Will Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's lack of judgement place Australia at risk?

Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Wentworth, Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, was happy to say this to the Australian people on 20 April 2017, during an interview with ABC TV 7.30 current affairs host Leigh Sales:

“I do. I trust the judgment, the wisdom of the American government, the president and the vice president.”

Two days later he meets with U.S. Vice President Pence in Sydney and showers him with uncritical praise of American policy.

Two weeks after that he was in the United States meeting with President Donald Trump and expressing solidarity with his government.

Of that visit the prime minister stated; “It was great for Lucy and I to meet with the president and Mrs Trump. Again, that was more family than formal.”

Given the following, one wonders if Australia should trust the current U.S. government as much as Turnbull professes he does.

The Washington Post, 15 May 2017:

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

The New York Times, 15 May 2017:

In fact, the current official said that Mr. Trump shared granular details of the intelligence with the Russians. Among the details the president shared was the city in Syria where the ally picked up information about the plot, though Mr. Trump is not believed to have disclosed that the intelligence came from a Middle Eastern ally or precisely how it was gathered.

General McMaster did not address that in naming the city, in Islamic State-controlled territory, Mr. Trump gave Russia an important clue about the source of the information.

Like the United States, Russia is also fighting in Syria, where it has stationed troops and aircraft. The two countries share some information, but the cooperation is extremely limited, and each has widely divergent goals in the civil war there.

Russia’s primary focus has been propping up the government of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, not directly battling the Islamic State. The United States, in contrast, views the Islamic State as the primary threat, and is aiding rebels who are fighting both the Islamic State and the Syrian government.

The Washington Post, 16 May 2017:

H.R. McMaster, the president's top security adviser, repeatedly described the president's actions in a press briefing just a day after a Washington Post story revealed that Trump had shared deeply sensitive information with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during an Oval Office meeting last week.

"In the context of that discussion, what the president discussed with the foreign minister was wholly appropriate to that conversation and is consistent with the routine sharing of information between the president and any leaders with whom he’s engaged," McMaster said. "It is wholly appropriate for the president to share whatever information he thinks is necessary to advance the security of the American people. That’s what he did."

McMaster refused to confirm whether the information the president shared with the Russians was highly classified. However, because the president has broad authority to declassify information, it is unlikely that his disclosures to the Russians were illegal — as they would have been had just about anyone else in government shared the same secrets. But the classified information he shared with a geopolitical foe was nonetheless explosive, having been provided by a critical U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so delicate that some details were withheld even from top allies and other government officials.

McMaster added that Trump made a spur-of-the-moment decision to share the information in the context of the conversation he was having with the Russian officials. He said that "the president wasn’t even aware of where this information came from" and had not been briefed on the source.

McMaster's pushback came just hours after Trump himself acknowledged Tuesday morning in a pair of tweets that he had indeed revealed highly classified information to Russia — a stunning confirmation of the Washington Post story and a move that seemed to contradict his own White House team after it scrambled to deny the report.

Trump's tweets tried to explain away the news, which emerged late Monday, that he had shared sensitive, “code-word” information with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during the White House meeting last week.

Trump described his talks with the Russians as “an openly scheduled” meeting at the White House. In fact, the gathering was closed to all U.S. media, although a photographer for the Russian state-owned news agency was allowed into the Oval Office, prompting national security concerns.

The Atlantic, 16 May 2017:

Would the president have so abjectly tried to impress representatives of any other country? He blabbed because he bragged, and he bragged because he values Russia’s and Putin’s goodwill so bizarrely much. As the economist Justin Wolfers noted, if officials had not revealed the truth to the media, the Russians would now genuinely have damaging kompromat on Trump: the secret of a dereliction of duty that would have gotten anybody else in government fired, if not indicted.

On 18 May 2017 the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has set a 9.30am 24 May 2017 hearing date to investigate if President Trump interfered in an FBI probe into the his election campaign's ties to Russia.

Even in the face of Trump’s intelligence disclosures to the Russians Turnbull declares his trust in the current U.S. Government.

As a member of the top-secret Five Eyes global surveillance and intelligence sharing group Australia is potentially affected by Trump’s loose lips and, it is becoming increasingly possible that a prime minister who trusts Trump is an additional risk to his own country's national security.

Australian Government agencies still closing the cyber door after hackers have had their way

Except from Australian Cyber Security Centre Threat Report 2016:

Australia treats cyber attacks as extremely serious and provocative events.

Fortunately, Australia still has not been subjected to malicious cyber activity that could constitute a cyber attack as defined on the previous page.

Contrary to speculation, this is not simply a matter of failed detection; the effects of a cyber attack could not possibly have gone unnoticed.

However, the threat of a cyber attack being conducted against Australian government, infrastructure, industry or other networks has grown following a series of high-profile disruptive or destructive incidents in other countries over the last five years.

The ACSC has previously assessed that cyber attacks against Australia would most likely occur against high value targets such as critical infrastructure, government networks or military capabilities during periods of very high tension or an escalation to conflict.

Although this remains broadly accurate, the nature and targets of recent incidents overseas – combined with a growing understanding of adversaries’ capabilities and intentions – highlight the breadth of potential targets and different ways cyber capabilities can be employed by adversaries seeking to achieve damaging or destructive effects outside conflict……

Australian government networks are regularly targeted by the full breadth of cyber adversaries. While foreign states represent the greatest level of threat, cybercriminals pose a threat to government-held information and provision of services through both targeted and inadvertent compromises of government networks with ransomware.

Hacktivists will continue to use low sophistication cyber capabilities – website defacement, the hack and release of personal or embarrassing information, DDoS activities and the hijacking of social media accounts – to generate attention and support for their cause.

As such, issue motivated groups pose only a limited threat to government networks, with possible effects including availability issues and embarrassment.

However, some hacktivists intend to cause more serious disruption and may be able to exploit poor security to have a greater impact.

As the Prime Minister acknowledged during the launch of Australia’s Cyber Security Strategy on 21 April, the ACSC has worked with government organisations to Between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2016, ASD, as part of the ACSC, responded to 1095 cyber security incidents on government systems which were considered serious enough to warrant operational responses.

As cyber security awareness has increased, and government organisations have improved their ability to respond to their own lower level cyber security incidents, the number of incidents requiring an operational response has decreased. We can expect to see this trend continue.

The security of government networks and information is not only measured by how many cyber security incidents occur – it is about the type of incidents, their scale and the impact they have on national security and economic prosperity. Australian government organisations are required to report cyber security incidents to improve the ACSC’s understanding of the threat and to assist other organisations facing these threats………

Bureau of Meteorology In 2015, ASD detected suspicious activity from two computers on the Bureau of Meteorology’s network.

On investigation, ASD identified the presence of particular Remote Access Tool (RAT) malware popular with state-sponsored cyber adversaries, amongst other malware associated with cybercrime.

The RAT had also been used to compromise other Australian government networks.

ASD identified evidence of the adversary searching for and copying an unknown quantity of documents from the Bureau’s network.

This information is likely to have been stolen by the adversary.

ASD recovered a password dumping utility used by the adversary and identified the malicious use of at least one legitimate domain administrator account.

ASD identified at least six further hosts on the Bureau’s network that the adversary attempted to access, including domain controllers and file servers.

The presence of password dumping utilities and complete access by the adversary to domain controllers suggested all passwords on the Bureau’s network were already compromised at the time of the investigation.

ASD also identified evidence suggesting the use of network scanning and time stamp modification tools, used to analyse the network architecture and assist with hiding the adversary’s tools on hosts. In this instance, the ACSC attributed the primary compromise to a foreign intelligence service, however, security controls in place were insufficient to protect the network from more common threats associated with cybercrime.

CryptoLocker ransomware found on the network represented the most significant threat to the Bureau’s data retention and continuity of operations. The implementation of security controls outlined in ASD’s Strategies to Mitigate Targeted Cyber Intrusions publication will significantly improve the security posture of the Bureau’s corporate network. The ACSC continues to work with the Bureau of Meteorology to implement a number of further, specific recommendations to mitigate future compromise.

ABC News, 12 October 2016:

The ABC has previously been told China was behind the breach, but the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security, Dan Tehan, would not be drawn on which foreign state was believed to be responsible.

"We don't narrow it down to specific countries, and we do that deliberately, but what we have indicated is that cyber espionage is alive and well and that's why we want to be transparent in this report about the incident," Mr Tehan said.

In December, the ABC was told it would cost millions of dollars to plug the security breach.

The ACSC said between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016, ASD responded to 1,095 cyber security incidents on government systems which were considered "serious enough to warrant operational responses".

Christian terrorist outed online

Honi Soit mocking the Abbott Government’s scare campaign and expansion of Australia’s national security laws:

Local terrorist Rob Wilson is counting his lucky stars this week, after the Federal government once again pledged to focus a majority of its counter terrorism efforts on innocent Muslims and people fleeing Iraq, to the relief of Christian terrorists country over. The father of three and part time extremist says he is actually quite glad a majority of his work goes overlooked as a Christian extremist, as he prefers to let his work speak for itself, and he’s not in it for fame or glory.

Rob says he has been a hobbyist terrorist for some years now, tinkering away in his back shed with various detonators, when not scouring his Bible for new sins, and is always on the look out for more industrial grade manure to ad to his rapidly growing collection. While Rob says his interest is only a weekend job at the current time, he hopes that someday it might become his death.

Despite the government’s support, it’s not all smooth sailing for Rob, with the occasional run in with the authorities inevitable in his line of work. “For a while I was getting really worried that the police had cottoned on to my plans and might shut things down,” says Rob, “there was always this van with tinted windows parked out the front, but in the end it turned out they were just after my Sikh neighbors. Apparently they’d had a whole kitchen drawer full of knives of something, so they were all taken in for questioning under anti-terror laws and nobody’s heard from them since.”…….

It is time to be afraid, very afraid, in Abbott's Australia

There are realistic and credible circumstances in which it may be necessary to conduct coercive questioning of a person for the purposes of gathering intelligence about a terrorism offence….

The existence of other, less intrusive methods of obtaining the intelligence will continue to be a relevant but non-determinative consideration in decisions made under subsection 34D(4).

[Australian Security & Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), October 2014, submission to to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Inquiry into the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014]

ASIO detention powers should be repealed not extended. Detaining non-suspects for up to seven days, virtually incommunicado and without effective review at the time, removing the right to silence on penalty of imprisonment, and criminalizing any disclosure of detention, is excessive and disproportionate in view of existing powers, the level of terrorist threat, and the absence of any declared public emergency justifying derogation from protected human rights. The regime violates the freedom from arbitrary or unlawful detention under Article 9(1) of the ICCPR and the right to effective judicial review of detention under Article 9(4) of the ICCPR.

[Ben Saul, Professor of International Law (Syd Uni), 1 October 2014, submission to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Inquiry into the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014]

If you reveal it, you’re guilty. If it goes to court the question is whether a journalist revealed information, not whether they’re justified in revealing that information. 
[Professor George Williams, Director of Public Law, University of NSW, Statement to Media Watch re National Security Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014, 1st October, 2014]

Australia now stood alone as the only country in the world with the types of control order and preventative detention order the government wanted to keep, after Britain substantially amended its regime.

[Professor George Williams, The Guardian, 3 October 2014]

But the key provision is section 35P, which bans disclosure of any information that relates to a SPECIAL Intelligence Operation.
This ban applies to any person.
So journalists, whistleblowers, bloggers and even tweeters could all end up behind bars. 

[Paul Barry, ABC Media Watch, 6 October 2014, re National Security Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014]

[North Coast Voices, preview of An Untold Story insert which will be displayed every time this blog judges that Abbott Government laws make it unsafe to mention or debate an issue of importance]