Re: [nznog] "The GCSB’s brake on innovation"

Hello list Sometime before the Conference I responded with interest to the issue of the Agency suggesting in messages to operators insinuating an apparently small number of notified network changes was evidence that some people might not be notifying them as required. I had an idea about submitting a presentation to do at the presentation that was an oppositional but legal and somewhat realistic guide to the TICSA legislation and feasibility of precedent case litigation against the Agency. Anyways, work got hectic and while I thought about it a lot I only really wrote notes for a pitch. I have got back to writing at it today and it is currently getting more like an… an essay length- 1400~ words. I thought I would just post a sort of summary of the headings and gauge interest in it/ if someone wanted to input off list to this and then I might furnish the text wall to the list. Im also aware that to a certain extent I am in the blind having not been at the conference/in the industry and I know there is currently a new NCSC Consultation document thats not public till May 11th. For all I know someone has already been served compliance notice or pecuniary orders. Headings: 1. An operator being pursued for non compliance is a matter of time, or a positive legal action against the Agency 2. What a precedent setting case under TICSA might look like 3. The kind of litigants suited for precedent setting cases 4. What is not attached to the NCSC guidelines to the Act: - Civil Proceedings: TICSA is about regulation of telecommunication, not national security. - Good Faith (In Computers) — How Good Faith could be interpreted by the Courts — Precedent interpretations from collective bargaining case law — Legal critique of NCSC guidance (last edition of their guidance) — It is possible to be non-compliant but in Good Faith (and therefore not liable) - Evidential issues — National Security related information= mixed consequences for operator in Court — Encryption and passphrases: protections and limits (Relationship to Search & Seizure Act) 5. Setting a legal precedent RE thin line between vendor encryption and third-party encryption RE s10(3)&(4) of TICSA 6. Avoiding worst legal outcomes in Court or not planned precedent case. 7. Education & wider advocacy goals: Getting TICSA into uni law curriculum in a practical oriented fashion Let me know if you guys want to read more of this/see it completed, or message offlist Regards --- Me: nz.linkedin.com/in/bmmurrah Ph: +6427 375 7897 Email: bmurrah(a)icloud.com PGP: https://keybase.io/airbridge

On 25/02/2015, at 9:52 am, Michael Fincham wrote:

http://techliberty.org.nz/the-gcsbs-brake-on-innovation/

Excerpt:

Trying to do the same in NZ, but govt's TICSA legislation makes deploying SDN/NFV in backbone networks challenging http://t.co/91MUpxfOnw

— Steve Cotter (@SteveCotter) February 22, 2015

[...]

So this is a statement by the CEO of a government owned company whose purpose is to "establish and operate the Advanced Network in order to promote education, research and innovation for the benefit of New Zealand" saying that they can't do the research and development work they need to do because the bureaucrats in the NCSC at the GCSB are holding them back.

-- Michael _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog