Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
734 lines (552 sloc) 33.8 KB

Assistance and Access Bill 2018 FAQ for Australian IT workers

This repo will try and collate questions and answers on the new Assistance and Access Bill 2018 for anyone working in the IT industry within Australia.

See this tweet for more info:

Here is the link for the bill, as passed by both Houses:

Asking Questions

Let me emphasise that there are no stupid questions, just stupid policy.

Feel free to ask questions by pull request, or create an issue here:

And if you are uncomfortable asking a question publicly, feel free to email me at (, Signal (+61 400 777 227), or Twitter DM (alfiedotwtf).

My PGP key is included in this repo.

NOTE This is taking a while, so please stay tuned...


  • Dump below all the questions from the last few of days from various sources

  • Group them into categories

  • Then merge/sort/filter

  • Send them to lawyers

  • Tidy up document and find a place to host it


This is some legal information about the AA Act, and should be read as such. It is not intended to be legal advice. If you need advice about your particular situation, you should contact a lawyer. If you need a referral for a lawyer, you are welcome to get in touch. Of course, given that this is relatively new law, the information we have about it may change over time as it starts being used. We welcome feedback to that end. This was drafted by Lizzie O'Shea, with assistance from Patrick Fair.

Answered Questions

There has been confusion around who can recieve a warrant, TAN, TAR, and TCN. Some people are saying that only telco providers in the traditional sense receive these and then get staff and contractors to execute them, while others say that anyone can be approached directly who have knowledge of a system or the capability to access and modify a system, regardless of their current status: i.e local or remote, citizen or foreigner, employee or contractor or former employee or ever hobbyist.

Who can be approached with a warrant, TAN, TAR, and TCN to execute it?

Let's start with TAR/TAN/TCN (for ease of reference, let's call all of these Sch 1 notices – while noting that a TAR is actually a voluntary request). A Sch 1 notice can be given to a "designated communications provider." This is a defined term at s 317C and is very broad. For example, it includes a person who "provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia." Section 317D(2) specifically includes a website in the definition of "electronic service." The former-Law Enforcement and Cyber Security Minister Angus Taylor's office confirmed to the Australian Financial Review that the laws would apply to "any entity operating a website."

The definition of designated communications provider refers to "persons" which can be individual people or legal persons (a legal person is a entity capable of being sued, like a company).

For practical reasons, if an individual worker was be given a Sch 1 notice, it is highly likely they will need to tell other people in their company about them in order to execute the notice. Under s 317ZB, for example, the designated communications provider is only required to comply with the Sch 1 notice to the extent that the carrier or provider is capable of doing so. So it is technically possible that an individual employee could be given a Sch 1 notice, but it is also unlikely for practical reasons that they would be somehow required to carry out the requirements without their employer knowing, for example. The agency would be better off just giving the notice to the company itself. Section 317ZF(3)(a) may also offer protection of an individual in these circumstances. It states that an employee of a designated communications provider may disclose information about Sch 1 notices "in connection with the administration or execution of this Part." There is a little ambiguity about who this applies to in the drafting, but its plain meaning looks like it would offer protection to an employee disclosing this information to others for carrying out the Sch 1 notice.

As to whether someone from the list (local or remote employee, citizen or foreigner, employee or contractor or former employee or even hobbyist) could be given a Sch 1 notice, the answer is yes. The person is only required to comply to the extent they are capable of doing so, but there is no restriction on where the person is located, or whether the person is a current or a former employee (though the language is unclear on this point).

However, it should be noted that the relevant agency will probably have a hard time getting a company based entirely outside of the country to comply with any Sch 1 notice. While such a notice could seemingly be served, there remains practical obstacles to enforcing it in circumstances where the company has no assets or employees in the jurisdiction (provided the company is not prepared to comply of its own accord). The point here is practical more than legal - the power still exists. For this reason, any company with employees or an office located in Australia can be given a Sch 1 notice, and they face serious risks if they do not comply, including significant fines.

The AA Bill also contained some new provisions relating to warrants. This included the insertion of a new section into the Surveillance Devices Act, s 64A which requires that a person with knowledge of a computer or a computer system to assist a law enforcement officer to access information. This can be anyone. It should be noted that this new provision is subject to the secrecy provisions in s 45 of that act. Those secrecy provisions have a long list of exceptions, they are mostly particular and narrow.

It is very important to have clear idea of what is being required and under what power.

Can these warrants and notices force you to build or modify software that circumvents a product's security, your company's security, or even somebody else's security (not the target), so that they can use it as a stepping stone to get into the target's computer.

E.g. their target buys your microphone, which needs a Windows driver to run. Can you be forced to modify your Windows driver and push a targetted update that will then allow spying or even remote access to their computer)

Yes. A Sch1 notice can be given to any company (or person) in the supply chain and other companies in the supply chain will have no way of knowing whether the product has been compromised or tampered with under this Act. This is one of the controversial provisions in the Act, because a user cannot tell if software or hardware installed in a system can be trusted.

This question also raises an interesting point about the object of the Sch 1 notice. There is a general limit on Sch 1 notices, in that they have no effect to the extent (if any) to which such a notice would require a designated communications provider to do an act or thing for which the agency would be required to have or obtain a warrant or authorisation under certain acts (see s 317ZH). It’s slightly clunky drafting, but in general terms, the point of this provision is to make sure the agency gets a warrant when it wants the designated communications provider to disclose information.

The agency might issue the Sch 1 notice to ensure it gets the "access and assistance" to enable the information described in the warrant to be delivered. What happens if the Sch 1 notice tells you to install software or equipment that gives the agency direct access to the information they want without asking the designated communications provider? It may be debatable but it looks like the agency won't need a warrant or authorization if they can get access the data without asking the designated communications provider.

That’s fine for warrants, but authorisations are a little more tricky. For example, the metadata retention regime authorises certain agencies to request metadata without a warrant but require the agency (without going to a judicial officer) to get the metadata if they issue an authorisation. There is an interesting (and alarming) example here that might illustrate the point.

It is easy to imagine that an agency might want the metadata of a leaker of sensitive government information, if they suspect the leaking breaks the law. The agency would be authorised to obtain the metadata of the leaker without a warrant. This means the agency could issue a Sch 1 notice that is directed towards finding out the identity of the leaker, including against people that the leaker might be in contact with (ie people other than the target). This Sch 1 notice could include things like installing malware on the phone of a journalist who might be publishing the leaks. In this example, the Sch 1 notice is being used to undermine a person’s security who is not the target, pursuant to an authorisation.

If approached directly with a warrant or notice, are you allowed to tell anyone? e.g colleagues in order to assist in executing them, bosses to let them know they are compromising the safety of their systems and their own work schedule will be affected, and legal team to check validity of request

If you are given a Sch 1 notice, you are allowed to tell certain people. In general, the regime permits a person given a Sch 1 notice to share information about that notice for the purposes of executing it. That includes people within the agency who gave you the Sch 1 notice. It also includes people within your company, both above you and below you in reporting terms, as well as contractors.

It is important to think about what is reasonable in the context, and how a court might interpret this at a later time. One way to protect yourself is to ask for a list of people in writing to whom you can make disclosures from the agency that has given you the Sch 1 notice.

For the purposes of being a bit more specific, the relevant section is s 317ZE. It’s lengthy and it is a bit technical, but here are a couple of provisions that are probably most likely to be relevant. You are able to disclose information about a Sch 1 notice:

  • in accordance with any requirement imposed by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;

  • for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to the provisions around unauthorized disclosures.

This means if you are unsure, you should seek legal advice, which you are permitted to do under the Act.

What happens if there is a bug in your execution of the warrant or notice, which leads to unauthorised disclosure?

Section 371ZJ cover this kind of situation. It sets out that a designated communications provider is not subject to any civil liability for an act or thing done in compliance with (or in good faith in purported compliance with) a technical assistance notice or a technical capability notice. (Note that technical assistance requests are excluded from this. Note also that they are voluntary).

If there is a bug in the execution of the warrant, provided it is done in good faith, the person who writes it will not be held liable for unauthorized disclosures that might come about as a result.

When approached with a warrant or notice, how does one verify the authenticity of the people serving them, and the legality of the request?

The recipient of a Sch 1 notice should never accept anything they are told over the telephone by email or in person. They should contact the agency directly using an independently obtained number or contact details in order to obtain independent verification of the identity of the issuing party.

If there is some uncertainty about this, you should speak to a lawyer, which the Act permits you to do. The lawyer should also be able to give you advice about whether the Sch 1 notice is lawful.

We note the following about who is authorised to give what:

  • Technical assistance notices must be given the Director-General of Security or the chief officer of an interception agency. If the technical assistance notice is given by the chief officer of an interception agency, it must be approved by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner.

  • Technical capability notices may only be given by the Attorney General, in accordance with a request made by the Director-General of Security or the chief officer of an interception agency. The Communications Minister must also approve the technical capability notice.

  • The Attorney General can probably delegate this authority, but there should be some indication that this has happened in the notice itself.

  • Prior to giving the technical capability notice, the Attorney General is required to consult the designated communications provider. The provider may request that assessors be appointed to determine whether the notice should be given.

In general, Sch 1 notices must be in writing, except in certain circumstances, such as an imminent risk of serious harm or substantial damage to property, or it is not practical to do so. But the relevant person is generally required to make a written record of the decision within 48 hours.

Are warrant canary's legal or even possible to disclose warrants or notices?

Under s 317ZF, a person must not disclose information about a Sch 1 notice. This includes "technical assistance notice information," "technical capability notice information," and "technical assistance request information." All these terms are defined, and they all include "the existence or nonexistence" of the relevant notice or request.

For example, imagine that a company posted information online such as: "it has been six months since we haven't received a technical assistance notice" and then this information is taken down or adjusted when these facts changed. This would be information about the existence or nonexistence of a technical assistance notice and would be in breach of s 317ZF.

There is clearly something of a logical loop here, in that it is somewhat tricky to clearly define what might be a disclosure about the non-existence of the notice or request. But the point of the provision appears to be to prevent the use of warrant canaries, and a court is therefore likely to interpret it in that way.

For completeness, we also note that there are relevant provisions at s 317ZA and 317ZB which requires a person to comply with a requirement under a technical assistance notice or a technical capability notice. A requirement here will most likely include the prohibition on disclosing information about that notice. That is, disclosing information about the notice will be a contravention.

Notably, a person must not be complicit in the contravention of s 317ZA. That is, you cannot:

  • aid, abet, counsel or procure a contravention
  • induce, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, a contravention
  • be in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, a contravention
  • conspire with others to effect a contravention.

Unsorted and Unanswered Questions

  • Is a 'warrant canary' considered "technical assistance notice information" under s. 317B?

  • Is leaving a warrant canary up after a TCN is issued a "making a false or misleading statement" or "engaging in dishonest conduct." under paragraph 2 of s. 317E? Does this mean a designated communications provider cannot be ordered to take down or leave up a warrant canary as per s. 317C? If so, how does this not contradict s. 317ZF?

  • Are any of the following "carriage service provider"s under the Telecommunications Act 1997? (This has ramifications under s. 317C)

    • Tor node operators
    • Operators of servers used for online communication (e.g.: IRC, SIP, Jabber, Tox etc)
  • Is software considered a "...part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network" as per "facility" in the Telecommunications Act 1997 s. 7? (This has ramifications under s. 317C)

  • What is the definition of "arranges for the supply" as per item 2 of s. 317C?

    • Would a transaction processing entity (e.g.: PayPal, fiat cryptocurrency exchange) involved in the payment for listed carriage service be considered "arranging for the supply"?
    • Digital Distribution Platforms (e.g.: Steam, Google, CleverBridge)
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 3 of s. 317C?

    • Vendor or consultant to the carriage service provider (subject to a TCN)
    • Service provider hosting a code repository (that is subject to TCN)
    • Catering service provider for a designated communication provider.
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 4 of s. 317C?

    • Person running a server instance used to facilitate communication (e.g.: IRC server, Tor node, Tox node, SIP server)
    • Website owner or Administrator (e.g.: Alfie John of
    • Cryptocurrency 'miner' participating on an online blockchain or another similar networked ledger technology.
    • An electronic service provider that has intentionally geo-blocked Australian users.
    • BitTorrent 'Leacher' or 'Seeder'
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 6 of s. 317C?

    • Unincorporated uncontracted volunteer open source developer (or anyone with commit privileges to a repo)
    • Unincorporated uncontracted volunteer who personally mirrors software available for download.
    • Unincorporated uncontracted volunteer who manages an open source project.
  • Are any building maintenance personnel (e.g.: HVAC, cleaning crew) of a facility considered a designated communications provider as per item 7 of s. 317C?

  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 8 of s. 317C?

    • SoC (system-on-a-chip) manufacturers (e.g.: Qualcomm)
    • SIM/smartcard manufacturers (e.g.: Gemalto)
    • IC and microcontroller manufacturers (e.g.: Texas Instruments, STMicroelectronics, Intel, fabs)
    • Distributors (e.g.: RS Components)
    • PCB manufacturers.
  • Would the person 'setting up' an internet connection for a domestic premises (facility?) be considered a designated communications provider as per item 9 of s. 317C?

  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 10 of s. 317C?

    • OEMs (e.g.: Dell)
    • Retailers (e.g.: JB Hi-Fi)
    • Equipment Installers (e.g.: support consultant, on-site technician)
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 11 of s. 317C?

    • SoC (system-on-a-chip) manufacturers (e.g.: Qualcomm)
    • SIM/smartcard manufacturers (e.g.: Gemalto)
    • IC and microcontroller manufacturers (e.g.: Texas Instruments, STMicroelectronics, Intel, fabs)
    • PCB manufacturers.
    • Distributors (e.g.: RS Components)
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 12 of s. 317C?

    • Systems Administrators
    • Network Administrators
    • Certificate Authority/HSM Administrators or anyone else 'installing' a HSM (Hardware Security Module)
    • DNSSEC Administrators?
    • Individual person of OEM that is ultimately provisioning company image onto OEM system (e.g.: Dell technician preinstalling a company image before shipping to said company)
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 13 of s. 317C?

    • An end-user, or person assisting end-user, powering on a mobile phone device (This would have major ramifications)
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 14 of s. 317C?

    • Hard disk manufacturers (e.g.: Seagate, WD)
    • Flash memory manufacturers (e.g.: SanDisk)
    • SIM/smart card manufacturers (e.g.: Gemalto)
    • Optical media manufacturers (e.g.: Verbatim)
    • Tape media manufacturers (e.g.: Sony, Fujifilm)
  • Are any the following considered a designated communications provider as per item 15 of s. 317C?

    • Canonical (Producer of Ubuntu operating system fork)
    • RedHat (Sponsor of the Fedora Project, Producer of RedHat)
    • General Dynamics C4 Systems (seL4 microkernel project)
    • Linux package repository mirror provider (e.g.: Debian apt repos, AARNet, Digital Pacific)
  • Who determines if a "carrier or provider is capable" as per paragraph 1 of s. 317ZA?

  • Is organising any opposition (protest, sit-in, boycott, promoting alternatives etc.) to this law, after the Bill has been assented, considered a contravention of paragraph 1 of s. 317ZA as per paragraph 2 of the same section?

  • Assuming a piece of software is already highly decentralised and anonymised so that particular persons cannot be identified, if a developer designs their software distribution system to ensure they have no control over the channels particular persons can update their software (e.g.: BitTorrent, mirrors, or other broadcast-like technology unlike Google and their Play Store and Apple and their Appstore), would that be sufficient enough to ensure the software update process is no longer be utilised as an attack-vector against a particular person as ordered by a TCN?

  • Can employees or contractors be targeted directly to make changes or access systems without going through the company or organisation they work for?

  • If an employee or contractor is directly approach to make changes or access systems, are they allowed to tell their supervisors and any assisting staff in order to proceed

    • If not, what happens if they get caught
    • If not, how do they notify other staff to not remove the capability
    • What happens to the people who find changes or unapproved access
  • if an individual is directly approached to make changes or access systems of previous employers, what happens if they get caught

  • Does the forcing of individuals to modify code or access system go against the Constitution (e.g on just terms)

  • Does the bill apply to Australians based overseas

  • Do these notices and warrants apply to foreign visitors while travelling to Australia for vacation

  • Is it possible that a Notice can be supplied to Certificate Authorities to forged TLS certificates

  • Can Notices be issued to source code hosting companies such as BitBucket to serve modified code to targets

  • How does this work with companies that are SOX and SOC 2 compliant

  • What happens if the Notice or warrant is issued to a company who wants to comply but the employees refuse

  • Can individuals tell anyone like an employer, colleagues, lawyers if they have been issued a warrant or Notice

  • what is the definition of "systemic weakness"

  • "A person covered in paragraph (1)(b) may disclose... for the purpose of obtaining legal" how widely can you ask for advice

  • What happens when a company cannot comply to a warrant or a Notice because of technical design (i.e do not hold any keys or data)

  • Can the government walk up to me, demand I create a backdoor in my work software or access work databases, and I can not tell my employer or client

  • What happens if someone finds a vulnerability

    • and fixes it
    • and notifies others
  • Are warrant and Notice canaries legal

  • What are the implications for Open Source software in Australia

  • Are we able to handle any European data in Australia as it could be a potential violation of GPDR

  • When a weakness is discovered, what happens when it is fixed by someone not under a Notice

  • What happens when to target a user, we would have to decrypt for all users

  • What happens if we do client-side encryption - do we have to modify the decryption to target an individual?

    • What are the ramifications if we are caught if we can not target the payload to the individual and so have to serve it to everyone (think CDN)?
  • Can you be fired for complying with a warrant or Notice because you undermined your employer's security

  • Can you be fired or be under penalty for complying with a warrant or Notice but it caused a security breach, GDPR breach, or accidentally disclosed the actions of the warrant or Notice

  • Can warrants and Notices go directly to staff or contractors rather than management/owners

    • Are direct approaches allowed to let employers, colleagues know
    • What if they need help from others to get execute the warrant or Notice
  • What are the penalties for refusing a warrant, TAR, TAN, or TCN

    • What if you can not genuinely comply because of external constraints or the risk of disclosure
  • If we are served with a TCN, TAR, or TAN, is it legal to engage a lawyer, or does the non-disclosure provisions include attorney-client privilege?

  • If I am served a TCN, but the execution of it would breach GDPR or HIPPA, what do I do?

  • If my employment is terminated because I am executing a TCN, do I have legal recourse against the Commonwealth?

  • If I am overseas and get served with a TCN, which would break local laws if executed, what do I do?

  • What is the definition of "whole class of technology" and "target technology"?

  • If served with a TCN, TAR or TAN, how long do we have do comply?

  • Does the execution of a TCN count as forced labour/slavery?

  • who can be targeted to implement a TCN? And individual? A company? Both? Can an employee be targeted without their employer being told?

  • what secrecy/non disclosure provisions are provided for in a TCN? What are the consequences of breaking same?

  • what mechanisms exist for disputing a TCN, both when it is declared and in the event that the judge/expert opinion is wrong?

  • is there a fixed period after which TCN changes can be rolled back? Or must they be permanent or exist until specifically revoked

  • what happens when a TCN change is inadvertently altered or has a bug introduced or introduces a bug? Who pays any business costs due to the bug?

  • Are there punishments here?

  • must a TCN be specific in its target(s)? It seems vastly different asking for a generic all user change vs something that would target one individual

  • will historical TCNs be disclosed? Post-facto review is standard in the industry, especially when things are not 100% successful.

  • Are Australians overseas subject to these notices?

  • Would a warrant canary be a viable way of alerting employers/anyone that you have been compelled to "assist" or is this useless due to a law passed in 2015?

  • Who can issue warrants and Notices

  • A technical person reviewing code/config/state finds software/configuration that they believe may be the result of a TCN, or may be a malicious backdoor. If they communicate information about what they have found to another person, can they be in violation of the rules of a TCN they are unaware of?

    • (Context for question: concern around chilling effects the law may have on reporting/discussing non-AAbill backdoor
  • How will this interact with the consumer law?

    • If we sell a product labelled as secure and we are forced to add a flaw into that security does the customer have a right to refund under the consumer law as unfit for purpose?
    • Could we then have cause for the government to cover any financial losses related to this as the customers issue comes from the governments order?
  • In a case where an employee complies with a technical capability notice (TCN), backdoors their company's software, and is subsequently dismissed by the employer for undermining said software. What options does the employee have with regards to unfair dismissal or any form of compensation for loss of income?

  • Can Article 12 or any other UDHR and/or other foreign or domestic legislation relating to privacy protection be used as a legal basis for not complying with a TCN?

  • I would like to know how this bill will impact the use of open source software when stable and reliable software have licenses which provide no enterprise support and no obligation to change for its users.

  • What are the obligations of open source maintainers for software directed to break down security?

  • If there is no maintainer (passed away etc), will it be mandated to fork a repository to take on additional responsibility and capability just to introduce security flaws? How will this work, its resources and the sustainability of said problems be funded - even in the event no funding or liquidation is occurring.

  • Upstream changes required to meet a Capability Notice for code maintained outside of Australia. What will happen to projects which have multiple parties across the world including if only one Australian citizen is maintaining?

  • Are maintainers expected to introduce security flaws to comply with a Notice and not consult other maintainers, stakeholders or the community - even when tight approval processes are already in place to prevent the scenario being imposed?

  • what, if any, legislation allows for intelligence agencies to insert covert assets into organisations

  • What we need to do to repeal this law? Is it even possible?

  • how does this law affect working visa holders/permanent residents?

  • If forced to build backdoors, what happens with open source software?

    • Under most open source software licenses, wouldn't open source software vendors be required to inform users that some of the code is going to be closed source?
  • Is it possible that the Government could avoid the restriction of creating systemic weakness, by forcing tech companies to serve malicious updates to specific targets.

  • what would happen if a TCN required us to violate a copyright license? (For instance, we are forced to add a backdoor to a GPLv3+ work and then ship it to a user -- legally we have to give them the source code but this would disclose the backdoor.)

  • Is refusing to simply give up a password enough to be penalised under the bill

  • What happens to the person who got issued the warrant or notice if during executing the order it was accidently disclosed to the target or other people

  • Can plausible deniability protect you against accidental disclosure

  • What, if any, avenues exist at the state level either through legislation or the judicial system to protect/offer legal recourse for developers served with a notice?

  • How can I confirm a request is real

  • Even though you're covered for civil, what about foreign law GDPR/SOX/SOC2

  • What is the meaning behind the clause "pre-condition"

  • What are the legal implications of quiting if your company is served a warrant or notice

  • how do you document/prove that a TAR that was given orally

    • e.g. if you don't comply, what is to say you actually received it
  • Could a technician fixing your phone or computer be forced to install spyware

  • If I get served with one of these requests, what do I do? In particular, how, where and when do I find a lawyer to help me?

  • If there is a legal way to make a canary, how should one go about it

  • what kind of language should we seek to have added to contracts to allow us to legally sign those contracts while allowing for the possibility we may need to deliver malware to our clients

  • for software distributed to general consumers, what kind of changes to the software license / terms of service should we include to advise them that we may at any time without notice include malware in the software

  • What format will a request for assistance take? Is it a letter, an email or a tap on the shoulder by an intelligence/police officer

  • If an employer is served a warrant or notice, can you quit without being legally liable

  • If a vulnerability is discovered, how do you determine if it was an accident and fix it, or a something done under a notice

  • Who is liable for loss or harm due to a changed from a notice

  • what are the implications if you have a startup or small business, or work for yourself, and your business is closing (either in the case where you had decided to close it in response to a notice, or the case where you received a notice when plans to wind down where already in progress

  • How may an individual seek legal advice wrt the receipt of a TAN/TAR/TCN without risking noncompliance or violating nondisclosure?

  • Is it legal to implement international code review practices that would render a stealth implementation of a TAN/TAR/TCN impossible?

  • What if executing a TCN is actually impossible

  • What if executing a warrant or Notice, you need the help of others

  • In an outsourced environment (e.g managed service provider) if you go against your contractural agreement to excersise a warrant or Notice on computer systems you have access to but do not own, are you criminally liable

  • Can contractors (working via an agency and not employed by the company) be subject to warrants or Notices directly or even via their agencies, or the company they are working with

    • What are the legal ramifications if you quit when asked to exercise a warrant or Notice
  • Under the Criminal Code, it is a criminal offence to interfere with communication facilities. If carring out a warrant or Notice requires you to interfere with communication facilities, are you liable for criminal charges

    • Does that mean the people involved who created the warrant or Notice conspired to commit a crime

    • Does this mean any evidence during the illegal act is not admisible in court

    • Does this mean legal proceeding could make public a warrant or Notice

  • 317ZB "... makes an exception for contravention of foreign laws in a foreign country"

    • If a provider needs legal advice about a foriegn law, are you allowed to disclose a warrant or Notice to a foriegn lawyer
  • Does any provision cover asking your employer for leave or other similar administrative arrangements

  • Because of 317E, does this mean Open Source software is exempt the AABill