Intent: Australia Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2009, not for curiosity or malice; but - ‘protection of the network’

First 5 of 5 paragraphs shown Senator Ludlam, 2 Feb 2010, the Attorney-General claims that network protection duties vary for each network and therefore cannot be defined. Ludlam argued as “the purpose of this bill is to define network protection duties and give them effect, ..we believe ...parameters should be set”. . One of these was to define “network protection duties to remove any remaining ambiguity”.
Judgements need definitions: “...we ..want to guide the discretion of a judge in future to ensure that persons whose role is not to protect the network are not permitted to intercept communications, and that is a fairly clear distinction that we want to draw.
No privacy invasion for curiosity or malice: “Persons who are authorised to intercept communications also should not be doing it for other purposes, whether through curiosity or malice for that matter”.
Sole purpose - protection of network: “They should be only able to intercept those communications in the instance of protection of the network”.
...Log in to read rest of Article or image.