Category Archives: WA State Government

LDAP Alfresco (global properties)
Date Created: December 8, 2015  Date Modified: January 17, 2016

I found this useful so I thought I’d post it

authentication.chain=alfrescoNtlm1:alfrescoNtlm,ldap1:ldap

# This flag enables use of this LDAP subsystem for authentication. It may be
# that this subsytem should only be used for synchronization, in which case
# this flag should be set to false.
ldap.authentication.active=true

#
# This properties file brings together the common options for LDAP authentication rather than editing the bean definitions
#
ldap.authentication.allowGuestLogin=true

# How to map the user id entered by the user to that passed through to LDAP
ldap.authentication.userNameFormat=uid=%s,ou=users,dc=armundia,dc=com

# The LDAP context factory to use
ldap.authentication.java.naming.factory.initial=com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory

# The URL to connect to the LDAP server
ldap.authentication.java.naming.provider.url=ldap://ldap.....com:389

# The authentication mechanism to use for password validation
ldap.authentication.java.naming.security.authentication=simple

# Escape commas entered by the user at bind time
# Useful when using simple authentication and the CN is part of the DN and contains commas
ldap.authentication.escapeCommasInBind=false

# Escape commas entered by the user when setting the authenticated user
# Useful when using simple authentication and the CN is part of the DN and contains commas, and the escaped \, is
# pulled in as part of an LDAP sync

# If this option is set to true it will break the default home folder provider as space names can not contain \
ldap.authentication.escapeCommasInUid=false

# Comma separated list of user names who should be considered administrators by default
ldap.authentication.defaultAdministratorUserNames=....

# This flag enables use of this LDAP subsystem for user and group
# synchronization. It may be that this subsytem should only be used for
# authentication, in which case this flag should be set to false.
ldap.synchronization.active=true

# The authentication mechanism to use for synchronization
ldap.synchronization.java.naming.security.authentication=simple

# The default principal to use (only used for LDAP sync)
ldap.synchronization.java.naming.security.principal=cn\=ldap,dc\=armundia,dc\=com

# The password for the default principal (only used for LDAP sync)
ldap.synchronization.java.naming.security.credentials=.....

# If positive, this property indicates that RFC 2696 paged results should be
# used to split query results into batches of the specified size. This
# overcomes any size limits imposed by the LDAP server.
ldap.synchronization.queryBatchSize=0

# If positive, this property indicates that range retrieval should be used to fetch
# multi-valued attributes (such as member) in batches of the specified size.
# Overcomes any size limits imposed by Active Directory.
ldap.synchronization.attributeBatchSize=0

# The query to select all objects that represent the groups to import.
ldap.synchronization.groupQuery=(objectclass\=groupOfNames)

# The query to select objects that represent the groups to import that have changed since a certain time.
ldap.synchronization.groupDifferentialQuery=(&(objectclass\=groupOfNames)(!(modifyTimestamp<\={0}))) # The query to select all objects that represent the users to import. ldap.synchronization.personQuery=(objectclass\=inetOrgPerson) # The query to select objects that represent the users to import that have changed since a certain time. ldap.synchronization.personDifferentialQuery=(&(objectclass\=inetOrgPerson)(!(modifyTimestamp<\={0}))) # The group search base restricts the LDAP group query to a sub section of tree on the LDAP server. ldap.synchronization.groupSearchBase=dc\=roles,dc\=alfresco,dc\=armundia,dc\=com # The user search base restricts the LDAP user query to a sub section of tree on the LDAP server. ldap.synchronization.userSearchBase=dc\=users,dc\=armundia,dc\=com # The name of the operational attribute recording the last update time for a group or user. ldap.synchronization.modifyTimestampAttributeName=modifyTimestamp # The timestamp format. Unfortunately, this varies between directory servers. ldap.synchronization.timestampFormat=yyyyMMddHHmmss'Z' # The attribute name on people objects found in LDAP to use as the uid in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userIdAttributeName=uid # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the first name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userFirstNameAttributeName=givenName # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the last name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userLastNameAttributeName=sn # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the email property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userEmailAttributeName=mail # The attribute on person objects in LDAP to map to the organizational id property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.userOrganizationalIdAttributeName=o # The default home folder provider to use for people created via LDAP import ldap.synchronization.defaultHomeFolderProvider=largeHomeFolderProvider # The attribute on LDAP group objects to map to the authority name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.groupIdAttributeName=cn # The attribute on LDAP group objects to map to the authority display name property in Alfresco ldap.synchronization.groupDisplayNameAttributeName=description # The group type in LDAP ldap.synchronization.groupType=groupOfNames # The person type in LDAP ldap.synchronization.personType=inetOrgPerson # The attribute in LDAP on group objects that defines the DN for its members ldap.synchronization.groupMemberAttributeName=member # If true progress estimation is enabled. When enabled, the user query has to be run twice in order to count entries. ldap.synchronization.enableProgressEstimation=true # Requests timeout, in miliseconds, use 0 for none (default) ldap.authentication.java.naming.read.timeout=0

Source:
https://forums.alfresco.com/forum/installation-upgrades-configuration-integration/authentication-ldap-sso/ldap-authentication-7

Case Law in the Office
Date Created: November 28, 2012  Date Modified: November 28, 2012

I never really expected that my first day at a new agency would give me some time to look into case law–but going through the induction documents (which are a requirement for all government agencies staff to read and understand) I came accross a number of case citations that I thought worth jotting down on some note paper and then researching further when Im back into study mode.

Im trying to write these from my own notes so expect errors in the citations, at a later date I will amend these to be correct–or close enough to it

  • A v K Limited & Z [2008] VCAT
  • Dee v Commissioner of Police et al. [2004] NSWADT 168
  • Fatialofa V Coles Group [2008] AIR 1127
  • Perera v Commissioner CC [2007] NSWADT
  • Walsh v St Vincent De Paul (No. 2) [2008]QADT 32
  • Virgin Blue v Hooper [2007] QSC 075

I will add some abstract on each case, when I get the chance, it seems Im living 3 lives at the moment… and one of those lives just finished his first semester of law and wants to par-tee; even tho I have not had a beer since last Friday’s shinannigans…

The Rayney Verdict
Date Created: November 1, 2012  Date Modified: November 1, 2012

The Rayney Trial captured the media attention for so may reasons that are out of scope of this blog post, my own interest caused me to follow this case from the beginning and now the first (we do have to expect a long appeals process) decision has been handed down:

Not Guilty

The judgment is well over 300 pages and I am still yet to finish it and I fee it could be prejudicial to any appeals forthcoming for me to make any commentary or even paste excerpts, but the decision can be found on the Supreme Court of Western Australia website.

I have also added WA Supreme Court decisions and sentencing remarks feeds to my Links page for, not just my own, but anyone else who holds interest.

UPDATE: I have decided to include two passaged from the judgment that are critical of how the police handled the case, firstly and explicitly:

“As is apparent from the discussion concerning various aspects of the conduct of police investigators there are instances of conduct ranging from inappropriate to reprehensible.”

and

“The lack of logic in several areas of this case is obvious.”

Maybe the police should wait until they secure a conviction before they have commemorative ties made?.

This rant was posted in Criminal Law, Government, Law, WA State Government on by .

LAW150 – Assignment – Byron Levene – 30188908
Date Created: October 4, 2012  Date Modified: November 4, 2012

Notes from author: This assignment can be downloaded from Scribd with its original formatting. This assignment has not been marked at this point.

I’m using my LegalCSS plugin shortcodes for the Names of Acts.

It is the purpose of this essay to outline advice to the plaintiff, Ace Hi Fi, on potential action against AZ Hi Fi, and the third parties of Planes R Us, and Adventure Air, who were under contract by AZ Hi Fi to provide aerial advertising services, in respect to a special events order obtained by Ace Hi Fi under Part 2 of the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act 2009 (WA) (‘MEAA’). Three individual events must be examined here. The action of Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi, to fly aircraft displaying advertising material as defined in MEAA section 3, near the venue on the first day of the event; The knowledge of potential actions of Planes R Us to fly aircraft dropping flyers, under contract by AZ Hi Fi, over the venue on the last day of the event; And the actions of Air Adventures, under contract by AZ Hi Fi, to fly jetpacks displaying advertising material over the venue on the last day of the event.

Planes R Us Fly near venue of first day of event.

The action of Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly a banner advertising AZ Hi Fi on the first day of the event, does meet the requirements of aerial advertising as defined under the MEAA . However, in order to satisfy a breach under section 11 of the MEAA, the aircraft must be “within sight of a specified venue…”, as we have no definition of “within sight” in MEAA, we will to refer to its ordinary meaning in an dictionary . The Macquarie Dictionary defines within as:
“in the compass or limits of; not beyond: within view, to live within ones income.”
And sight:
“range of vision: in sight of land.”
It being the case that the aircraft displaying the aerial advertising in question could only be seen with the use of binoculars, therefore outside the unassisted visible range from the venue, and not meet the meaning ordinary meaning of “within sight”.

Further information would be required to confirm if this act by the Planes R Us aircraft was in fact exempt, in that it may be the case an event order was taken out by AZ Hi Fi, in another location adjacent to the venue at the same time .

Due to the Planes R Us aircraft being out of visible range, and the possibility of another event order covering this flight, no action for this incident can be taken under the authority of MEAA 2009, with the information provided.

Planes R Us Dropping Flyers Over the Venue on the Last Day of Event.

The planned action of Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly over the venue on the last day of the event and drop 100,000 flyers, satisfies the definition of aerial advertising in MEAA, and no information has been provided that permission has been given by the event organiser for this action . It also can not meet an exemption for ‘…another specified event at another specified venue.’ , as this action is to take place at the specified venue required of the original event order taken out by Ace Hi Fi. Regarding the exemption allowed for “…an emergency; […] or in, provision of emergency services.” There is no indication this is applies from the information supplied.

It is important to differentiate between the actions of Planes R Us, and those of AZ Hi Fi in relation to this event. In relation to the Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly the planes over the venue on the last day of the event, this would meet the criteria of “…within sight of a specified venue during the specified time…” , and therefore meet criteria for an injunction.

It should also be noted that AZ Hi Fi, having fore knowledge of the event order in place and choosing to ignore the restrictions by procuring the services of Planes R Us to make this fly-over. Being that the flight was not conducted by AZ Hi Fi directly, this would constitute “attempting or conspiring to contravene section 11”.

As this action satisfies a breach of the event order, the event organizer does have the option to apply to the Supreme Court to seek an injunction restraining both AZ Hi Fi and Planes R Us from engaging in this activity.

Jetpacks flying over stage on last day of event.

The potential of Air Adventures, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly Jetpacks over the stage on the last day of the event satisfies “within sight of a specified venue during the specified time in relation to a specified event conducted at the venue…” being that this would occur over the stage while the event is at its climax.

The shirts worn by the Air Adventures staff would display the name of AZ Hi Fi, which falls into the definition of advertising as defined in the act, and that the shirts are not the normal branding of Adventure Air, this would also satisfy the definition of aerial advertising as defined in MEAA.

Being that this action on behalf of AZ Hi Fi, by Adventure Air meets the criteria for an offence under MEAA, the event organizer has the option to seek an injunction to restrain both AZ Hi Fi and Adventure Air from engaging in this activity.

Remedies

As outlined above the criteria has been met to apply to the courts for an injunction to restrain AZ Hi Fi and Planes R Us form flying over the venue on the last day of the event and dropping flyers advertising AZ Hi Fi. Another order could be sort to restrain AZ Hi Fi and Adventure Air from flying jetpacks over the stage on the last day of the event.

Section 14 (1) of MEAA allows action for damages under a breach of section 11, however these are limited to any “…loss, injury or damage, or damages in respect of loss, injury or damage. As no loss has occurred, due to the breeches of section 11 being future acts, no damages could be sort under this section.

Section 14 (2) allows “…recovery of future losses as a result of the potential loss of sponsorship of an event.” As there has been no indication that the plaintiff, Ace Hi Fi has lost sponsorship of the event, no action can be made for future losses under this section.

Giving consideration to the above, Ace Hi Fi would likely be granted the injunctions to restrain: 1) AZ Hi Fi and Planes R Us from dropping flyers over the event on the last day, and 2) AZ Hi Fi and Adventure Air from flying over the stage on the last day of the event.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cook Catriona Robin Creyke Robert Geddes and David Hamer, Laying Down the Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2012).
Butt Peter and David Hamer (eds), LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4th ed, 2011).
The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd ed, 2001 at 27 September 2012).
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA).
Major Events (Areal Advertising) Act 2009 (WA).