Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 10:51 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #71

_Nat_ wrote: post #43

Some of the comments so far seem to suggest that this bill would require software to include backdoors. However, it looks like [the bill's PDF]( https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... ) includes: > Division 7—Limitations > 317ZG Designated communications provider must not be required to implement or build a systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability etc. > (1) A technical assistance notice o…

They were going to supply a definition of "systemic weakness", but I can't find one in the bill itself. I'm patiently waiting for their proposed method of reading end-to-end encrypted messages without introducing a systemic weakness. But the meaning of words don't seem to matter anymore in the reality distortion field that is the Australian government. This is all supposedly to somehow make us more secure for Christm…

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 10:52 AM UTC

boyter wrote: post #69

dbetteridge wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like a cool product. Realistically could we just setup all code to be hosted overseas and then pay a set of reviewers in Europe to check PR's for possible backdoors? Don't think the law let's them compell you to build the backdoor in a super secret and hidden way...

The way it’s written that could be 5 years in gaol because you let people know about it.

Post by nickcox » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 10:55 AM UTC

shakna wrote: post #55

apatters wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is another thing that adds to my deep sense of shame to live in this country (sadly, that list is long and growing). I don't support this legislation, but I have to ask, which country is doing a better job on human rights issues than Australia in your opinion? Surely not China or nearly any country in Asia, Africa, or South America? Surely not the US? Probably not much of Europe?

To paraphrase our PM, speaking on medical evacuation of children, "I will do whatever is possible to prevent it." Australia's government blocked legislation that would help kids not die. Because they came on a boat. Which has never been the primary way illegal immigrants get into this country. Nauru was declared a human rights travesty by the UN. The medical board that decides whether or not it is a medical emergency…

Post by robryan » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 10:56 AM UTC

mcv wrote: post #78

healsjnr1 wrote: post #15

This is another thing that adds to my deep sense of shame to live in this country (sadly, that list is long and growing). This bill does nothing to prevent the kinds of things it is intended to prevent. The apps this law targets were engineered specifically to prevent this kind of interference. The idea that passing legislation will suddenly change that, magically allowing decryption of messages is beyond idiotic. Th…

> OpenVPN They'll probably want a backdoor in that too.

Post by ashildr » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 10:57 AM UTC

rswail wrote: post #40

cyphar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommend actually reading the bill to form your own conclusions. The main problem is that it mostly is a series of amendments, and many of them are quite unrelated. Most of the discussion is about the Technical Capability Notice section (which allows the government to compel a telecommunication provider, under threat of 5 years imprisonment, to create the ability to access communications otherwise inaccessible)…

The best discussion I've found in terms of the legislation is at [1]. The most insidious part to me as a programmer, is the definition of a "Designated Communications Provider" which (amongst others) includes (S317C, item 6): "the person develops, supplies or updates software used, for use, or likely to be used, in connection with: (a) a listed carriage service; or (b) an electronic service that has one or more end-u…