GSM vs. wiretapping: Australia

[Jim Hart]

Forwarded from comp.org.eff.talk

In article <1993Apr12.081136.1 at cc.curtin.edu.au>, zrepachol at cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
> In article <1993Apr11.175007.10136 at news.acns.nwu.edu>, jlacour at merle.acns.nwu.edu (John LaCour) writes:

> Have not seen a proposal like the FBI one yet, doesn't mean it isn't out there
> though. One thing that has happened is the delaying of the new GSM digital
> mobile phones. It seems that ASIO and friends have been told by GCHQ about
> the dificulty of breaking MD5. Info is still a bit thin. You could try posting
> to aus.comms.
> 

Please note, I have added aus.comms and aus.politics to this one.

I enquired of Austel ( the Australian telecoms regulatory body), and the
Federal Atourny Generals Office today.

The Telecom GSM trail marketing that started in Brisbane in March has been
canceled. GSM will *NOT* be legal in Australia till the use of MD% encryption
is changed, or the system is altered to allow monitoring of calls. This is
a requirement of the 'Telecomunications Interception Act'( AG perth.)

There are also prohibitions on using codes and cyphers in the 'Crimes Act'
various state police acts and criminal codes ( thought these would not
affect Telecomms, as that is federal jusistiction.

I will try to find the acts, and quote the relevent sections on this.

There has also been posts on 'pen-recorders' I notice. The .au situation
on this is that a commisioned officer of the federal police can give the
telco a written notice requiring the supplying of cal info for the date
range in the notice. I saw this some monthes ago, and had the impression
that this included info *PRIOR* to the notice, info Telecom claims not to
have if mear chattels inquire! Strange, wonder where it matterializes
from. Note the absence of words like 'warrant', 'judge', 'court' or other
such! I think there is a requirement for the commisioner of the FP to
include in his anual report to parlament the number of notices issued.

All this has been in place in one form or another for decades. I first saw
this sort of stuff when I worked in the post office ( ob history: the post
offie used to run the phon system in australia years ago ) As I worked both
as a night shift telephonist and in the office itself, I had to sign a stack
of secrecy stuff, and a copy of the 'Posts and Telegraphs Act' was standard
issue. This had a prohibition on "unlawfull codes, cyphers and secret writings"
The Comercial Telex Code was the *ONE* allowed code. Any other code used
in a telegram *HAD* to be stated on the logment form. Don't know what happened
after that. Small country town, never saw one. Only the banks used codes.
This would have been Dec '67 or '68 I think.

Will try to fill in the gaps, and post a full account later. Note that I will
be probably away next week, ( school hols ) so it may be a while. I will
also try to get some extra info on use etc.

~Paul