On WhatsApp security concerns
Stilgherrian writes: Re.”Minister for security agencies defying security agency advice” (Friday)
On Friday a tipster found it “astonishing” that Australia’s favourite Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis QC, and other ministers were using the messaging app WhatsApp. It hasn’t been approved by the Australian Signals Directorate, so won’t the ministers get in trouble? No. They won’t. This was all dealt with in Senate Estimates back in October 2016. As I reported for ZDNet at the time, the ASD said, through the Prime Minister’s special advisor on cybersecurity, Alastair MacGibbon, that encrypted over-the-top applications such as WhatsApp provide users with “significant amounts” of privacy. “The Australian Signals Directorate has no concerns with such applications being used for unclassified communications,” they wrote in a statement.
Ministers and others at the highest levels of government may be using WhatsApp, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re using WhatsApp for the highest levels of government communication.
ASD approval is needed for software handling “sensitive” communications, but that has a very narrow definition in the government’s Protective Security Policy Framework. It certainly doesn’t cover routine communications such as changing the time for a coffee meeting, asking when a report will be ready, or agreeing with colleagues that an opposition MP is a goose. Using WhatsApp for these messages is as unremarkable as using the telephone, unencrypted email over the public internet, the fax machine (whatever that is), or a conversation in a bar.
Much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Brandis that the whole thing is a non-issue.
On Dave Sharma
The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council writes: Re. “Does DFAT support Israeli settlements?” (February 9)
Crikey’s short piece “Does DFAT support Israeli settlements?” essentially attacks Australia’s Ambassador to Israel, Dave Sharma, for “his support for the Israeli Government” and for “working with a group that actively promotes the key threat [which is settlements according to the article] to the two-state solution”.
The arguments presented can be debunked with relative ease. For example, early on the piece asserts that the two-state solution is “dead in the water thanks to incessant Israeli building on occupied land, illegal under the Geneva convention”:
- As can be found here, settlements take up less than two per cent of the West Bank and no new settlements have been built since 1999. In fact, Israel has laws that forbid geographic expansion of settlements.
- Peace Watch’s Lior Amihai said in a 2014 interview, in which he was extremely critical of settlements, that despite them a two-state outcome “is very possible”.
- International law academic Prof Eugene Kontorovich, in a study of Article 49(6) of the Convention as it is applied around the world concluded that “the reaction to [Israel’s] West Bank settlements and interpretation of 49(6) generally applied is ‘entirely anomalous’.”
The piece then cites the fact Sharma organised a workshop on trends, challenges and scenarios on Israel’s northern border in conjunction with US-based organisation The Israel Project (TIP):
“TIP is a strong supporter of Israeli settlements and has commissioned consultants to test the best ways to convince Americans to back them. TIP even attacked outgoing secretary of state John Kerry for his anodyne statement in support of a two-state solution.”
In reality, TIP is not a strong supporter of settlements at all, but merely asked one question about settlements among many in a 2009 study about what language to use when discussing the many complex issues surrounding Israel , the Palestinians and the wider Middle East.
Presumably the second assertion relates to Kerry’s speech of December 2016, which TIP did indeed criticise. However, TIP did not criticise Kerry for supporting a two-state outcome, but rather the lack of balance in his speech, his support for the highly flawed UNSC Resolution 2334 and his insistence that the settlements, and not Palestinian intransigence, rejectionism and incitement, are the primary obstacle to a resolution.
Perhaps most concerning is Sharma is being attacked for doing his job, and doing it very well. Why wouldn’t an ambassador want his staff to be kept fully abreast of challenges and developments in the country in which they serve?
After all, Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations lists, among other things, a function of a diplomatic mission as “ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State”. Is a workshop on trends, challenges and scenarios on Israel’s northern border not fulfilling this criteria exactly? As for the assertion of Sharma’s “support for the Israeli Government”, another function of a diplomatic mission, according to the convention, is “promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations”.
Let’s be clear – Sharma’s role is to carry out the policy of the elected government in Canberra – that policy is to promote the growth of friendly relations with Israel, and also to work towards an eventual two-state Israeli Palestinian peace resolution. The writer of the Crikey attack may believe that it should be Australian policy to have nothing to do with the current Israeli government and to boycott anyone who is not explicitly and publicly anti-settlement, but that is simply not Australia’s current policy. Further it is not Sharma’s role as a public servant to implement the policy preferred by a blogger at Crikey, but that of the government he represents. And he has done that extremely well.
It is simply immoral to personally attack public servants for carrying out the policy of their elected government, even if one disagrees with it. Ambassador Sharma should be praised, not attacked.
As is always the case when someone has the temerity to object to actions by the State of Israel there is an immediate attack by one or more of the Israeli lobby groups. The above is no exception. Equally unexceptional is the distortion of reality that are the facts on the ground in Palestine.
In 1946 the Jewish community owned 6% of historic Palestine and were 30% of the population. The UN partition in 1947 gave Israel 55% of the land. It took less than a year for the first Israel-Palestine war to break out in 1948, after which Israel controlled 78% of the land.
After the 1967 war Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, an occupation that has now lasted 49 years.
More than half a million Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank, all of which are illegal settlements. Under international law it is illegal to move Israeli settlers into the occupied Palestinian territories. There are resolutions of the UN Security Council, the General Assembly and a ruling of the International Court of Justice to that effect.
The Israeli government was given legal advice in 1967 that such settlements were illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They ignored that advice, just as they have ignored all elements of international law with which they don’t agree.
The 2% figure cited by the Committee is a typical argument of the sophistry used by apologists for the Israeli regime. The 2% figure refers only to the built up area of the settlements. Far more significant is the fact that on occupied Palestine land there are 23 Jewish local authorities. According to the UN, 39% of Palestine land is under their jurisdiction. If their occupation was benevolent, why is it the fact that Palestinian construction on occupied land is prohibited?
Israel has been talking about the “peace process” since at least the 1967 war. It should be obvious to blind Freddy that they have no real interest in a peace settlement, and the continuing confiscation of Palestinian land is one sure indicator of that.
It is long past time that Australian governments ceased their craven adherence to the patently ridiculous concept of a two state solution. Israel’s actions have ensured that impossibility, which they know perfectly well. If there is ever to be peace in Palestine then the only possible outcome must be a secular unitary state. Israel will never accept that, so why do we continue pretending otherwise?
Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Israel is all for the ‘piece’ process – bit by bit towards the goal of Eretz Israel, from the Great River to the Two Rivers.
Why is Crikey, of all media, giving such a vast amount of space to the usual apologists for Israel’s actions, a chance to trot out half-truths, untruths and flimsy supporting arguments. The comment above makes it sound as if for 18 years there’s been no addition to Israeli building activity in the areas it’s illegally occupying. This is so far from the truth as to sound as if it’s coming from Donald Trump. Shame on you.
Why has it taken three hours to “moderate” my comment. Is Crikey now practising censorship as well?
Now 22 hours and counting. What’s the problem Crikey?
As always, the Member for Haifa Ports begins his apoplectic apologia in pre-defence of Netanyahu’s visit – currently fulminating about Hawke, Carr & ..someone else.. being intent on destroying the Labor party.
Gotta larf…