Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

theage.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#41

Post by mtgx »

I wonder if Facebook/WhatsApp have already been testing this type of access under this current "feature" that's supposed to make it more "convenient" for users who switch phones:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-...

Most in the crypto community seem to have sided with WhatsApp at the time, but I wonder if they were taken for fools, too, by buying WhatsApp's argument.

If I were to implement a backdoor, then implementing it as a "feature" that "makes sense" is definitely the way I'd go, especially if my app were to get a lot of attention. That way I won't have to hide it (much) or worry about it getting discovered because I could just "explain away" the critiques.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#42

Post by bitJericho »

shermozle wrote: post #38
cynicalbastard wrote: post #37

freedom-loving internet users will soon know how gun owners feel. every single bogus argument for gun control or "assault weapons" bans can, and will be, used against internet speech freedom and information privacy, now that the western political establishment has taken it upon themselves to strip you of your free speech rights after seeing how trivial it was stripping you of your guns, and how much enthusiasm their…

So if I go crazy armed with military grade encryption, how many school kids can I kill before the cops get me? Sorry, your argument is bullshit.

If you don't want guns, maybe you should repeal the second amendment instead of ignoring it. Same goes for the first.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#43

Post by natch »

amboar wrote: post #8
askvictor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forcing firms not to implement end-to-end encryption is forcing firms to implement flaws in their encryption software. Which is why they're not pursuing it presumably.

> Given the difficulty of cracking end-to-end encrypted messages during transmission, one option would be to improve warrant-based access to communications at the sender or receiver ends, Senator Brandis said. > "At one point or more of that process, access to the encrypted communication is essential for intelligence and law enforcement," he said. > "If there are encryption keys then those encryption keys have to be…

If there is a way to extract the keys then the keys will be extracted by rogue actors.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#44

Post by roughcoat »

shermozle wrote: post #38
cynicalbastard wrote: post #37

freedom-loving internet users will soon know how gun owners feel. every single bogus argument for gun control or "assault weapons" bans can, and will be, used against internet speech freedom and information privacy, now that the western political establishment has taken it upon themselves to strip you of your free speech rights after seeing how trivial it was stripping you of your guns, and how much enthusiasm their…

So if I go crazy armed with military grade encryption, how many school kids can I kill before the cops get me? Sorry, your argument is bullshit.

Wait, you're calling his argument bullshit? You didn't even make an argument, you just said something completely nonsensical.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#45

Post by diego_moita »

bitJericho wrote: post #42
shermozle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I go crazy armed with military grade encryption, how many school kids can I kill before the cops get me? Sorry, your argument is bullshit.

If you don't want guns, maybe you should repeal the second amendment instead of ignoring it. Same goes for the first.

This made me laugh: as a non-American I am so happy that my country is civilized enough to not to have a "second amendment".

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#46

Post by diego_moita »

roughcoat wrote: post #44
shermozle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I go crazy armed with military grade encryption, how many school kids can I kill before the cops get me? Sorry, your argument is bullshit.

Wait, you're calling his argument bullshit? You didn't even make an argument, you just said something completely nonsensical.

> You didn't even make an argument

He did. He said the children in Newtown's kindergarden and Columbine School were not killed with encryption. It is a pretty big difference. For a non-American this is a pretty good argument, IMO.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#47

Post by natch »

amboar wrote: post #25
wzdd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's in your operating system rather than your apps doesn't mean it's any less of a backdoor.

Right, is a different back door, but at least it's not broken crypto. Not that I'm for compromised endpoints either.

Building your crypto system with an ability to spit out the keys on demand to any podunk FBI Director or podunk US President, not to mention any podunk sheriff, means you have built broken crypto.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#48

Post by natch »

askvictor wrote: post #5
harry8 wrote: post #2

Fantasy land stuff. Moxie is going to backdoor his encryption because some Australians he's never heard of tell him to? The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is a noted user of Signal... One day these stories will be written by and about people who have a clue. One day...

It says specifically that the government will _not_ pursue the backdoor options; seems that they just want to have clearer international protocols around warrants for information. Seems sensible if you ask me.

They're using doublespeak. They just want the same thing but they're trying to pretend they're asking for something different.

They think we're stupid like criminals too.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#49

Post by roughcoat »

diego_moita wrote: post #46
roughcoat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you're calling his argument bullshit? You didn't even make an argument, you just said something completely nonsensical.

> You didn't even make an argument He did. He said the children in Newtown's kindergarden and Columbine School were not killed with encryption. It is a pretty big difference. For a non-American this is a pretty good argument, IMO.

What nonsense. It's obvious what the parent comment meant. Law abiding gun owners by definition do not kill innocent children, just like law abiding people do not use encryption nefariously. Encryption and guns are both tools, with nothing intrinsically good or evil about them.

Yet law abiding gun owners were punished and had their rights stripped throughout most of the world on the pretense that it would somehow help stop crime, despite the quite glaringly obvious fact that criminals by definition do not care about following laws. Thus, only law abiding people are hindered. Criminals will still use encryption and guns, while law abiding citizens will be rendered unable to defend themselves, either electronically or physically.

I find it amazing that I need to spell this out for you.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#50

Post by natch »

vermilingua wrote: post #33
andrewstuart wrote: post #4

Once again politicians making decisions about stuff they fundamentally misunderstand.

Actually, the most depressing part of this, is that they do understand. Turnbull is a noted user of Signal, Wickr, and other secure messaging services, and has pushed for other cabinet and parliament members to use them also. They know what they're doing, and sooner or later they'll go for a "more equal than others" approach to encryption.

Nah just because he uses it, doesn't mean he understands the extent to which his proposed stupidity would comprise our security.
Post reply on HN