ASIO and You! (r)

[drangonlay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

HEY MG MG THAN!
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN 
ASIO.THIS IS BURMANET.BURMANET IS THE FORUM WHERE YOU DISCUSS 
INFORMATION ON BURMA,SHARE IDEAS ON BURMA, DEBATE ISSUES ON BURMA.WHAT 
YOU POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BURMA.SO PLEASE LEAVE BURMANET ALONE AND 
DISCUSS YOUR INTERESTS SOMEWHERE ELSE.OTHERWISE FIND A JOB AND WORK,YOU 
KNOW.PLEASE LEAVE US ALONE IF YOU HAVE NO IDEAS ABOUT BURMA.

THANK YOU

MYAT HTOO

---------Included Message----------
>  Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:13:42 +1000

>  From: "Maung Maung Than" <maungt@xxxxxxxxxx>

>  Reply-To: "Maung Maung Than" <@one.net.au>

>  To: personnel to hack into computer systems, not
>  only to gain information but to actually change the information held 
in the
>  system.
>  
>  Under the proposed legislation any encryption code used to maintain 
privacy
>  could legally be broken by ASIO, which would also be empowered to 
place
>  tracking devices on people and cars.
>  And ASIO would gain all of these new powers with even fewer 
constraints on
>  it than currently exist.
>  There has been some speculation that the amended law is necessary in 
order
>  to deal with the potential problems of terrorist activities during 
the
>  Olympic games.
>  
>  However, the Director General of ASIO recently told the 
parliamentary
>  committee dealing with the amendments that security checking for the
>  Olympics "doesn't involve ASIO in a new area of activity, it just 
means
>  that we have more work to do in a compressed period of time".
>  
>  Although part of the new legislation dealing with communication 
between
>  State and Federal authorities would take effect before the Games, and 
would
>  terminate the following December, the Government has denied that the
>  legislation as a whole is intended specifically for the Games.
>  So most of it is intended as a permanent measure, not as a temporary
>  expedient.
>  
>  Encryption: you can't keep a secret, can you?
>  
>  One of the most controversial areas of the new legislation concerns 
the use
>  of encryption technology by computer users to forestall unauthorised 
access
>  to such information.
>  The 1996 Walsh report on encryption, prepared by a former deputy
>  Director-general of ASIO, recommended that ASIO should have the 
authority
>  to gain "real time access to the voice and data communications of 
their
>  subjects of investigation".This would require the cracking of 
encryption
>  codes.
>  These codes allow a computer user to maintain privacy about the 
information
>  on their system, and of course can be used for good or ill.
>  
>  The report recommended that there should be full public discussion 
on
>  encryption, and on the report itself. However, the Government 
subsequently
>  refused to release it.
>  Although the report appears to recognise that encryption technology 
is
>  developing fast, and that major legislation at this time would 
probably be
>  premature, the Government has now incorporated clauses dealing with 
the
>  control of encryption in the legislation.
>  
>  The amendments allow ASIO to access data relevant to security, print 
copies
>  and remove them from the premises, make copies and alter, add or 
delete
>  data.
>  This may be done either by entering the premises or by using 
electronic
>  means (``remote access'') to a target's computer.
>  Although a section of the legislation purports to protect lawful use 
and
>  users, this would be difficult to establish in practice.
>  The new law would allow ASIO to add, delete or alter computer data. 
Part of
>  the amendments state that the Act does not authorise interference 
with the
>  lawful use of computers.
>  
>  However, as one commentator noted, "How will `accidental' 
interference be
>  avoided by ASIO when data is being manipulated by remote access? How 
will
>  it be detected by lawful users who suffer computer malfunction as a 
result?"
>  Encryption systems are available in Australia, but the Government is
>  determined to keep available encryption systems within the range 
where they
>  can crack the codes, both here and overseas.
>  In 1991 the small Australian company Nexus Solutions developed a 
very
>  powerful encryption system for ensuring the privacy of medical 
records.
>  Permission to export the system to the World Health Organisation 
(WHO) was
>  subsequently denied by the Defence Signals Directorate, unless the 
company
>  underwent an accreditation test with one of three nominated 
companies.
>  Nexus was warned verbally to deal only with one American company in 
order
>  to maximise the chances of accreditation, but a condition of that 
company's
>  accreditation process was that Nexus would surrender the code to 
them. The
>  WHO deal was effectively thwarted.
>  
>  One justification given for the new measures is that they would allow 
for
>  the surveillance of criminal or terrorist activities.
>  However, they would also allow ASIO access to confidential 
information
>  about legitimate transactions, taxation information, medical records 
etc.
>  Moreover, organised crime in particular has the resources to hire the 
best
>  brains in the business to gain the latest encryption technology.
>  The result of the Government trying to keep the available technology 
within
>  a range that they can crack is that organised crime will continue to 
enjoy
>  secrecy, but ASIO will be able to penetrate the records of trade 
unions,
>  left-wing political parties, peace groups and community 
organisations.
>  
>  Tax confidentiality: your business is ASIO's business
>  The new legislation would give ASIO access to taxation records 
without a
>  warrant. The existing warrant process provides a check (in theory at 
least)
>  against invasion of privacy.
>  However, not only would this disappear, but according to the 
official
>  explanation, "The amendments will give ASIO officers similar access 
to
>  taxation information as law enforcement agencies now have ... [and]  
 ..
>  will allow ASIO officers to record and divulge or communicate the
>  information in specified circumstances to law enforcement agencies 
and the
>  Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or one of his officers 
in
>  specified circumstances."
>  
>  According to other sources, this would also include the Inspector 
General
>  of Intelligence Services and legal practitioners in defined 
circumstances.
>  That's an awful lot of people who could legitimately end up knowing 
your
>  business.
>  The Taxation Department routinely promises that tax matters will be 
treated
>  with confidentiality, but the amendment threatens to effectively blow 
away
>  tax confidentiality altogether.
>  Warrant provisions loosened - or abandoned altogether
>  Under current legislation, a warrant must be obtained prior to 
certain
>  action being carried out by ASIO.
>  The warrant process is supposed to ensure that infringement of 
privacy and
>  civil rights by ASIO is justified, and is minimised.
>  For action of lesser infringement of those rights approval may be 
given by
>  the Attorney General, or by the Director-general of ASIO.
>  However, under the new legislation the warrant process would be 
weakened
>  with regard to the preservation of civil rights.
>  As recommended in the Walsh Report, ASIO would be authorised to use
>  tracking devices and to re-enter premises to maintain, replace or 
remove
>  the devices under the proposed legislation.
>  
>  ASIO personnel would be able to re-enter premises after the warrant 
has
>  expired, using "reasonable force", if necessary, to recover the 
device.
>  No warrant process would be necessary for collection of foreign
>  intelligence within Australia if the amendments become law.
>  Under the new legislation reports on ASIO inspections may be made to 
either
>  the Minister responsible or the head of the relevant agency.
>  Ministerial oversight of many inspections may therefore be
>  lost.Privatisation
>  One intriguing aspect of the present privatisation process concerns 
ASIO's
>  ability to intercept articles being delivered.
>  
>  Any interception of Australia Post items currently requires a 
warrant.
>  However, private firms now handle an increasing amount of items 
delivered
>  in Australia.
>  Under the new legislation interception of items carried by private 
firms
>  would not require a warrant.
>  The Government would like to see Australia Post privatised, and if 
they
>  achieve this, all items delivered would be fair game for ASIO 
interception.
>  No warrant, no worries!
>  One tantalising area of the amendments concerns the recovery of costs 
by
>  ASIO "for the giving of advice or the provision of services by the
>  organisation to the persons at their request".
>  
>  In other circumstances the introduction of "cost recovery" provisions 
for
>  government organisations has foreshadowed their privatisation, in 
whole or
>  in part, and has resulted in a blurring of the lines between a 
government
>  and private organisation.
>  This clause appears to deal, in effect, with the sale of information 
or
>  services by ASIO.Who are these "persons", their customers?
>  One government document notes that costs can already be recovered 
from
>  Commonwealth agencies, but there is no clear definition of who the
>  "persons" referred to in these amendments might be.
>  Just how circumspect would ASIO be under the new legislation? The
>  amendments don't say.
>  
>  Could right-wing organisations, for example, purchase lists of known
>  members of politically opposed parties? Surely not, you say. But who 
knows?
>  With regard to this clause political activist and former MLC Joan 
Coxsedge
>  commented: "If money enters the equation, then surely ASIO is moving 
into a
>  completely new area."
>  Some provisions of the amendments relate to special arrangements 
between
>  ASIO and state authorities for the duration of the Olympics, for 
example
>  the vetting of visa applications.
>  The current law enables any applicant who receives an adverse report 
from
>  ASIO to appeal.
>  However, in the amendment as proposed, it may well be a state 
authority
>  which is issuing the adverse report on which rejection is based. In 
such
>  cases it is not guaranteed that the applicant would have any appeal 
rights
>  at all.
>  
>  The amended legislation would give ASIO considerably increased new 
powers,
>  and would exacerbate rather than rectify the shortcomings of the 
current
>  legislation.
>  So you thought you were probably free from ASIO worming its way into 
your
>  private life? Think again!
>  
>  
>  Presented by Communist Party of Australia
>  
>  Email:        guardian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Webpage: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~cpa
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
---------End of Included Message----------

Get your own Happy Puppy Email account!  http://mail.happypuppy.com
Brought to you by http://happypuppy.com -- It's All Games