Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia rushes anti-encryption legislation into parliament

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Australia rushes anti-encryption legislation into parliament

    Australia's ruling government has decided that pi will equal three from now on - or as they describe it, all encryption will have to be crackable on demand. As famously (infamously?) said by mathematical illiterate Malcom Turnbull, the laws of maths have to obey the laws of Australia.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...o_legislation/
    Last edited by TheKiwi; 25-09-2018, 03:38 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
    Australia's ruling government has decided that pi will equal three from now on - or as they describe it, all encryption will have to be crackable on demand. As famously (infamously?) said by mathematical illiterate Malcom Turnbull, the laws of maths have to obey the laws of Australia.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...o_legislation/
    Honestly, I am not surprised. I have been noticing moves by various state actors to tighten control over the internet and means of communications for a while now. Given the very similar Telegram controversy in Russia, the Facebook "fake news/accounts" controversy in the US, I was expecting similar (albeit more discreet) actions from other governments.

    I am wondering how the Australian government plans to implement this and consequently enforce it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Australian politics is home to some of the biggest taint lickers around. It comes as no surprise to me either. It'll just be hilarious when some of the end-to-end encrypted message makers say "fuck off, can't be done" when it happens.

      Comment


      • #4
        We recently had a law against ‘fake news’ that passed through the parliament. Unfortunately that surely follow an agenda and not a right-wing pro-people agenda.

        A so-called ‘conservative’ also wanted to make social media’s ask for an ID for anyone registering. This didn’t work for him because Zuckerberg is more powerful and arguably even more than the POTUS.

        All that under the desguise of fighting terrorism but really actually more internet control and censorship.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
          Australian politics is home to some of the biggest taint lickers around. It comes as no surprise to me either. It'll just be hilarious when some of the end-to-end encrypted message makers say "fuck off, can't be done" when it happens.
          I agree that end-to-end encrypted communication services could be hard to tackle....but what about all the others? I imagine that majority of internet users use services like Skype, Snapchat, Facebook etc... instead of Telegram. Even in the case of end-to-end encryption, the article states that software developers could, in principle, develop exploits in order to comply with government legislation. Question is, can governments exert the necessary pressure on software developers in order to facilitate such information sharing? After all, at the end of the day, profits and risk vs benefit analysis is what every business understands, and if governments can apply pressure that significantly affects either of these, than the software developers would have no choice but to be accommodating.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
            As famously (infamously?) said by mathematical illiterate Malcom Turnbull, the laws of maths have to obey the laws of Australia.
            I thought you were joking so I had to google it, I am glad I did, that's hillarious!

            Made me think of this gem!

            Comment


            • #7
              I'll need it to shift my retirement fund over there when ours brings in their asset taxes et al.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ak16 View Post

                ... Question is, can governments exert the necessary pressure on software developers in order to facilitate such information sharing? After all, at the end of the day, profits and risk vs benefit analysis is what every business understands, and if governments can apply pressure that significantly affects either of these, than the software developers would have no choice but to be accommodating.
                WhatsApp seems to still be running despite being end-to-end and despite several governments going waaaaah, waaaaaah, I can't read what people are saying about me.

                How much pressure can (for example) a government in Europe put on a company that exists in (say) Bangladesh? Or Russia? And vis versa.

                One need only look at the amount of shrieking that came out of various authoritarian governments back when Blackberry's were a major player in the mobile market - the end to end encryption there made several of them ban the product from their nations mobile data carriers, but none of them (apparently) were able to convince Blackberry to make their system insecure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

                  WhatsApp seems to still be running despite being end-to-end and despite several governments going waaaaah, waaaaaah, I can't read what people are saying about me.

                  How much pressure can (for example) a government in Europe put on a company that exists in (say) Bangladesh? Or Russia? And vis versa.

                  One need only look at the amount of shrieking that came out of various authoritarian governments back when Blackberry's were a major player in the mobile market - the end to end encryption there made several of them ban the product from their nations mobile data carriers, but none of them (apparently) were able to convince Blackberry to make their system insecure.
                  Its like trying to to hold back a tide with your hands - its a joke that they are even trying

                  the funny thing is that if there had not been such a push against piracy - then you would not have the levels of encryption you have now

                  Its been like an arms race -- the only problem for Governments is that they are always one/ ten steps behind

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by blackcatnursery View Post

                    Its like trying to to hold back a tide with your hands - its a joke that they are even trying

                    the funny thing is that if there had not been such a push against piracy - then you would not have the levels of encryption you have now

                    Its been like an arms race -- the only problem for Governments is that they are always one/ ten steps behind
                    I think you can thank the Snowden revelations. Prior to that most people assumed that intel agencies were going after individual bad-guys. Then we discovered that they were too lazy and/or incompetent to do that and had decided to treat all of us as suspects and record everything.

                    So basically fuck those guys. Didn't want this to happen? Shouldn't have acted stupid in the first place.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am still utterly confused about crypto-currency regulation and crypto-currency in general. How do you get “value” from it and how do you try to regulate it?

                      Sorry if this seems a bit off topic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

                        WhatsApp seems to still be running despite being end-to-end and despite several governments going waaaaah, waaaaaah, I can't read what people are saying about me.

                        How much pressure can (for example) a government in Europe put on a company that exists in (say) Bangladesh? Or Russia? And vis versa.

                        One need only look at the amount of shrieking that came out of various authoritarian governments back when Blackberry's were a major player in the mobile market - the end to end encryption there made several of them ban the product from their nations mobile data carriers, but none of them (apparently) were able to convince Blackberry to make their system insecure.
                        The issue is that most of the larger software companies are located entirely under the jurisdiction of the EU and US, which gives those state actors advantages that they can leverage in order to put the required pressure on those companies not toeing the line. It is true that people can vote with their money and leave for alternative software platforms outside those jurisdictions.....but ask yourself how likely would a long time facebook user leave that well-established platform for some no-name one? After all, behavioural inertia is a fact of life.

                        In regards to Blackberry.......where is it now? In the end, the current reality is that governments (at least for now) possess the required power and authority to cause problems and therefore apply pressure on all private enterprises within their jurisdictions. For example, look at the history of piracy in Australia - although most local ISPs were fighting hard against demands from rights holders - they were, at the end of the day, forced into compliance with a court edict (these obligatory compliance standards are not difficult to bypass for those in the know......but still). What about the whole Kim Dotcom saga?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We're left with much the same issue as applies to all laws. Only the already law-abiding follow them. People who were never going to obey the law can (and do) source their software from other locales.

                          Which leaves us in the same boat - that intel agencies are being lazy and bloated and worthless. It's a sign of intense political stupidity to insist that yet another law can change that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by HisRoyalHighness View Post
                            I am still utterly confused about crypto-currency regulation and crypto-currency in general. How do you get “value” from it and how do you try to regulate it?

                            Sorry if this seems a bit off topic.
                            The inherent "value" of crypto currency is about as much as that of the fiat money you use everyday ( although, granted, the paper and coin money has the inherent value imparted by the process of printing/minting - i.e. seigniorage ). Essentially, neither the fiat money nor crypto currency are underpinned by any commodities such as gold, silver, or energy.....

                            I do not believe that regulating the emission of the current crop of available crypto currencies is possible. The best the governments can do right now is to take control of the currency markets or to pass legislation that would make things difficult for crypto-currency miners/users (https://ethereumworldnews.com/chinas...-otc-accounts/), but that is in no way the same level of regulation as the control over emission of said currencies. On the bright side, even the central banks of most countries are also designed to be independent from political interference by state authorities.....but said independence is limited and in a lot of cases governments have control over monetary policies or other set targets for the bank.

                            Also, although governments have almost negligible control over crypto-currencies at the moment, this does not mean that they cannot issue their own regulated crypto-currencies in the near future, i.e. Petro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_(cryptocurrency))

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                              We're left with much the same issue as applies to all laws. Only the already law-abiding follow them. People who were never going to obey the law can (and do) source their software from other locales.

                              Which leaves us in the same boat - that intel agencies are being lazy and bloated and worthless. It's a sign of intense political stupidity to insist that yet another law can change that.
                              Yes, but the assumption you are making here is that the governments and their law enforcement agencies are primarily interested in simply enforcing the law with those legislations, and do not have ulterior motives. Was getting rid of Alex Jones from most social media platforms an exercise in upholding some laws.....or for some other reasons? After all, Big Data is a rapidly growing field.....and having control of personal data of millions of people could be useful for state authorities (for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is social engineering).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X