Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#61

Post by ddeck » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 2:41 AM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #57

freedomben wrote: post #18

The headline is a little misleading. It's much more terrifying than that. It isn't just Australia. It is the US, Australia, Canada, UK, and New Zealand all together (known as the "Five Eyes")[1]. Australia is just the country that put the memo together. > The "Five Eyes", often abbreviated as "FVEY", refer to an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.…

Gee, I hadn't heard of that. The Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam only learnt of it when the Attorney-General raided ASIO, Australia's version of the FBI, in 1973. Wikipedia says UKUSA is pronounced yoo-koo-SAH . Rather appropriate - yakuza are "members of transnational organized crime syndicates"...

>Australia's version of the FBI

Not to nitpick, but ASIO is closer to Australia's version of the CIA, as they are primarily focused on foreign "adversaries".

Australia has the Australian Federal Police, which is their version of the FBI.

https://www.asio.gov.au/what-we-do.html

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#62

Post by pdkl95 » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 2:44 AM UTC

ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #33

mrmondo wrote: post #7

Digital Rights Watch has more information and a submission system to help people write their feedback to the government: https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/2018/08/19/defend-encrypti...

This video they made is absolutely hilarious, and shows just how un-hilarious and fucked up these proposed changes are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE

Speaking of The Juice Media, I recommend watching their last Rap News, "Fate of the INTERNET - Feat. Dan Bull"[1]. It does a very good job summarizing the power struggle over the internet.

    The real question’s not which one of these paths to chase;
    but whether you can pursue them all, in a balanced way,
    so that they keep each other in check with restraint
    without letting any one of them dominate.

Decentralize and federate everything, and it becomes very difficult to even propose crap like this FVEY backdoor stupidity. If the protocol de facto forces everyone to act as peers instead of relying on central points of failure, abuse of power at any one point has limited reach.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzfxmKBz2g

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#63

Post by peteretep » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 2:50 AM UTC

jonnybgood wrote: post #38

anonymous5133 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that don't know about the FVEY, here is a good documentary about it: https://ispydoc.com

I skimmed it and that site seems highly sensationalist. I don’t know if that a good documentary. A couple of things from the site: “Operating independently from its governments...” Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? “Hackers Can Disable a Sniper Rifle—Or Change Its Target...” It wants me to post this to social media. What’s the context of this quote? It gives none. It see…

> “Operating independently from its governments...” > Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something?

In Britain we'd probably make a distinction between elected government and civil service. I suspect the point being made here is of operation without sufficient legislative/executive oversight, which there seems to be at least some evidence for.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#64

Post by peteretep » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

oldandtired wrote: post #26

skissane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison. > whilst others are parts of common law…

That may be true. However, in Australia, all interrogations have to be filmed completely. Law enforcement cannot lie to the interviewees, kidnapping of targets is not allowed. If Any law enforcement fails to do the correct thing in these areas, courts here will throw out the case. We had a relatively high profile "terror" case here which was thrown out for incorrect procedural actions (starting with the kidnapping of…

> If Any law enforcement fails to do the correct thing in these areas, courts here will throw out the case.

Parliament do have the right -- however -- to simply pass a law that says "oldandtired goes to jail forever" with a simple majority.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#65

Post by peteretep » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

Kostchei wrote: post #9

tananaev wrote: post #3

It seems like they are just making it more explicit that companies must cooperate with the police. Isn't it already the case anyway if there is an appropriate court order? At least they are not suggesting to compromise or limit encryption in any way. What I fail to understand is how all this would help fighting crime. Criminals and terrorists can easily use end-to-end encryption for the communication. There is plenty…

Unfortunately it gives them the legal capability to require your startup/IT company/multinational to put development time in at their request to enable your software to give them the access they want. For example- get chats in real time log IP addresses and pass them to gov open containers stored on your infrastructure get into the phone or device you have sold to a client previously These are not interpretations of…

... sounds like asking a phone company to tap a phone, which is pretty well established?

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#66

Post by coretx » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 3:03 AM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #27

NoPicklez wrote: post #2

For those that would like more reading here is the explanatory bill: https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh Three important things to note technical assistance requests, technical assistance notice and technical capability notice.

No need to use URL shorteners on HN, it's not as if there is a character limit... Here is the full URL: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/expla... Protip for those playing along at home: add a + to a bitly URL to view info, such as the target URL without having to go there.

And this is the culprit.

""Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information ... we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other(!) measures"

Translation: Fuck your sovereignty, we'll use violence to get what we want.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#67

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 3:03 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #12

davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison. > whilst others are parts of common law…

[deleted]

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#68

Post by wp381640 » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 3:04 AM UTC

ddeck wrote: post #61

yesenadam wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, I hadn't heard of that. The Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam only learnt of it when the Attorney-General raided ASIO, Australia's version of the FBI, in 1973. Wikipedia says UKUSA is pronounced yoo-koo-SAH . Rather appropriate - yakuza are "members of transnational organized crime syndicates"...

>Australia's version of the FBI Not to nitpick, but ASIO is closer to Australia's version of the CIA, as they are primarily focused on foreign "adversaries". Australia has the Australian Federal Police, which is their version of the FBI. https://www.asio.gov.au/what-we-do.html

ASIS[0] is CIA (foreign intel) - ASIO would be the FBI's counter-intel department

ASIS is also the department that was secret between its founding in 1952 until 1972

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence...

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#69

Post by shaki-dora » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #63

jonnybgood wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I skimmed it and that site seems highly sensationalist. I don’t know if that a good documentary. A couple of things from the site: “Operating independently from its governments...” Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? “Hackers Can Disable a Sniper Rifle—Or Change Its Target...” It wants me to post this to social media. What’s the context of this quote? It gives none. It see…

> “Operating independently from its governments...” > Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? In Britain we'd probably make a distinction between elected government and civil service. I suspect the point being made here is of operation without sufficient legislative/executive oversight, which there seems to be at least some evidence for.

They are, among other things, paid by the government.

They are not independent of it, under no definition of any of those words. Maybe oversight is lax. Maybe oversight is perfect and everything happens exactly as the overseers want it.

None of that changes anything about the truth of the initial claim. "Independent of" is patently false, and an obvious attempt to sensationalise.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#70

Post by shaki-dora » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 3:12 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #19

sanderjd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing much about the Australian system, I suspect the protections in the Constitution are equivalent, but not those in "common law and other legislation". In the US, the protections in the Constitution + Bill of Rights are considered much more fundamental than our common law and other legislation because it requires an amendment to override those protections, and amendments require an enormous level of nati…

But even so, having something in the constitution is of relatively little protection if the judiciary and government are in favour of an idea. For example, the bill of rights talks about "right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" and yet asset forfeiture is still a legal option. Actual practices surrounding plea bargains also look to run counter to the spirit of the BoR, but I m…

It's true that any codified protection of individual rights is worth nothing without people motivated, either in- or extrinsically, to uphold them.

But the power of such shape public opinion, and even people's sense of their, and their country's, identity.

The US, for example, has long had a strain of something akin to "patriotism to the constitution". It's a collective narrative that makes people believe in those rights (and the rule of law). And even those that do not share that believe have historically been motivated to play along, because it was the only way to stay what's called "acceptable company" (or "electability").

Of course we're currently running an experiment if that mechanism still works when 47% of the voting population and half the elected representatives decide to try something else for a change. Currently, it's only parts of the judiciary, and of the media, holding everything up. we'll see how it ends.