for control by power hungry
authorities is indeed something not to be taken lightly - but in the end, we
have elected our politicians into power because we felt they were the
honourable type who would do just in their duties.
I am not advocating that we should be monitoring the network and examining
our log files with a fine tooth comb and calling the police at the slightest
sign of a disturbance, but simply being cooperative when asked to do so by
the relevant authorities. I believe Paul Kenna would agree with me (I stand
corrected if he says otherwise), but our duties are indeed for the moment
very light. Most of us keep log files for at least a week anyway, and most
of us don't take extra effort to remove such records for the sake of
thwarting reasonable attempts by officials to pursue those that have broken
the law. Much the same as if you were standing at a bus stop and witnessed
a mugging across the street, you would not tell police officers that a
female assailant fled the scene in a white car, if you knew it was a burly
male who fled on a motorbike (please excuse any stereotyping). The chances
of having ASIO ask you for assistance in any case are remote, and they would
still need to demonstrate just cause for requesting any information of you
regardless.
Now that I've said all of that, lets get back to building a wireless
network. If "doing your best" means maintaining log files for a reasonable
time, then so be it. If "help as is reasonably necessary" means you
cooperate when asked by relevant authorities, then help when asked as best
you can. If you can do better, that's fantastic - please let everyone know
what to do and they too can try to do as good as you have, within reasonable
limitations. Right now, we haven't even reached consensus on what is the
best way to connect to each other, so our best efforts at national security
are certainly not very grand at all. Remind yourself about this issue once
you have finished working on your own connectivity, I'm sure you've all got
plenty of work to do on your node before then.
Regards,
Tyson.
___________________________
Tyson at wireless.org.au
President at wireless.org.au
B/H: +61 3 9545 8117
A/H: +61 3 9887 0117
Mob: +61 4 0889 7662
___________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: kenna
To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: [MLB-WIRELESS] A letter I got....
Section 313 is a pretty lightweight piece of legislation. It has the Boy
Scouts standard of care you must "Do Your Best" to prevent others using
networks from being used in or in relation to the commission of offences.
As a community organisation would it not be reasonable to follow the example
of internet industry leaders, (some 51% government owned) in looking what
should be the worlds best practice in doing ones best?
Carriers have hidden behind the "We're a Carrier not a Censor" mantra to
avoid placing restrictions on child and other banned porn and warez in
usenet usegroups. Without First Amendment protection Australian Carriers
are more circumspect than their US counterparts but the cost of censorship
and the potential loss of subscribers are more important than the tacit
rejection of censorship.
Under this regime you would be brave to operate an anonomous public service
access (although look at the service operated by most government public
librarys). Prudence would suggest that you know who is using your service,
if only to help proove that it wasn't you yourself that was maintinaing the
DIY semtex website (again look to the public & uni libraries for assistance)
If your software maintains logs and the boys come knocking you'll need to
make them available. If you flush the logs every week because your 486
linux server has limited disk space noone can blame you unless they
legislate a requirement for a manditory retention time.
Subsection (5) would appear to be able to be pleaded against any action
against the carrier, say for breach of privacy or confidentiality, by a user
or member. Interesting, as I do a lot of credit searcing over the internet
under strict Privacy Act conditions, that this info can be divulged to the
Telsra or (worse Singtel ) tech officer as part of their duties of complying
or not complying with the Act.
I suppose this sort of stuff comes with being recognised as a Carrier by the
dark forces of beauracracy.
Paul
Bundoora
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s313.html
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 SECT 313 313 Obligations of carriers and
carriage service providers
(1)
A carrier or carriage service provider must, in connection with:
(a)
the operation by the carrier or provider of telecommunications networks or
facilities; or
(b)
the supply by the carrier or provider of carriage services;
do the carrier's best or the provider's best to prevent telecommunications
networks and facilities from being used in, or in relation to, the
commission of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth or of the States
and Territories.
(2)
A carriage service intermediary must do the intermediary's best to prevent
telecommunications networks and facilities from being used in, or in
relation to, the commission of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth
or of the States and Territories.
(3)
A carrier or carriage service provider must, in connection with:
(a)
the operation by the carrier or provider of telecommunications networks or
facilities; or
(b)
the supply by the carrier or provider of carriage services;
give officers and authorities of the Commonwealth and of the States and
Territories such help as is reasonably necessary for the following purposes:
(c)
enforcing the criminal law and laws imposing pecuniary penalties;
(d)
protecting the public revenue;
(e)
safeguarding national security.
Note: Section 314 deals with the terms and conditions on which such help is
to be provided.
(4)
A carriage service intermediary who arranges for the supply by a carriage
service provider of carriage services must, in connection with:
(a)
the operation by the provider of telecommunications networks or facilities;
or
(b)
the supply by the provider of carriage services;
give officers and authorities of the Commonwealth and of the States and
Territories such help as is reasonably necessary for the following purposes:
(c)
enforcing the criminal law and laws imposing pecuniary penalties;
(d)
protecting the public revenue;
(e)
safeguarding national security.
Note: Section 314 deals with the terms and conditions on which such help is
to be provided.
(5)
A carrier or carriage service provider is not liable to an action or other
proceeding for damages for or in relation to an act done or omitted in good
faith:
(a)
in performance of the duty imposed by subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4); or
(b)
in compliance with a direction that the ACA gives in good faith in
performance of its duties under section 312.
(6)
An officer, employee or agent of a carrier or of a carriage service provider
is not liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for or in
relation to an act done or omitted in good faith in connection with an act
done or omitted by the carrier or provider as mentioned in subsection (5).
(7)
A reference in this section to giving help includes a reference to giving
help by way of the provision of interception services, including services in
executing an interception warrant under the Telecommunications
(Interception)
Act 1979 .
Note: Additional obligations concerning interception capability, special
assistance capability or agency specific delivery capability are, or may be,
imposed on a carrier or carriage service provider under Part 15.
[Index] [Table] [Search] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download]
[Help]
Commonwealth legislation in official written form can be obtained from AGPS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
[mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of
darrend at ndpgroup.com.au
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2002 9:40 PM
To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] A letter I got....
Hi all, if you look through the transcripts for the inquiry hearings in
canberra, you'll note that the AG dept said they plan on following up with
all community wireless groups to make them aware of the relevant regulations
they must adhere to.
As many of you know, we have done plenty of research on the subject as have
many other groups aswell. I don't believe there is anything to worry about
here, as this is just the usual 'just making sure you were aware of this'
type of approach that is used in 'self regulated' industries etc.
Just as the inquiry has made recommendations to impove the education of
wireless operators (see barry's post on this), meaning both community groups
aswell as ISP's etc.
Darren Dreis
Vice President
Melbourne Wireless Inc.
vicepresident at wireless.org.au
http://www.wireless.org.au
David <vk3jda at optushome.com.au>
Sent by: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
12/11/2002 08:22 PM
To: Melbwireless List <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
cc:
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] A letter I got....
There is just one question to start with - Is "Melbourne Wireless" going to
supply (not a person)?
If they are not then reply "Sorry you have your info wrong we are not"
If so then -
It would be good to know what is a CUSTOMER, is it a paying person or
anyone?
Dose membership fees make you a paying customer?
David
At 19:53 12/11/02 +1100, you wrote:
>Got a letter today from the Attorney-General's Department....
>
>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. 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. 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; and
>safeguarding national security. This may help include provision of
>interception services, including services in executing an interception
>warrant under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979.
>
>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>http://www.ac
a.gov.au/licence/public_interestobligations.htm
>
>
>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 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;
>
>b. the nature of subscriber and historical traffic 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;
>
>d. identifiers for each service;
>
>e. technical implementation facilities, and interception product
>delivery arrangements;
>
>f. service level agreements; and
>
>g. physical security arrangements and security clearance requirements
>for the handling of classified information.
>
>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:
><mailto:xxx at xx.xxx.xx>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.....
>
>Signed,
>Steven Haigh
><http://wireless.org.au>http://wireless.org.au
>(Visit <https://wireless.org.au>https://wireless.org.au to install our
>Root Certificate.)
David
VK3JDA
Webmaster M&DRC
www.mdrc.org.au
www.mdrc.org.au/apcnews
ATV Users Group
www.mdrc.org.au/atvgroup
CoSysop IRLP node #630 VK3RGL
RT-85 list owner
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/rt85
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
More information about the Melbwireless
mailing list