|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:09
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.Schedule 2 relates to B-party interceptions, which are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.(Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
)''Background to the bill''The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].)- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1) "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
- Schedule 2 relates to B-party interceptions, which are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.(Read more about B-party interceptions in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102). )
- _Background to the bill_
- The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506) was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102).)
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:53
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
Schedule 2 relates to B-party interceptions, which are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.[1]- Schedule 2 relates to B-party interceptions, which are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.(Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
)
- ''Background to the bill''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[2]- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].)
''References''* [1] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-15 09:29:25
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.[1]- Schedule 2 relates to B-party interceptions, which are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[2]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-15 09:21:37
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
Schedule 2 relates to third party interceptions, known as B-party interceptions. B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[1]- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[2]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-15 09:17:59
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
Schedule 2 relates to third party interceptions, known as B-party interceptions. B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[1]- Schedule 2 relates to third party interceptions, known as B-party interceptions. B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[2]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-14 16:16:17
|
Title
Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee - Schedule 2 (B-party interceptions)- Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee — Schedule 2 (B—party interceptions)
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
- Schedule 2 relates to third party interceptions, known as B-party interceptions. B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[2]
- ''References''
* [1] Read more about B-party warrants or interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].- * [1] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-14 16:15:02
|
Title
Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee- Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee - Schedule 2 (B-party interceptions)
Description
<p class="speaker">John Hogg</p><p>The opposition opposes schedule 2 in the following terms:</p><dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>Schedule 2, page 62 (line 2) to page 63 (line 30), <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</dd></dl><p>The question now is that schedule 2 stand as printed.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.83.1 motion] "that schedule 2 stand as printed", which means that it will remain unchanged. The question was put in response to an opposition motion to oppose that schedule.
- Schedule 2 relates to third party interceptions, known as B-party interceptions. B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[1]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[2]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about B-party warrants or interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|