NSW Auditor-General not impressed by government agencies cyber security risk management

“Specific financial reporting, controls and service delivery comments are included in the individual 2017 cluster financial audit reports tabled in Parliament from October to December 2017.” [NSW Auditor-General, Report on Internal Controls and Governance 2017, December 2017]

On 20 December 2017 the NSW Auditor-General released the Report on Internal Controls and Governance 2017.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 28 December 2017:

Two-thirds of NSW government agencies are failing to properly safeguard their data, increasing the risk of improper access to confidential information about members of the public and identity fraud by cyber criminals.

The finding has emerged from an audit of dozens of government agencies, including those holding highly sensitive personal information collected from millions of citizens, such as NSW Health, the department of education, NSW Police Force, Roads and Maritime Services and the justice department.

While the report by auditor-general Margaret Crawford does not name the agencies failing to properly manage privileged access to their systems, it highlights the potential consequences.

"Personal information collected by public sector agencies about members of the public is of high value to cyber criminals, as it can be used to create false identities to commit other crimes," she says in the report.

"Despite these risks, we found that one agency had 37 privileged user accounts, including 33 that were dormant. The agency had no formal process to create, modify or deactivate privileged users."

Overall, Ms Crawford's report found 68 per cent of NSW government agencies "do not adequately manage privileged access to their systems".

In addition, she said, the audit determined that 61 per cent of agencies "do not regularly monitor the account activity of privileged users".

"This places those agencies at greater risk of not detecting compromised systems, data breaches and misuse," the report said.

The audit found 31 per cent of agencies "do not limit or restrict privileged access to appropriate personnel". Of those, just one-third monitor the account activity of privileged users.

It found that almost one-third of agencies breach their own security policies on user access.

The report warns that if agencies fail to implement proper controls "they may also breach NSW laws and policies and the international standards that they reference".

Read the full article here.

List of NSW Government Agencies Examined by NSW Auditor-General

Education

Department of Education

Family and Community Services

Department of Family and Community Services

New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation

Finance, Services and Innovation

Department of Finance, Services and Innovation * Specifically identified in report

Place Management NSW

Property NSW

Service NSW

Health

NSW Health

Industry

Department of Industry

Destination NSW

Forestry Corporation of New South Wales

Office of Sport

TAFE Commission

Water NSW

Justice

Department of Justice

Fire and Rescue NSW

Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

NSW Police Force

Office of the NSW Rural Fire Service

Planning and Environment

Department of Planning and Environment

Essential Energy

Hunter Water Corporation

Landcom

Office of Environment and Heritage

Office of Local Government

Sydney Water Corporation

Premier and Cabinet

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Transport

NSW Trains

Rail Corporation New South Wales

Roads and Maritime Services

Sydney Trains

Transport for NSW

WCX M4 PTY Limited

WCX M5 PTY Limited

Treasury

Crown Finance Entity

Insurance and Care NSW

Lifetime Care and Support Authority

NSW Treasury Corporation

NSW Self Insurance Corporation

Excerpt from Report on Internal Controls and Governance 2017:

Some deficiencies were common across agencies

The most common internal control deficiencies were poor or absent IT controls related to:

user access management

password management

privileged access management

user acceptance testing.

The most common governance deficiencies related to:

management of cyber security risks

capital project governance

management of shared service arrangements

conflicts-of-interest management

gifts-and-benefits management

risk management maturity

ethical behaviour policies and statements.

President Trump still doesn't have outright victory for his policy of banning Muslim entry to USA and the legal fight opposing these bans enters its second year

The legal fight against President Donald J. Trump’s Muslim travel bans ended 2017 with another victory for the State of Hawaii et al and the fight now enters its second year on 3 February 2018.

United States Courts of Appeals – Ninth Circuit, STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL ELSHIKH; JOHN DOES, 1 & 2; MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 22 December 2017:

For the third time, we are called upon to assess the legality of the President’s efforts to bar over 150 million nationals of six designated countries1 from entering the United States or being issued immigrant visas that they would ordinarily be qualified to receive. To do so, we must consider the statutory and constitutional limits of the President’s power to curtail entry of foreign nationals in this appeal of the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining portions of § 2 of Proclamation 9645 entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats” (the “Proclamation”).

The Proclamation, like its predecessor executive orders, relies on the premise that the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., vests the President with broad powers to regulate the entry of aliens. Those powers, however, are not without limit. We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority. The Government’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) not only upends the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has enacted through the INA, but it deviates from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well.

Further, the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The Proclamation once again conflicts with the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. Lastly, the President is without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation.

On these statutory bases, we affirm the district court’s order enjoining enforcement of the Proclamation’s §§ 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h). We limit the scope of the preliminary injunction, however, to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States…..

For all of these reasons, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s preliminary injunction order. We narrow the scope of the injunction to give relief only to those with a credible bona fide relationship with the United States, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088. In light of the Supreme Court’s order staying this injunction pending “disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought,” we stay our decision today pending Supreme Court review. Trump v. Hawai‘i, No. 17A550, — S. Ct. —, 2017 WL 5987406 (Dec. 4, 2017). Because we conclude that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their statutory claims, we need not reach their constitutional claims.

Video of closing argument on behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellees:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4701602/hawaiivtrump3closing

The matter is ongoing in 2018.

Background can be found at University of Michigan Law School, Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House.

How US President Donald J Trump made one particular book an immediate best-seller

On 3 January 2018 excerpts from a soon to be published book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” were published in The Guardian newspaper.

The following day brought news of a letter to former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon…..

ABC News, 4 January 2018:

Trump attorney Charles J. Harder of the firm Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP, said in a statement, "This law firm represents President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent."

In the letter to Bannon, Harder, writes, "You [Bannon] have breached the Agreement by, among other things, communicating with author Michael Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and the Company, disclosing Confidential Information to Mr. Wolff, and making disparaging statements and in some cases outright defamatory statements to Mr. Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and the Company, knowing that they would be included in Mr. Wolff’s book and publicity surrounding the marketing and sale of his book."

Along with a letter to Macmillan Publishers (Henry Holt & Company INC) and author Michael Wolff…..

CBS News, 4 January 2018:

President Trump's personal lawyer has issued a cease and desist letter to author Michael Wolff and Wolff's publisher over the release of explosive excerpts of "Fire and Fury: Inside Trump's White House." The letter demands that Wolff and the publisher halt all publication and apologize to the president for "defaming" him.

The letter from lawyer Charles Harder, dated Thursday, comes after excerpts of Wolff's book have cast the president and much of his White House in an unflattering light, portraying the commander-in-chief as someone who does not understand constitutional amendments, and is sometimes not taken seriously by key advisers. The letter accuses Wolff and Henry Holt and Company of publishing false statements about the president. 

"Your publication of the false/baseless statements about Mr. Trump gives rise to, among other claims, defamation by libel, defamation by libel, defamation by libel per se, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contractural relations, and inducement of breach contract," the letter says. 

Mr. Trump, according to the letter, demands that publication of the book immediately cease, along with the publication of any excerpts or summaries. The letter also insists that a "full and complete retraction" be issued, along with an apology to Mr. Trump. 

The letter also demands a full electronic copy of the book "in searchable form" be given to Mr. Trump's lawyers.

Full text of letter here.

What happened after is that in the following order:

1. the book was published on 5 January 2018 ahead of the previously announced date and bookstores quickly sold out of hard copies on hand;

2. @RealDonaldTrump's thumbs began to work overtime as he began to tweet his displeasure commencing 6 January;

3. Steve Bannon blinked on 8 January and issued an ‘apology’; 

4. Also on 8 January lawyers for Macmillian Publishers formally replied to the 'cease and desist' letter; and

5. Macmillan Publishers (founded circa 1843) issued this pushback statement on 9 January

Macmillan Publishers’ CEO John Sargent, Twitter, 9 January 2018

The ball is now back with Donald Trump.

Will he be stupid enough to proceed to litigation?

A florid symptom of global economic and social inequality

The wealthiest 1 per cent of the world’s population owned 50.1 per cent of all global household wealth in 2017 – that is they collectively held an est. US$140.28 trillion [Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2017].

The world’s richest 500 people had a collective personal worth in excess of US$5.3 trillion at the end of that year – 3.77 percent of the wealth held by the top 1 per cent.

Bloomberg Billionaires Index as of Dec. 28, 2017:

The Bloomberg Billionaires Index is a daily ranking of the world’s richest people. Details about the calculations are provided in the net worth analysis on each billionaire’s profile page. The figures are updated at the close of every trading day in New York.

Billionaires ranked 14 to 500 with personal wealth ranging from $46.8B to $4.9B can be viewed here.

Australians on 2017 Top 500 Billionaires Index

#85 Gina Rinehart est. current worth $14.9B

#213 Harry Triguboff est. current worth $7.52B

#256 Ivan Glasenberg est. current worth $6.42B

#316 Anthony Pratt est. current worth $5.75B

#346 Frank Lowy est. current worth $5.44B

#480 James Packer est. current worth $4.22B

Ever wondered why you feel much hotter or colder than the temperature gauge indicates?

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Thermal Comfort observations, January 2018:

We often use the air temperature as an indicator of how comfortable we will feel when involved in sports or other physical activities. However, the air temperature is only one factor in the assessment of thermal stress. In climates where other important factors, principally humidity, can vary widely from day to day, we need more than just the temperature for a more realistic assessment of comfort. However it is useful to be able to condense all the extra effects into a single number and use it in a similar way to the way we used the temperature. The Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and the Apparent Temperature are indices which attempt to do this….

Human thermal comfort depends on environmental and personal factors. The four environmental factors are airflow (wind), air temperature, air humidity, and radiation from the sun and nearby hot surfaces. The personal factors are the clothing being worn and the person's level of physical activity. Thermal sensation is also significantly affected by acclimatisation/adaptation: people living in hot climates have been shown to be comfortable at higher temperatures than those living in cooler climates.

In hotter conditions the body must shed heat to maintain thermal equilibrium. The cooling effect of evaporation of sweat from the skin becomes an important factor. The efficiency of this cooling depends on the humidity of the air. A high humidity reduces the effectiveness of evaporative cooling significantly. The amount of clothing will also affect this cooling efficiency due to its restriction of the air flow over the skin. Fabrics with low vapour permeability (those that don't "breathe") will increase the humidity of air near the skin.

In colder conditions, the body must either reduce heat loss (eg by taking shelter from the wind) or increase heat production, for example, by greater physical activity. In these conditions evaporation and air humidity are relatively unimportant factors. The cooling of the exposed parts of the body by the wind now becomes the most important external factor affecting thermal balance.

The effect of radiation is important under all temperature conditions. Excess radiation always acts to increase the heat load on a person. This can be of assistance under cold conditions, but under hot conditions it's an extra heat load that must be shed.

Of the four environmental factors, wind and radiation are very much influenced by the immediate surroundings. For example, wind speed is reduced by the sheltering effect of belts of trees and solar radiation is affected by short term localised phenomena such as cloudiness. If these factors are to be used as inputs, they are best measured on location, as values can vary significantly over relatively short distances. The remaining two factors (temperature and humidity) are less spatially variable and can be used to give an indication of the general comfort level of a region.

In order to make comparisons between areas, it is convenient to combine the effect of temperature and humidity into one index. This does not mean we can ignore the other environmental and non-environmental factors, but adjustments to the index value, either up or down, can be made to take them into account.

Most people use the temperature alone to provide some guide to the level of comfort. Generally this is quite reasonable because humidity doesn't often vary a lot, particularly in the tropics. However people moving from a less humid to more humid environment will immediately notice the effect of the greater humidity. In many sub-tropical regions of Australia the humidity is usually quite low, but occasionally can become quite high, again reducing comfort to those people not acclimatised.

The Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and Apparent Temperature (AT) are just two methods of combining temperature and humidity into a single number. In fact the real WBGT is also affected by wind and radiation, but the WBGT provided by the Bureau is only an approximation, which ignores variations of wind and radiation (light winds and fairly sunny conditions assumed). The AT can also be extended to take wind and solar radiation into account as well, though generally this is not done. In the AT values provided by the Bureau, wind is taken into account, but not solar radiation. Other indices such as the Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET) and the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) can also be used.

An example of how this works on the ground:

To check thermal stress in your area on any given day go to Thermal Comfort observations index for each State or go directly to Thermal Comfort observations in each State NSW & ACT, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, NT.

January 2018: are environmental vandals in the Liberal & National parties trying to force gasfield expansions down the throats of reluctant communities?

To be eligible your project must bring new gas flow to domestic gas consumers in target markets by 30 June 2020 and can include:

*deployment of new technologies or techniques to lift existing and new well productivity

*the opening of new gas pilot and/or production or exploration wells that are either in proximity to existing gas infrastructure or can demonstrate a path to market

*better utilisation of existing or the establishment of new gas processing, storage and transport facilities

*design, construction and engineering activities directly related to bringing forward new gas supply.

[Gas Acceleration Program, Eligibility Criteria]

Liberal Senator for Queensland and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan, media release, 20 December 2017:

Gas Acceleration Program Grant Guidelines Released

The Australian Government’s $26 million Gas Acceleration Program (GAP) will open to applications early in the new year, to further strengthen the East Coast gas market.

Guidelines for the GAP were released today, ahead of grant applications opening in January 2018.

The GAP is a significant component of the Australian Government’s $90 million investment in gas security, reliability and affordability for the Australian people.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan said the program aimed to deliver new gas supply to domestic users in markets affected by tight supply by fast-tracking new project developments.

“The GAP will offer up to $6 million to gas projects that have substantiated prospects of bringing significant new gas volumes to market by mid-2020,” Minister Canavan said.

“This funding can be used to develop new technologies or techniques to boost well productivity, for new production or exploration near existing infrastructure.  It can also be used to build new gas processing, storage and transport facilities, or for other activities that will bring forward new gas supply.

“This program is implementing our long-term goal to increase the domestic gas supply, boost competition, and improve transparency and efficiency of the gas market supply chain.

“Australian consumers need to be assured that we can access our plentiful gas resources in a responsible way. Bringing more gas to market will reduce upward pressure on gas prices and help to create Australian jobs and support investment in regional Australia.”

Applications to the GAP will be open between 15 January and 13 February 2018.

For more information, visit www.business.gov.au/gap

Media contact: Minister Canavan's office 02 6277 7180

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan quoted in The Land, 21 December 2017:

“This funding can be used to develop new technologies or techniques to boost well productivity, for new production or exploration near existing infrastructure. It can also be used to build new gas processing, storage and transport facilities, or for other activities that will bring forward new gas supply.”

So where does Australia stand on climate change at the start of 2018?

On 21 December 2017 IPSOS Social Research Institute released its 2017 Climate Change Report which provides the findings the company’s annual climate change research.

It would appear that the Australian general public is not walking away from a belief that climate change is real, that it is affecting our lives and action on the part of government is required.

IPSOS, Climate Change Report 2017, excerpts:

Priorities of environmental action

Once again, renewable energy is the top environmental issue Australians would act on if they were in charge of decision-making. More than half (56%) identify renewable energy as an issue they would choose to address. The majority of Australians have identified renewable energy as an issue for action every year since surveying began in 2007.

Compared with 2016, there has been no movement in the top 6 issues of importance. Water and river Heath (49%) came in at number two. This is its highest rating for action since 2012 (when it was 52).

In third place in 2017 is illegal waste dumping (46%), followed by deforestation (45%), sustainability and climate change (both 43%).

In 2016 we noted that climate change had hit its highest rating since 2008 (when 47% believed it to be a top priority for action), and it retains that sixth place with more than two in five Australians once again identifying it as an issue for action.

Australians in regional areas are more likely to identify renewable energy as an issue for action compared with their counterparts in capital cities (62% ‘rest of Australia’ vs. 53% capital city residents). The same pattern is observed for water and river health (58% vs. 44%) and deforestation (51% vs. 42%).

The role of human activity in climate change

The past few years have seen a growing consensus in the political sphere that climate change is caused by human-driven processes. In the face of this change, Australians’ views of the causes of climate change have moved little in the past decade. This stasis has continued in 2017.

Only 3% of Australians think there is no such thing as climate change. Around one-in-ten (12%) believe climate change is caused entirely or mostly by natural processes. Two-in-five (42%) believe that human activity is mainly or entirely responsible for climate change and 38% believe that climate change is caused partly by humans and partly by natural processes.

Half of Australians aged under 50 years of age believe that climate change is mostly or entirely caused by human activity (50%) compared with one-third of those aged 50 and above (31%).

Voting intention, like age, is linked to public opinion on the role of human activity in climate change. Liberal voters and One Nation voters are less likely to think that climate change was mostly or entirely caused by human activity (34% and 25% respectively). Whereas, Labor voters and Greens voters are more likely to identify human activity as mostly or entirely causing climate change (50% and 69% respectively). There are no differences by geography, but those with a university degree are also more likely to say human activities are entirely or mainly responsible (51%).....

Climate change is a pressing issue with serious consequences

Most Australians think that climate change is already underway (62% either strongly or somewhat agree). More than half (54%) agree that it poses a serious threat to our way of life over the next 25 years. This increases to 64% agreement when considering the next 100 years…….

Who’s responsible for action on climate change, and who’s doing a good job?

….In 2017, Australians consider the international community to be performing best of the parties tested. More than one in five (22%) feel that the performance of the international community is very or fairly good (compared with 19% in 2016).

This means the international community overtakes State Governments in relation to perceived performance on climate change. In 2016, 20% said State Governments. This year, State Governments and the Federal Government sit in second place and 18% rated both these levels of government as very or fairly good. As in 2016, business and industry was considered the lowest performer (15% rated their performance as good).

Although business and industry is regarded as being the poorest performer of the groups tested, combined with such a low expectation of leading action on climate change, arguably this poor perception of performance is not as relevant as it is for the Federal Government (which carries the greatest weight of responsibility).

Liberal voters are far more complimentary about the current Federal Government’s performance on action on climate change (31% gave a good rating compared with 16% of Labor voters and 10% of Greens voters).

Who should be mainly responsible for action on climate change?

Participants were asked to rate the performance of the Federal Government, the international community, State Governments and business. It is apparent that Australians do not believe that any of these parties are performing particularly well on climate action.