If the government has open source software poisoned would they eventually be victimized by their own policy?
Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
61–70 of 265 posts
Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#62Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say that about any bad bill passed in any of the five eyes at any point in the past. The reality is, that's not how things work. For example, in Britain you can be arrested for modestly offending someone on Twitter, due to their speech crime laws.[1] That's never going to commonly be the case in the US due to very strong speech protections. Australia did away with its guns. The US is never going to follow t…
Neither of the examples you gave have anything to do with signals intelligence. But yes, FVEY isn't an overarching conspiracy that implements all digital authoritarianism, nor does it have a monopoly on promulgating such corruption - I doubt FVEY itself coordinated the attack on Kim Dotcom. Nor is it the only such conspiracy - Sweden isn't part of FVEY yet eagerly went after TPB and Assange. But pointing to such agre…
My response had nothing to do with US exceptionalism (eg my reference to US policies on gun control was an intentional negative example). It's pointing out that the five eyes don't simply copy each other's choices when it comes to major laws / law changes.
Each nation in question has different protections, or lack thereof, when it comes to privacy, speech, property rights, et al. One size will not fit all, each country would see a different response to the same attempted legislation. The US Government has tried for two decades - with very little success - to reach for something equivalent to what Australia just rushed through in no time at all. What would completely rewrite so much US law and interpretation so rapidly as to make such a drastic change possible in the US anytime soon? Nuclear terrorism, as a society shaking event, is about the only thing that comes to mind as plausible and that's far-fetched.
Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#64Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#65Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#66What problem does Australia have that could possibly justify this? Gangs in Sidney? Drug traffickers from New Zealand? Terrorists from Vietnam?
Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of the examples you gave have anything to do with signals intelligence. But yes, FVEY isn't an overarching conspiracy that implements all digital authoritarianism, nor does it have a monopoly on promulgating such corruption - I doubt FVEY itself coordinated the attack on Kim Dotcom. Nor is it the only such conspiracy - Sweden isn't part of FVEY yet eagerly went after TPB and Assange. But pointing to such agre…
My response had nothing to do with US exceptionalism (eg my reference to US policies on gun control was an intentional negative example). It's pointing out that the five eyes don't simply copy each other's choices when it comes to major laws / law changes. Each nation in question has different protections, or lack thereof, when it comes to privacy, speech, property rights, et al. One size will not fit all, each count…
US exceptionalism is referring to the original comment I responded to, not yours. Now maybe that comment was just interpreting "every free software developer" out of context, but it certainly fits the common pattern of myopically ignoring a trend from an imagined immunity.
USG basically tried once to mandate backdooring encryption itself - in the 90s, when the entire topic was only relevant to a small community, there was basically no low level "street crime" involving encryption, and doing so required restricting individuals' distribution of software.
The renewed push is based on telling commercial companies that they have to setup their systems to assist the police, completely in line with precedents like CALEA. The much more diffuse tech-using community is already primed for heavy handed authoritarianism based on how these companies already operate, and also in general due to being pumped full of the terrorism by the 24/7 "news" cycle. I'd hope you're right that the US has constitutional protections to backstop this, but from my perspective those "protections" serve more as coping mechanisms rather than as effective restraints on government power.
I can perhaps see a legal exception for US Free software devs who aren't working commercially, but I can just as well see a malinterpretation declaring them as engaging in commercial activity ala Wickard v. Filburn.
Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#68While I understand why they didn't mention this (because it's not clear if this interpretation of the bill is correct -- given there is currently no common law around it), I would like to point out what is the most concerning thing (to me) about this legislation. It potentially allows the government to turn employees into saboteurs. According to s.317C(6), a "designated service provider" can be someone who has develo…
> only 2 MPs voted against it
Have you got a source for this? I read (can’t remebemer where, sorry) that most Greens senators voted against it. From memory, Di Natali and SHY were in the list.
The legislation was waved-through by Labor because there is an election coming up and they were afraid to be labelled as pro terrorists and child molesters.
This site has sources: https://alp.fail
Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#69What problem does Australia have that could possibly justify this? Gangs in Sidney? Drug traffickers from New Zealand? Terrorists from Vietnam?
Being the the country with the weakest civil rights protections in the 5 eyes allows us to be used as a test bed.
If this thing goes smoothly, expect the same to be attempted in UK, US, NZ and CA.
Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent
#70The thing that makes me most despondent is, you just watch them all get voted back in next election.
It looks like Labor will win next election, but that really doesn't matter. Labor voted for the bill unanimously.
Shorten’s strategy to lose the battle/win the war has soured my view of him forever. He’s revealed himself to be a man of no principles.