May 25, 2023
DANICA DIGIORGIO: Well, Federal Cabinet is seeking advice from the Home Affairs Department on the security risks of Instagram, Netflix, Twitter and dating apps in the wake of a TikTok ban on government-issued devices. Joining me now live is Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister James Paterson. Thank you so much for joining us. Where do you sit on this? Should other social media apps other than TikTok, of course, be banned?
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Danica. Well, it certainly was a good decision in April, finally, when the government decided to ban TikTok from government-issued work devices. It never should have been there in the first place. It was a long time coming but they eventually followed our allies in doing so. I've got to say, I'm surprised that you can download a dating app on a government-issued work device, even if they weren't cybersecurity or national security risks involved in that. It doesn't seem like an appropriate use of a taxpayer-funded piece of equipment. But actually, there are real security risks involved. The director general of ASIO, Mike Burgess, said in his annual threat assessment in 2022 that foreign intelligence services are attempting to target clearance holders on dating apps to recruit them and cultivate them and ultimately compromise them. So, they should not be on these devices if they are on these devices. And I hope they get them off very soon.
DIGIORGIO: Yes. You'd hope that dating apps are not being used on government phones, but anything is possible. Let's move on now. Border Force has stopped using drones from a Chinese manufacturer. This is an interesting one. It's something that you've been calling for. What were your key concerns here?
PATERSON: Look, I also welcome this decision by Border Force. It follows the decision by the Australian Defence Force to also ground their DJI drone fleet. And it comes after I submitted dozens of questions on notice to every government department and agency asking them whether they used these products. The reason why I asked is that in October last year, the Pentagon blacklisted DJI drones for two reasons. One, DJI drones has been assessed to be involved in the human rights abuses of Uyghur people in Xinjiang in China. And two, the Pentagon believes that DJI drones is secretly controlled by the People's Liberation Army. So, if they're not safe to use in the US military, then I don't think they should be in the Australian Defence Force or the Australian Border Force. So, it's a good thing that they have now grounded this fleet and they're not using them. And I'm calling on every other government, department and agency to do so as well. The concerning thing though, here, Danica, is that this is again another example of the government being reactive and responding after they've been prompted by questions on notice. It happened with TikTok. It happened with the Chinese CCTV cameras Hikvision and Dahua that I found across the Commonwealth public service. And it's happening again. They have to be much more proactive about this. It is not good enough to rely on Opposition Senators to put questions on notice to prompt them to take action to protect our cyber security. They have to be much more forward leaning.
DIGIORGIO: But these drones have been used by successive governments. The ABF has purchased 41 DJI drones since 2017, so this is an ongoing issue for successive governments?
PATERSON: It certainly is, Danica. And you could argue at least up until, say, October last year, that there was an excuse for doing so. But after October last year, there really was no excuse because our closest military and strategic ally assessed that there was nothing that they could do to make these drones safe to be operated by the US military. Now if the US military, with all its powers and resources, can’t safely operate these drones, I'm really deeply sceptical that the Australian military or the ABF or anyone else can safely operate them either. It is puzzling that they didn't act after our allies did in October. It was publicly disclosed in October that they had sanctioned and blacklisted DJI, but it took until earlier this year when I started submitting questions on orders before any action took place. This again, just shows a reactive approach from this government. We need them to be on the front foot, anticipating these threats, assessing them and dealing with them before someone like me thinks that it might be a problem and starts asking questions.
DIGIORGIO: Just finally, we are running out of time. But just quickly, the US has issued a warning about a Chinese state sponsored cyber actor who's apparently living off the land using network tools to try and evade detection. Is there a threat to Australia?
PATERSON: Yes, unquestionably. If this activity is occurring in the United States, then it's almost certainly occurring in Australia. And Australian intelligence agencies, particularly the Australian Cyber Security Centre, has joined with our Five Eyes partners to publicly attribute this malign behaviour to the Chinese government. It is very troubling. It's targeting critical infrastructure. There is no good or innocent reason why you'd be targeting civilian infrastructure and there needs to start to be consequences for governments that engage in this. Public attribution is a good first step, but we have other tools in the toolkit available, including Magnitsky cyber sanctions that could be used to penalise people who engage in this behaviour and the government should do so.
DIGIORGIO: Alright, James Paterson, we've run out of time. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
ENDS
