[LINK] Australian Crime Commission's ambit claim

[Paul Brooks]

I was indeed referring to the bolded former third verse.
I have learnt new things today - thankyou Roger.



On 8/09/2014 8:48 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 8:20 +1000 8/9/14, Paul Brooks wrote:
>> Both Brandis and Morrison need to read the second verse of our national anthem.
>> Actually, we need to swap the order of the first and second verses, so the second
>> verse is sung in parliament and at major sports events.
> Nice.
>
> But unfortunately ambiguous.
>
> I'm sure you're referring to the now-second-verse but originally-third-verse, not the politically incorrect originally-second-verse:
> http://www.hamilton.net.au/advance/lyrics.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>> On 5/09/2014 6:25 AM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>>> Mmmm, but they're simply doing what that great Protector of 'Freedom', George Brandis, wants,
>>>
>>> It's remarkable how selective he is with his 'freedom'. Bigots must be free, but the rest of us must be under control and do what the government wants. 'Freedom of Speech' is Paramount - but no way in hell would he award that to Joe Public in a  Bill of Rights. Freedom of Association is OK for despicable sexist foul mouthed Young Liberals, but not for bikies and Muslims. You can have your Freedom of Religion - but only as as long as you're a Christian, and preferably a Roman Catholic Christian.
>>>
>>> Privacy? Protection from the State? Court based curbs on the State's power.
>>>
>>> Why do you need that? We mean you no harm. It's all for your own good. I mean, you want to be secure don't you? Well, security means you have to give things up.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I despair of anything approaching rational policy coherence from our Attorney General.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents worth ...
>>> ---
>>> On 5 Sep 2014, at 1:28 am, Stephen Loosley <stephenloosley at outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Australian Crime Commission rejects limits on website blocking
>>>>
>>>> ACC also wants inquiry to examine penalties for non-compliant ISPs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By Rohan Pearce (Computerworld) on 04 September, 2014
>>>> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/554221/
>>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Infrastructure_and_Communications/Inquiry_into_the_use_of_section_313_of_the_Telecommunications_Act_to_disrupt_the_operation_of_illegal_online_services/Submissions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Australian Crime Commission has rejected calls for limits on the government agencies that can issue notices under Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.
>>>>
>>>> The ACC has also raised the possibility of creating some mechanism for penalising ISPs for not complying with Section 313 notices.
>>>>
>>>> "The success of s.313 for the lawful blocking of websites relies upon private sector compliance with law enforcement requests," states an ACC submission to a parliamentary inquiry examining the use of Section 313.
>>>>
>>>> "It is noted that failure to comply with a request to lawfully block a website pursuant to s.313 does not carry any consequences. In addition to the terms of reference being considered by this inquiry, consideration could also be given to addressing this issue."
>>>>
>>>> The federal government launched the inquiry in July. The inquiry follows bungles by ASIC in 2013. In an attempt to block websites implicated in investment fraud, the financial watchdog issued Section 313 notices that also blocked access to unrelated websites.
>>>>
>>>> The ACC's submission also rejected the creation of a list of government agencies authorised to issue Section 313 notices because it "will not enable flexible responses to the inevitable evolution of the online landscape".
>>>>
>>>> In a similar vein, the organisation argued against requests being limited to a "list of defined offences".
>>>>
>>>> "However, recognising the extent of power to disrupt online services s313 provides, there is merit in considering the proportionality of the activity being conducted or facilitated," the ACC submission stated.
>>>>
>>>> Adding a "proportionality threshold" would "provide response agencies with sufficient flexibility to respond to a wide range of criminal or national security threats," the ACC argued.
>>>>
>>>> Submissions to the inquiry by iiNet, the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU), and industry bodies the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) and the Communications Alliance all called for restrictions on the government agencies that can issue Section 313 requests.
>>>>
>>>> The ACC said it believes that the agencies should be able to continue to self-authorise their Section 313 notices, with staff of an organisation submitting a written application to an "authorised officer".
>>>>
>>>> The submission also argued that although the ACC supports "consideration of a formal transparency and accountability regime" - although organisations that issue the notices should not be required to publish "certain information" that could jeopardise investigations or the safety of individuals.
>>>>
>>>> A transparency regime could include measures such as an appeals mechanism or a reporting regime similar to the annual report published by the government on the use of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 			  		 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Link mailing list
>>>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Link mailing list
>>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link