[Peetwo]

The worrying rumour that doesn't die??

Latest on this story from Hitch off the Yaffa... :

CASA has accessed mobile phone data in the past, but recent changes to the laws will prevent them from doing so in the future. (Composite image: Steve Hitchen)

New Laws ban CASA from accessing Mobile Phone Data
10 Dec 2015

Recent changes to the federal telecom laws will prevent the Civil Aviation Safety Authority from accessing mobile phone data in the future.

Amendments to the Telecommunications (Intercept and Access) Act mean that CASA will no longer be able to use data from private phone calls in enforcement action.

CASA made 11 applications for historical data in the 2014-15 period, which has enraged sections of the aviation community.

"The TIA Act permits enforcement agencies to authorise telecommunications carriers to disclose telecommunications data where that information was reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law, a law imposing a pecuniary penalty, or the protection of the public revenue," a CASA spokesperson had said in response to queries from Australian Flying.

"CASA makes applications during some investigations into whether a person has contravened a criminal offence provision in the aviation legislation."

The type of information CASA applied for was telephone account holder names and call records (information about telephone calls made, how long people talked to each other). CASA could not access the actual content of the phone calls.

However, CASA confirmed late today that under the changes to the TIA that came into effect earlier this year, they wouldn't have access to even those records any more.

The TIA amendments have limited the agencies that can apply for data to 14 criminal law enforcement agencies only, but there is provision for more to be added under ministerial declaration.

Ok so why does the Hitch post not give me a warm fuzzy feeling, when I think about the CASA confirmation given later in the day...

KC (AMROBA) explains it best:

"..Is CASA Australia’s Aviation Regulator or does it have an internal vision of being like one of the above?

Australia has created aviation requirements that are being prosecuted by a Regulator with a fixation on policing breaches of the criminal provisions they have created.

Aviation safety cannot be regulated into people as aviation safety relies on the safety culture of participants.

If CASA need access to metadata for ‘criminal’ offense then the Feds should be handling the offense.

This sought of dampens all the PR from CASA about working with industry.

This is a big brother mentality that does not improve trust or confidence in CASA.."

Hitch basically put the bad news rumour to bed - or did he?

Knowledge of four state-level agencies requesting metadata access could damage state-federal relations: AGD


The Australian Attorney-General's Department has said that releasing the names of four departments requesting access to metadata stored by telecommunications companies could harm the relationship between the agencies and the Commonwealth.

By Chris Duckett | January 15, 2016 -- 01:49 GMT (12:49 AEDT) | Topic: Security

The names of four state-level agencies that have requested to gain authorised access to telecommunications metadata will be withheld by the Australian Attorney-General's Department (AGD) from a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, with the department stating that knowledge of such requests could damage working relationships.

Initially filed in November, the FOI request originally asked for correspondence from organisations seeking to gain access to stored telecommunications metadata. The department denied this request on practical grounds, stating that 2,661 pages spread across 288 documents were related to such a request, and that 45 third parties needed to be consulted before the information could be released.

Eventually, the request was narrowed down to merely a list of agencies looking to be declared as an enforcement agency as defined under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

"Agencies objected to disclosure on the basis that it would compromise the trust they place in the Commonwealth," AGD said in its decision on the FOI request on Friday.
"During consultation, these four agencies clearly indicated that disclosure of this information would damage the relationship between the department and the relevant agencies, and could affect any future cooperation with the department."

AGD said that disclosing the names of the agencies would be contrary to public interest.

A similar request was made by privacy advocate Geordie Guy, for which the department requested a fee of AU$424 to complete the request -- a fee that Guy was able to raise through crowdfunding.

An identical fee was issued to ZDNet for its request -- which the department reduced by 75 percent on appeal, and said the release of such documents is in the public interest, as it would provide background on how the metadata legislation is operating.
[/url]
In October, the ACMA said in its annual report that [url=http://www.zdnet.com/article/government-accessed-820000-customer-records-in-2014-15/]more than 820,000 customers had their account details revealed to law-enforcement, emergency services, and national security agencies by telecommunications providers during 2014-15.

During 2015, 3,926 telecommunications interception warrants were issued, a 2 percent fall from the year prior, and 365,728 authorisations for the disclosure of historical telecommunications data were made by agencies.

Agencies and departments given access to existing information or documents to enforce a criminal law over the 12-month period included the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; the Australian Financial Security Authority; the Australian Fisheries Management Authority; the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; the Clean Energy Regulator; Customs; the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Defence; the Department of Health; the Department of Immigration and Border Protection; the Department of Social Services; the Department of the Environment; SA Consumer and Business Services; Corrective Services NSW; the WA Department of Commerce; the Vic Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources; the WA Department of Environmental Regulation; the Vic Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; Corrections Victoria; the NSW Environment Protection Authority; the Vic Legal Services Board; the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage; Roads and Maritime Services NSW; RSPCA Queensland; RSPCA Tasmania; RSPCA Victoria; The Hills Shire Council; the Vic Transport Accident Commission; Workcover NSW; and Worksafe Victoria.

It is already known that the Victorian Department of Racing and Civil Aviation Safety Authority are seeking to be granted access to stored metadata.

The Australian data-retention laws allow the nation's approved law-enforcement agencies to warrantlessly access two years' worth of customers' call records, location information, IP addresses, billing information, and other data stored by telcos.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended in February 2015 that Australia have data-breach notification laws in place before the end of 2015, prior to the implementation phase of the data-retention laws.

No data-breach notification laws are in place, despite the start of the metadata retention regime, and the earliest that Australia will now have a working data-breach notification scheme is set to be sometime in 2017, after the AGD has released its exposure draft of amendments to the Privacy Act.

Well I'm confused -

There is either some serious misinformation being mistakenly disseminated or someone is telling porkies


MTF...P2