brisk

Archive Link

Internal emails show months of unheeded warnings from the OAIC about overstated privacy claims in the government’s age check technology trial, which didn’t technically test or assess the products against Australian law.

It’s important to know these issues are entirely fixable. They just require real public transparency about what’s blocked and why, real enforcement of global technical standards, and testing and active oversight of the telecommunications sector as a whole. We have none of that currently and it shouldn’t require a consumer class action for this to change.

The report found that Morrison’s failure to detect misleading advice from the department was caused by social services and human services departments both failing to advise him and other ministers that new laws were required.

There is no single template for the women and girls who found themselves trapped in ISIS controlled territory.

We rely on myGov, but can we trust its code?

Millions of Australians use myGov to access essential services like Medicare, the ATO, and Centrelink.  The myGov Code Generator app is one of the options for enhancing myGov login security.

But is it actually secure?  Services Australia, the agency who publishes it, claims it is.  But when I requested the app's source code under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, Services Australia refused, arguing that releasing the code would help "nefarious actors" and compromise security.  In other words: "Security by Obscurity".

True security requires transparency. Hiding the code prevents independent experts from auditing the system for flaws.  It also denies secure access to government services for people who do not live in the Google or Apple "walled gardens", or to people with disabilities and culturally and linguistically diverse cohorts who cannot use the app as designed, but who could use modified or translated versions.

A merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)

After years of waiting for the OAIC's review of Services Australia's access refusal decision - which they punted on due to the technical nature of the matter - I applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for review.  In this proceeding I will challenge the government's claim that hiding public, publicly-funded software is necessary and in the public interest.

This is not just a fight about source code—it is a fight for the right to know how our government's essential digital infrastructure works, and for the right to make it better for everyone.

The government will use taxpayers' money (probably lots of it!) to employ top legal counsel to defend their position of secrecy and control. I need your help to level the playing field in this fight for transparency, security, and freedom.

cross-posted from: https://aussie.zone/post/28756788

Please excuse Sky News link, they are the only source I've found so far that actually includes the letter in full.

SBS Article

The Guardian Article

cross-posted from: https://aussie.zone/post/28631237

It turns out the difference between what devices work for 000 on Vodafone and those that don't is quite literally a 1.3 Kilobyte text file!

That's the 'fix'.

This file has the VoLTE 000 settings for Vodafone.
Whereas Optus and Telstra have had settings and support for the feature since at least 2017. 

Your device Does NOT need Android 13 or higher, nor a 'Custom ROM' (if on an older version).

Your device simply just needs a little more than the 1KB worth of settings for Vodafone's 000 'SOS' Network.

[...]

Reportedly Vodafone is also now moving to a more restrictive device 'whitelist' blocking 'unknown' capability devices, including some phones recently sold at Officeworks!

Seems TPG/Vodafone is trying to improve how the list 'looks' whilst not actually addressing the problem and punishing consumers in the process.

NACC boss Paul Brereton has a disturbing history of giving misleading information. How much more evidence of poor behaviour is needed for him to resign?