Government proposal for telecommunications security legislation changes

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Government proposal for telecommunications security legislation changes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#813456 8-May-2013 08:09

SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ: At least the legislation is amusing, it brings on a paranoia fest

imagine if Forums like this were in place when during WW2 the then Government gave itself wide ranging powers.

The National Socialist Party was elected to power. The people (understandably) chose promises of security in exchange for authoritarian government. It worked out well for them.

National Socialist Party elected in New Zealand ?????? I must be reading the wrong History books

I was referring to the Fraser/Savage Government

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#813458 8-May-2013 08:14

I never said it was safe legislation, it is however in NZ's current political climate safe for the vast majority of citizens. Is it liable for abuse? Yes, but so were the old statutes as recent events have shown.

SaltyNZ

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813464 8-May-2013 08:18

KiwiNZ: I never said it was safe legislation, it is however in NZ's current political climate safe for the vast majority of citizens. Is it liable for abuse? Yes, but so were the old statutes as recent events have shown.

Then surely the answer is not to say, 'Well, at least now we're all clear that we can be spied on any time for any reason' but 'Let's reign in all those powers right now, so as to make sure that an agency has a damn good reason that they can defend to a judge before they are allowed to spy on anyone.'

I'm not an anarchist who thinks the security agencies should never ever ever be allowed to intercept communications. I recognise it as a powerful tool for the legitimate enforcement of the laws that help keep me and my family safe. I simply demand that it only be allowed where there are immediate and clear threats to public safety, and that there be real, independent oversight, with serious consequences when the rules are broken.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#813467 8-May-2013 08:23

SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ: I never said it was safe legislation, it is however in NZ's current political climate safe for the vast majority of citizens. Is it liable for abuse? Yes, but so were the old statutes as recent events have shown.

Then surely the answer is not to say, 'Well, at least now we're all clear that we can be spied on any time for any reason' but 'Let's reign in all those powers right now, so as to make sure that an agency has a damn good reason that they can defend to a judge before they are allowed to spy on anyone.'

I'm not an anarchist who thinks the security agencies should never ever ever be allowed to intercept communications. I recognise it as a powerful tool for the legitimate enforcement of the laws that help keep me and my family safe. I simply demand that it only be allowed where there are immediate and clear threats to public safety, and that there be real, independent oversight, with serious consequences when the rules are broken.

unfortunately in NZ we only have democracy every three years where we elect a Government to dictate, forget promises, ignore us, and generally please themselves for the next three years. Once in power the populous has next to zero influence on a government.

SaltyNZ

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813469 8-May-2013 08:25

Yes, that's true. :-(

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#813548 8-May-2013 10:35

freitasm: You're very close there. Don't step that line.

Also during the war there were exceptional events that required this. But for that governments could put the country on martial law. This condition should be a time limited set of rules, therefore only applicable in cases of extreme emergency.

And now we are at war with 'terrorism'. Forever.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79297 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#813551 8-May-2013 10:37

Incredible how things progress. In the USA things that back in the 70s and 80s would be street crime are now "terrorism". And that's the trump card for anything.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#813606 8-May-2013 11:56

freitasm: Incredible how things progress. In the USA things that back in the 70s and 80s would be street crime are now "terrorism". And that's the trump card for anything.

I commented to an (ex)American workmate that they had charged the Boston bomber with 'using a weapon of mass destruction' rather than 3 counts of murder, and multiple counts of injury. His opinion was that it was so they could make it a federal trial rather than state, and to sensationalise it as much as possible.

If that is how they now define a WMD, it will certainly make it easier for them to legally justify invading another country on the basis that they have WMDs.

SaltyNZ

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#813607 8-May-2013 11:59

Skolink:
freitasm: Incredible how things progress. In the USA things that back in the 70s and 80s would be street crime are now "terrorism". And that's the trump card for anything.

I commented to an (ex)American workmate that they had charged the Boston bomber with 'using a weapon of mass destruction' rather than 3 counts of murder, and multiple counts of injury. His opinion was that it was so they could make it a federal trial rather than state, and to sensationalise it as much as possible.

If that is how they now define a WMD, it will certainly make it easier for them to legally justify invading another country on the basis that they have WMDs.

There was a piece on Wired or BoingBoing (sorry, don't remember which, but I think it was Wired) a week or so ago about the legal definition of 'weapon of mass destruction'. Basically anything more destructive than a bullet qualifies.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#813612 8-May-2013 12:04

hatchi:
freitasm: Just received:

Final draft of telco security legislation released

The Government has today released the final draft of a Bill that will modernise telecommunications security legislation.

The draft Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill was released by Communications and Information Technology Minister Amy Adams after Cabinet approved it today. The Bill will be introduced to the House later this week.

The Bill will replace the current Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004, following a review that started in 2011.

There are two parts to the Bill. The first part relates to obligations for telecommunications companies, and is focused on modernising the existing interception capability regime.
The changes will not in any way alter the authority of police or intelligence and security agencies to intercept telecommunications, or reduce the checks and balances on how these agencies can access and use private communications information. These matters are dealt with under separate legislation.
The second aspect of the Bill introduces a formal and transparent network security regime. The proposed changes will mean network operators will be obliged to engage with the Government through the GCSB on network security, where it might affect New Zealand’s national security and economic well-being.

“Updating the legislation will ensure New Zealand’s telecommunications companies have a clearer understanding of how to meet their interception obligations while ensuring network infrastructure remains secure, as we move to an increasingly online world,” Ms Adams says.

Gods, I am so out of the loop... Didn't hear about it until today...

One has to ask though.... How do they determine that what some network traffic is about is going to effect national security or the nations economic well being without monitoring everything in the fist place...

talk about Internet lag times increasing in NZ

And I'm the only non-uber geek to reply... :-(

They determine certain network traffic may require examination in the same way they determine a particular house requires a warrant for search. Reasonable suspicion.

Lag times will not be affected at all by this legislation. All operators are already required to have equipment which allows communication warrants to be executed. If the government have reason to sniff your traffic you are likely already busted and you just don't know it yet.

I'm interested in what types of equipment are used by ISPs for network capture/communications warrant requests? What about mobile operators?

Please remember that the ability to defeat any govenrment/ISP level sniffing (at least over the internet) has existed since ~1994 when the standards for SSH (now TLS) were introduced.

Now if there was a way to defeat current encryption techniques then that would be news.

gzt

17150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#813829 8-May-2013 17:24

There is far more to it than that. I still haven't read it. But techliberty.org.nz has:

The new bill now gives the GCSB sweeping powers of oversight and control over the design, deployment and operation of all data and telecommunications networks run by network providers in New Zealand

The Bill specifies that the law applies to companies whether based in New Zealand or overseas. It then goes on to give the Minister the power to ban the resale of an off-shore telecommunications service in New Zealand if it does not provide interception capabilities. This could stop the resale of foreign-hosted VPNs, instant message services, email, etc

That is not going to happen overnight but the point is - this is a very very wide net and this power could potentially impact all kinds of services - without any kind of notification process or oversight.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79297 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#813845 8-May-2013 17:45

Good luck with blocking sales of foreign-based VPN services.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#813848 8-May-2013 17:50

gzt: There is far more to it than that. I still haven't read it. But techliberty.org.nz has:

The new bill now gives the GCSB sweeping powers of oversight and control over the design, deployment and operation of all data and telecommunications networks run by network providers in New Zealand

The Bill specifies that the law applies to companies whether based in New Zealand or overseas. It then goes on to give the Minister the power to ban the resale of an off-shore telecommunications service in New Zealand if it does not provide interception capabilities. This could stop the resale of foreign-hosted VPNs, instant message services, email, etc

That is not going to happen overnight but the point is - this is a very very wide net and this power could potentially impact all kinds of services - without any kind of notification process or oversight.

The clause regarding reselling of VPN services is a joke. There are not many decent VPN services sold in NZ to begin with and the NZ government having sway on the affairs of an externally owned and operated business? Ha!

The 'operating in good faith' requirements for the GCSB could potentially be a concern in the future but seamlessly intercepting correctly encrypted data streams remains unaffected by whatever the network operator decides to implement.

gzt

17150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#813867 8-May-2013 18:18

But wait there's more:

"The government can insist that communications providers must obtain secret-level security clearances for some of their staff. It does not say what will happen if none of the technical staff qualify for a security clearance."

Advocating civil liberties? I think you might have blown it there Salty ; ).

"There is also a provision that allows the courts to receive classified information in a court case in the absence of the defendant or the defendant's lawyer."

I have not seen the clause referred to but something tells me there will not be a high bar for that.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#813889 8-May-2013 19:10

gzt: But wait there's more:

"The government can insist that communications providers must obtain secret-level security clearances for some of their staff. It does not say what will happen if none of the technical staff qualify for a security clearance."

Advocating civil liberties? I think you might have blown it there Salty ; ).

"There is also a provision that allows the courts to receive classified information in a court case in the absence of the defendant or the defendant's lawyer."

I have not seen the clause referred to but something tells me there will not be a high bar for that.

Security clearances are commonly required so GCSB/SIS/NZ Police can disclose what/why they are looking for certain things. I would imagine larger ISPs already have staff with security clearances.

Why would courts not already be able to receive classified information in the absence of a defendant or their lawyer? The information is classified for a reason. The bar will need to be pretty high as no judge is going to accept "we just don't want to tell them" as a security reason.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6