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

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#51

Post by Asdfbla »

nikcub wrote: post #20

The story title mentions Australia but this is relevant to all the 5eye nations, as they're obviously pre-briefing the media on what the agenda will be and this is the first time that we're getting detail on what they'll be proposing (the UK proposals were vague) What they seem to be talking around is implementing an app-level CALEA-like capability. What I think how they think it would work: companies would be made t…

Thanks for your analysis, seems like a realistic reading ​of the situation.

I wonder if the threat of the net going dark is really anywhere as bad as the intelligence agencies pretend, considering that there is more information available than ever before outside of those encrypted messaging apps.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#52

Post by kakarot »

diego_moita wrote: post #45
bitJericho wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You and your fellow citizens are incapable of organizing against your government in the event that it becomes dangerous to its constituents. Congratulations!

I am glad to live in a country whose founders had the foresight that allowing a government to leverage weaponry / violence against its citizens without giving its citizens the same leverage was just a bad, bad idea.

That is the real reason for the 2nd amendment, not so I can defend myself against home intruders. That is a secondary argument.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#53

Post by cynicalbastard »

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.

> So if I go crazy armed with military grade encryption, how many school kids can I kill before the cops get me?

don't worry, i suspect your government will be ramming this answer down your throat by year's end.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#54

Post by roughcoat »

roughcoat wrote: post #49
diego_moita wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hel…

Further to this, the reality is politicians who want to undermine information security don't give a damn about protecting their citizens/subjects. That's just the excuse to make the poison pill more palatable. What this is about, and what gun control is about, is right there in the name: control. It's about having a monopoly on security and force, so the populace will be less independent and easier to manage. At the very least, if you make enough things illegal you can jail whomever you like, because at some point it will become impossible to avoid breaking the law. The US is already there.

We've already seen government agencies in the US targeting specific political groups. I don't follow politics in other countries much but it would hardly surprise me if that happens elsewhere. It certainly has throughout history. How far will that go this time? No matter what side of the aisle you're on, it should frighten you, because the tool you use on your enemies when you're in power--and any tool you create to beat them up more effectively--is then available for your enemy to use on you when you inevitably lose power.

I find it shocking how many people who clamor for electronic freedom and an uninterfered-with internet are perfectly happy to cede their rights and independence in other areas to the government without so much as a grumble. Learn from history, FFS.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#55

Post by diego_moita »

roughcoat wrote: post #49
diego_moita wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hel…

> Encryption and guns are both tools

Fireworks are tools, but need to be regulated because are dangerous.

Sulfuric acid is a tool, but need to be regulated because is dangerous.

Plutonium is a tool, but needs to be regulated because is dangerous.

Opioids are tools, but need to be regulated because are dangerous.

Cars are tools, but it's use needs to be regulated because are dangerous.

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

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#56

Post by badminton1 »

kakarot wrote: post #52
diego_moita wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You and your fellow citizens are incapable of organizing against your government in the event that it becomes dangerous to its constituents. Congratulations! I am glad to live in a country whose founders had the foresight that allowing a government to leverage weaponry / violence against its citizens without giving its citizens the same leverage was just a bad, bad idea. That is the real reason for the 2nd amendment,…

Except that this time the difference between a regular army and a militia would be far beyond just the color of their coat.

Having weapons at home can barely counter law enforcement, let alone a professional military force.

This time there's more technology supporting each area of warfare: logistics, reconnaissance, equipment, vehicles...

A militia, however organized, has everything to lose against an regular army in the 21st century. In fact, chances are you would die before you are in range to fire your weapon.

Your only chance to win would be insurgency or guerrilla warfare.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#57

Post by kakarot »

badminton1 wrote: post #56
kakarot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and your fellow citizens are incapable of organizing against your government in the event that it becomes dangerous to its constituents. Congratulations! I am glad to live in a country whose founders had the foresight that allowing a government to leverage weaponry / violence against its citizens without giving its citizens the same leverage was just a bad, bad idea. That is the real reason for the 2nd amendment,…

Except that this time the difference between a regular army and a militia would be far beyond just the color of their coat. Having weapons at home can barely counter law enforcement, let alone a professional military force. This time there's more technology supporting each area of warfare: logistics, reconnaissance, equipment, vehicles... A militia, however organized, has everything to lose against an regular army in…

You are absolutely correct and it's a horrible state of affairs.

There's still no need to starve the beast and remove one of the few weapons we have against the slaughtering of our rights and freedoms.

Just being able to purchase guns of reasonable firepower without scrutiny is extremely important to the freedom of our posterity and their ability to organize.

I know this almost makes me sound like some sort of radical terrorist, but these ideals are at the core of our Constitution and to not value these ideals is to be devoid of true patriotism.

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#58

Post by cynicalbastard »

diego_moita wrote: post #55
roughcoat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hel…

> Encryption and guns are both tools Fireworks are tools, but need to be regulated because are dangerous. Sulfuric acid is a tool, but need to be regulated because is dangerous. Plutonium is a tool, but needs to be regulated because is dangerous. Opioids are tools, but need to be regulated because are dangerous. Cars are tools, but it's use needs to be regulated because are dangerous. I find it amazing that I need to…

> If we could restrict the use of encryption by the bad guys without compromising it's use by the good guys

oh, don't you worry, the politicians will do it anyway, with much public support, and then you will sound like the crazy, paranoid one arguing for military grade assault encryption in the hands of the dangerous, villainous public.

edit: i see you deleted the part i quoted. makes sense. cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing. feels like razor blades in the mind!

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#59

Post by babyrainbow »

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…

>, they will DEMAND it at any cost. indeed, many of them will only be upset if it DOESN'T happen...

You can see it already happening, almost everywhere with mandatory vaccinations...

Re: How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages

#60

Post by siddboots »

pserwylo wrote: post #40

For those who are unfamiliar with the Attorney General George Brandis, this is one of the people instrumental in implementing two year mandatory data retention. This is a famous interview he gave which is shows how little he understands about the concept of metadata, and is mandatory viewing for all who are not familiar with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw1ryLGs2ws His utter inability to understand the issues…

I think he was trying to make a distinction between an ip address and the request/response content.
Post reply on HN