GSM Encryption
amzoti
The article is the typical mumbo-jumbo one would expect - but
interesting nonetheless.
Can this guy get in trouble in Europe for this - like jail and huge
fines?
Peter Fairbrother
[>
Claire Cranton, a spokeswoman for the London-based group, said that
"this activity is highly illegal in the UK and would be a serious RIPA
offense as it probably is in most countries."
>]
Using it in anger *would* be an offense under RIPA, which covers
interception in the UK, and would be an offense in most other countries
(duh), but developing it?
If done correctly, ie not intercepting calls without the permission of
sender and intended recipient, and not transmitting outside the lab,
developing the crack wouldn't be an offense under RIPA or the Wireless
Telegraphy Act, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be an offense under any
other UK statutes.
Karsten planned a demo for today, but I think that the demo he planned
would be an offense under UK and German law, as he invited people to
submit calls tweaked from the ether - however if he set up some calls
and then broke them, it probably would be legal (though there are some
technical difficulties about time slot allocation in the TDMA scheme GSM
uses which might make it a little tricky, but most likely not impossible
to do legally).
I don't know whether the demo went ahead, he was consulting lawyers last
I heard.
BTW, it's a crack of A5/1, the encryption used in GSM and some G3 phones
(sort-of) using a rainbow table, and he has identified some more
protocol-related plaintext in the signals which should make it easier,
though I don't have full details.
-- Peter Fairbrother
unruh
> amzoti wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_hi_te/eu_germany_phone_code
>>
>> The article is the typical mumbo-jumbo one would expect - but
>> interesting nonetheless.
>>
>> Can this guy get in trouble in Europe for this - like jail and huge
>> fines?
>
> [>
> Claire Cranton, a spokeswoman for the London-based group, said that
> "this activity is highly illegal in the UK and would be a serious RIPA
> offense as it probably is in most countries."
> >]
Ah, yes, the UK, the country who have made a national obsession through
security by obscurity. The country where a person was thrown in jail for
fraud simply for claiming that someone had taken money out of his bank
account. The country that passed a law making it compulsory to a) hand
over your private encryption keys, and b) made it illegal to tell anyone
that you had done so.
Mok-Kong Shen
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_hi_te/eu_germany_phone_code
From a link there to a web page of a firm Cellcrypt one reads the
following which I suppose is interesting, as it shows that all such
relatively high performance computing work can nowadays be done on
such a tiny device as a mobile phone:
Cellcrypt's cryptography includes industry-standard high-strength
algorithms including 2048-bit RSA for authentication, Elliptic
Curve Diffie-Hellman and RSA protocols for key exchange, and 256-bit
AES for voice encryption. For added security, the data is encrypted
twice using 256-bit RC4 and AES.
M. K. Shen
Mok-Kong Shen
> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> [>
>> Claire Cranton, a spokeswoman for the London-based group, said that
>> "this activity is highly illegal in the UK and would be a serious RIPA
>> offense as it probably is in most countries."
>>> ]
>
> Ah, yes, the UK, the country who have made a national obsession through
> security by obscurity. The country where a person was thrown in jail for
> fraud simply for claiming that someone had taken money out of his bank
> account. The country that passed a law making it compulsory to a) hand
> over your private encryption keys, and b) made it illegal to tell anyone
> that you had done so.
I don't know but I should be surprised if there weren't countries worse
than UK in that matter (practically at least).
M. K. Shen
Mok-Kong Shen
> amzoti wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_hi_te/eu_germany_phone_code
>
> From a link there to a web page of a firm Cellcrypt one reads the
> following which I suppose is interesting, as it shows that all such
> relatively high performance computing work can nowadays be done on
> such a tiny device as a mobile phone:
It is clear that one should in the case of mobile phones, as in the
case of PC, carefully take security measures aginst manipulations,
virus, trojans, electromagnetic emanations etc. etc.
M. K. Shen
Ohm
>> security by obscurity. The country where a person was thrown in jail for
>> fraud simply for claiming that someone had taken money out of his bank
>> account. The country that passed a law making it compulsory to a) hand
>> over your private encryption keys, and b) made it illegal to tell anyone
>> that you had done so.
>
> I don't know but I should be surprised if there weren't countries worse
> than UK in that matter (practically at least).
>
> M. K. Shen
Sure there are countries much worse than the UK, all of them happen to be
ruled
by a dictatorship, which is where the UK is heading to.
The UK just jailed their first person for refusing to reveal his
encryption keys,
this person was not a terrorist or a paedophile, but a mentally ill man
with
fear from police.
UK Man Jailed For Refusing To Decrypt His Files:
Peter Fairbrother
Apparently there have been two people convicted, but we don't know who
the other one was.
I don't know how long the law will last, it has been in force for a
couple of years now (the Act was passed in 2000, but it didn't come into
force for several years), but it may be repealed soonish - the next
government (in May) might repeal it, though that's not at all certain,
or it may go to the EU, where it will likely be struck down eventually -
though that's a slow, painful and expensive process.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Mok-Kong Shen
> Sure there are countries much worse than the UK, all of them happen to
> be ruled
> by a dictatorship, which is where the UK is heading to.
Let's consider a hypothetical scenario: Suppose that the popular
computer operating systems (including those for mobile phones) are all
such that the default mode of data handling and communication is under
strong encryption (the overhead should be tolerable with the current
processor speeds). There would be a sea of encryption keys such that the
officials would be totally oblivious of where to fish those keys that
might be of some interest to them. But understandably there would be
(presumably even has long been) strong pressures on the OS
manufacturers from the side of the officials to prevent such a
(horrible for them) state of affairs from ever happening.
M. K. Shen
unruh
> Ohm <O...@no.no> wrote:
>
>> Sure there are countries much worse than the UK, all of them happen to
>> be ruled by a dictatorship, which is where the UK is heading to.
>
> that the Queen rarely ever uses her powers.
??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly
disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process.
The monarch is not a dictator.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Jens Stuckelberger
> Ohm <O...@no.no> wrote:
>
>> Sure there are countries much worse than the UK, all of them happen to
>> be ruled by a dictatorship, which is where the UK is heading to.
>
> Technically they already ARE - they're a monarchy, after all. It's just
> that the Queen rarely ever uses her powers.
Boy, you really know nothing much about the British monarchy in
particular, and parliamentary monarchy in general. Do you really think
that kings and queens in Europe have the right to start telling people
what to do, just as they did in centuries past? What are you, like 10
years old? It would do you good to read a few history books.
Frank Merlott
> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly
> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process.
> The monarch is not a dictator.
>>
That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the
taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers.
--
Privacylover: http://www.privacylover.com
Peter Fairbrother
>
>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly
>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process.
>> The monarch is not a dictator.
>>>
>
> That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the
> taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers.
She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?),
but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an
election, despite any earlier sillinesses.
The Police and Armed Forces still report, in theory at least, directly
to her.
She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve
Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last
happened in 1928 or so, iirc.
She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by
Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently.
As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament
there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975.
The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc.
So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
-- Peter Fairbrother
Peter Fairbrother
oh, BTW, she also has the power to refuse assent to any legislation -
and it isn't legal without her assent - kind of a non-lawmaking or
law-refusing power.
>
> -- Peter Fairbrother
unruh
> Frank Merlott wrote:
>>
>>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly
>>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process.
>>> The monarch is not a dictator.
>>>>
>>
>> That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the
>> taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers.
>
> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?),
> but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an
> election, despite any earlier sillinesses.
Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>
> The Police and Armed Forces still report, in theory at least, directly
> to her.o
Everything is the gov't is in her name. Good. It stops the politicians
especially the prime minister, from thinking they are god.
>
> She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve
> Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last
> happened in 1928 or so, iirc.
>
> She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by
> Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently.
>
>
>
> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament
> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975.
In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The Governor
General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her permission
to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the "representative" in
name only. Again, that name only is important as it stops the Governor
General from thinking they are god.
>
>
>
> The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc.
>
>
>
> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie
breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly say
it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but they are
an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial powers.
>
> -- Peter Fairbrother
rossum
<un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Everything is the gov't is in her name. Good. It stops the politicians
>especially the prime minister, from thinking they are god.
One of the Orders of Chivalry that the Queen doles out in the Honours
Lists is the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. These are
normally distributed to top Civil Servants, Ambassadors and such like.
In increasing order of importance they are:
CMG - "Call Me God."
KCMG - "Kindly Call Me God."
GCMG - "God Calls Me God."
rossum
Bernd Felsche
>On 2010-01-02, Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Frank Merlott wrote:
>>>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly
>>>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process.
>>>> The monarch is not a dictator.
>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?),
>> but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an
>> election, despite any earlier sillinesses.
>Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
>emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>> She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve
>> Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last
>> happened in 1928 or so, iirc.
>>
>> She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by
>> Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently.
>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament
>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975.
>In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The Governor
>General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her permission
>to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the "representative" in
>name only. Again, that name only is important as it stops the Governor
>General from thinking they are god.
Not entirely correct. HM may disallow assent to Federal legislation
for up to a year after the legislation is passed, even if the GG
agrees. The GG is chosen by a "political" process; by government and
recommended to HM.
Section 59 of the Constitution.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/general/Constitution/par5cha1.htm>
>> The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc.
>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
>In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie
>breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly say
>it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but they are
>an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial powers.
Not true for Australia. HM's powers are limited but powerful
reserves. Section 61:
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the
Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and
maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the
Commonwealth.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The most dangerous ignorance is the
X against HTML mail | ignorance of the educated class.
/ \ and postings | -- Thomas Sowell
unruh
Hm. You are right that-- this also applied to Canada (2 yrs rather than
1)
Fortunately or otherwise, any attempt by the queen to use these powers
would result in a constitutional crisis. The independence of the
Canadian Parliament from the Queen except in name was established in
about 1850 when the GG assented to bills without refering them to the
Queen.
>
>>> The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc.
>
>>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
>
>>In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie
>>breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly say
>>it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but they are
>>an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial powers.
>
> Not true for Australia. HM's powers are limited but powerful
> reserves. Section 61:
> The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the
> Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the
> Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and
> maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the
> Commonwealth.
"Is vested in the queen and is exercisable by the GG" It is the GG that
exercises the powers.
Again, any attempt by the queen to exercise the powers in defiance of
the GG would create such a mess, that those parts of the constitution
would not survive either in Australia or in Canada.
invalid
news:s94vj591kn39g99eb...@4ax.com...
MBE - "Much Bullshit of England!"
OBE - "Over-supplied Bullshit of England!"
CBE - "Complete Bullshit of England!"
KBE - "Knickers! Bullshit of England!"
Thomas Pornin
> BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held
> prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted?
Actually, the barons forced unto the King John on June 1216 the
"Magna Carta", a bounding law which specifically prohibits the
King from ordering such arbitrary detention. So it really is the
other way round.
--Thomas Pornin
unruh
> unruh <un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get
>>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and
>>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses.
>>
>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
>> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>
> powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)
She has no legislative powers (Ie, powers to make laws).
Is a constitution an insurmountable barrier to dictatorship? No. But the
British constition has been amazingly resiliant at resisting such. The
last time the UK had a dictator was under Cromwell, who killed the king.
(Mind you Charles I was killed because he tried to take on the former
dictatorial powers of the king to himself, and failed) Two dictatorships
in a row caused the UK to assume the current state, in which there was a
strict division of powers-- the king/queen was there solely to come to
the aid of the body politic only in times of extreme emergency and then
only with very limited powers. But in name the king/queen was the source
of power, so that the elected representatives did not take it in mind to
abrogate those powers to themselves. Names are important.
>
>>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament
>>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975.
>>
>> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The
>> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her
>> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the
>> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as
>> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god.
>
> But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the
> Governor say no?
What power? She can, if there is no leader in parialment, ask someone to
lead it. That only applies if there is no leader ( and was applied by
the GG in Australia, where one prime minister resigned, and the GG
appointed another one, rather than call an election). If there is a
leader in parliament, she, or the GG does not have the power to fire
them. She has the power to refuse to ratify laws that are passed.
She has no power to make any laws.
And the GG (Governor General) could refuse, and one would have a
constitutional crisis which would be resolved by abolishing the Queen as
head of state (there is a constant republican push for that anyway, and
her actions would probably tip the balance, unless the law really were
so abhorent, that most people would support her action).
>
>>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
>>
>> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie
>> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly
>> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but
>> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial
>> powers.
>
> But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until
> they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved.
>
> BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held
> prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted?
The queen is the fount of all power in the UK. But by the constitutional
convention, she acts on the advice of her ministers. Thus any such law
means that the prisoner is in jail for as long as the gov't wants.
Note that in the US, the president can pardon someone on a whim. See G
Ford with respect to Nixon.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
unruh
Note that I believe in the US, contempt of court laws allow for the
arbitrary detention of people for an arbitrary length of time.
>
>
> --Thomas Pornin
Bernd Felsche
>>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get
>>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and
>>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses.
>>
>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
>> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special
>powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)
The "emergency" is when parliaments become unworkable due to
political conflict.
>>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament
>>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975.
>> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The
>> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her
>> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the
>> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as
>> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god.
>But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the
>Governor say no?
Powers are limited by the Constitution. HM may not e.g. make laws.
>>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
>> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie
>> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly
>> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but
>> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial
>> powers.
>But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until
>they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved.
>BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held
>prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted?
There are "special laws" like that in every country.
The judiciary acts in the name of the crown, but that doesn't mean
that the monarch can simply require that a particular person be
locked up. There is a rule of law.
Richard Outerbridge
unruh <un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
Actually, this is strangely topical. For the 2nd year in a row the
Canadian Prime Minister, one Mr. Stephen Harper, the one with the Karma
Holmoka blue eyes, has asked our current Governor General to Prorogue
the Canadian Parliament. Apparently she had no choice but to accede
to his request. This is sort of like Obama telling the House to adjourn
until further notice.
outer
Andrew Swallow
> unruh <un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get
>>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and
>>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses.
>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
>> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>
> powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)
>
That is why Anglo-Saxons keep on about the separation of powers.
>>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament
>>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975.
>> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The
>> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her
>> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the
>> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as
>> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god.
>
> But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the
> Governor say no?
>
>>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ...
>> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie
>> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly
>> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but
>> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial
>> powers.
>
> But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until
> they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved.
>
> BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held
> prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted?
>
> Juergen Nieveler
You are thinking of the sentence given for murders - detained at Her
Majesty's pleasure. The person has to be convicted by a jury first
and sentenced by a judge. Lots of separation of power there.
Andrew Swallow
unruh
> Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
>>>> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>>
>>>Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special
>>>powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)
>>
>> The "emergency" is when parliaments become unworkable due to
>> political conflict.
>
> people. As such, it automatically is dictatorial.
???? These powers are there for the situations in which the
democratically elected representatives are unable to come to a decision.
You are broadening the meaning of dictatorial to encompass almost
everything and the word loses all meaning.
>
> Besides - who decides when it is legal to use the emergency powers?
In Canada ultimately the courts.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Maaartin
> > everything and the word loses all meaning.
>
> majority vote makes a decision that puts all those who WERE elected out
> of power.
The following is surely OT for this already OT discussion, but what do
you think about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y2VrhjWj9E&feature=player_embedded
Richard Outerbridge
unruh <un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> In Canada ultimately the courts.
Ah, well, of course, but just before he Prorogued Parliament Mr.
Harper's Government expressly _disobeyed_ the Courts, didn't it?
And when the Government of the day disobeys the Courts, where does
it answer to? Parliament - oh, wait, that's Prorogued. The common
electorate? Oh, they'll have forgotten by then, surely.
outer
Bernd Felsche
>Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a
>>>> political emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>>>Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special
>>>powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)
>> The "emergency" is when parliaments become unworkable due to
>> political conflict.
>Still, it bypasses the democratically elected representatives of the
>people. As such, it automatically is dictatorial.
>Besides - who decides when it is legal to use the emergency powers?
The Constitution determines when it may be done.
It's the rule of law.
See the link that I posted to Australia's Constitution.
The text is about 10% that of Germany's Grundgesetz (Gg).
I have read both. Even though I'm not a lawyer.
The latter seems to be significantly based upon the former, with
the latter adding stuff like a definition (some argue a limitation)
of rights; and the definiton of selection of President (as Head of
State) and a whole lot of powers that HM doesn't have in e.g.
Australia. If the President manages to "stack" the High Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht), then a premature dismissal becomes
impossible.
Germany's President may call an early election of the Bundestag
(Article 39(3)). This is an "emergency power" in Australia;
restricted constitutionally to particular circumstances. Article 68
of the Gg provides far more latitude and the President isn't limited
by just that article.
Peter Fairbrother
That's executive power, not legislative power - and the Queen's reserve
powers are quite different powers again.
"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal
Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of
Representatives" (section 1 of the constitution)
> Again, any attempt by the queen to exercise the powers in defiance of
> the GG would create such a mess, that those parts of the constitution
> would not survive either in Australia or in Canada.
I don't know much about Canada.
In Australia authority comes first and foremost from the reserve powers
of the Queen - secondly from the Constitution itself - and then come
powers granted by the Constitution to the Queen and the GG.
[The Constitution doesn't affect the Queen's reserve or other powers,
and explicitly admits their existence as overriding powers, without
being specific as to what they are - that's mostly up to the Queen to
decide (!), although there are limitations.]
The GG's powers as granted by the Constitution include any of the
Queen's reserve powers the Queen assigns to the GG, and these are
limited by the Constitution if the GG uses them - however they are *not*
limited by the Constitution if the Queen uses them herself.
For instance, under the constitution the GG doesn't normally have the
power to dissolve the Senate (s5, s57) - and the Queen can't give him
that power (s2) - but the Queen herself can dissolve the Senate at any
time she chooses, that's a reserve power.
Not that she really needs it.
Under the constitution (s2) the Queen has the power to dismiss the GG at
whim and appoint a new one if the GG doesn't do what she wants.
The Queen can even do away with the office of the GG completely, and
appoint someone to administer the Government, again at whim. Again,
that's in the Constitution (s4), and she doesn't need any reserve powers
to do it.
It's actually probably quite a good arrangement - if he/she does
something which the people don't like, they'll probably change the
rules, but until then - she doesn't do anything, unless it's needed, and
if she does a bad thing people probably won't let her do it again, so
she's probably not going to do a bad thing, and she can do a good thing
if needed.
How did we get here!
-- Peter Fairbrother