Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 4:15 AM UTC

talaketu wrote: post #176

brokenmachine wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not the will of the Australian people. There was a "consultation period" and 99.7% of the submissions were against it. https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...

Put it this way: it was passed into law with bipartisan support by both democratically elected legislative chambers of the Commonwealth of Australia. All it took to convince the representatives and senators was for a submission from the Australian Federal Police that it was necessary to investigate threats over Christmas.

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 4:34 AM UTC

mwill wrote: post #145

cyphar wrote: post #13

While 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…

I'm less worried that these clauses will be used/abused, and more worried that the mere existence of these clauses will be catastrophic to the trust of Australian suppliers to overseas customers.

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 4:46 AM UTC

talaketu wrote: post #180

robryan wrote: post #95

One of the worst things about this bill is that the opposition knows it is full of problems and could have blocked it and forced a range of amendedments. The Labor party here though is afraid of creating any point of difference on anything that could in any way be considered “national security” legislation. So instead of risk a lengthy period over the summer break where they would be attacked if any kind of terrorist…

There is a bipartisan consensus on security and other matters in Australia. Most policy development in Australia is driven by the unelected agencies and departments that survive their political masters. There is nothing in the values and philosophies of the ALP such that they would not have legislated this agenda were they in government rather than opposition. There are so many other examples of this over history, su…

Post by Whitestrake » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 5:10 AM UTC

dwd wrote: post #171

bad_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws eventually get abused. I think it’s very likely that this law will eventually lead to everything everybody is worrying about.

Even if it doesn't the unintended consequences and the Chilling Effect to public discourse is going to prove damaging. I saw they were working in clauses to invoke Parliamentary Privilege so they can't be spied on. Fuck that, there should be openness regarding discussions on any topic when they are there solely as their constituents' representatives. Had enough of them enacting laws that don't address the people's ne…

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 5:21 AM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #182

tomtomau wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the law doesn't kick in until the New Year.

No, it got royal ascent yesterday. It’s now law. The actual implementation of any capabilities though would take months even if they started requesting them tomorrow.