Proposed Australian law forces tech companies to decrypt customer messages
The Australian government on Friday proposed a set of new cybersecurity measures that would compel technology companies like Apple to provide law enforcement agencies access to encrypted customer messages.
Looking to combat a global rise in terror attacks, which in some cases were planned and carried out with the help of encrypted messaging apps and services, Australia will in November propose a law that grants courts power to compel tech companies to decrypt communications, the Associated Press reports.
Currently, Australian law requires telephone companies aid in law enforcement operations by providing access to communications when obliged to do so via court order. According to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the new law places the same requirements on tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google, which market messaging services with end-to-end encryption.
"We've got a real problem in that the law enforcement agencies are increasingly unable to find out what terrorists and drug traffickers and pedophile rings are up to because of the very high levels of encryption," Turnbull said in a statement to reporters. "Where we can compel it, we will, but we will need the cooperation from the tech companies."
Similar laws are enforced across the Western world, but Australia's proposal seems more aggressive than U.S. legislation. The Australian government agrees, saying the new law would be modeled after the UK's Investigatory Powers Act recently passed by the British Parliament in November.
Dubbed the "Snooper's Charter," the act furnishes government agencies wide latitude with which to eavesdrop on suspected criminals. Provisions of the act allow UK agencies to carry out targeted and bulk data collection operations, equipment hacking, data and communications interception, decryption and more.
Unlike the Australian law, however, the UK Investigatory Powers Act does not require foreign companies to decrypt communications or participate in data collection procedures.
Expecting resistance from tech companies based in the U.S., Turnbull in his statement said the firms "know morally they should" cooperate with government agencies.
"There is a culture, particularly in the United States, a very libertarian culture, which is quite anti-government in the tech sector," he said. "We need to say with one voice to Silicon Valley and its emulators: All right, you've devised these great platforms, now you've got to help us to ensure that the rule of law prevails.'"
Australia's Attorney-General George Brandis said he believes the new law can be implemented without building backdoors into encrypted platforms, a technique widely panned by service providers who the technique inherently weakens security. Apple, for instance, has long declined to build in backdoors to iMessage, iCloud and its other network offerings, citing consumer privacy concerns.
Last year, Apple found itself embroiled in an intense debate over strong device encryption when it refused to comply with a federal court order mandating it help the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation unlock an iPhone connected to the San Bernardino terror attack. At the time, Apple argued that bypassing iPhone's security protocols, even for a single device, was dangerous and would put millions of iOS users at risk.
Looking to combat a global rise in terror attacks, which in some cases were planned and carried out with the help of encrypted messaging apps and services, Australia will in November propose a law that grants courts power to compel tech companies to decrypt communications, the Associated Press reports.
Currently, Australian law requires telephone companies aid in law enforcement operations by providing access to communications when obliged to do so via court order. According to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the new law places the same requirements on tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google, which market messaging services with end-to-end encryption.
"We've got a real problem in that the law enforcement agencies are increasingly unable to find out what terrorists and drug traffickers and pedophile rings are up to because of the very high levels of encryption," Turnbull said in a statement to reporters. "Where we can compel it, we will, but we will need the cooperation from the tech companies."
Similar laws are enforced across the Western world, but Australia's proposal seems more aggressive than U.S. legislation. The Australian government agrees, saying the new law would be modeled after the UK's Investigatory Powers Act recently passed by the British Parliament in November.
Dubbed the "Snooper's Charter," the act furnishes government agencies wide latitude with which to eavesdrop on suspected criminals. Provisions of the act allow UK agencies to carry out targeted and bulk data collection operations, equipment hacking, data and communications interception, decryption and more.
Unlike the Australian law, however, the UK Investigatory Powers Act does not require foreign companies to decrypt communications or participate in data collection procedures.
Expecting resistance from tech companies based in the U.S., Turnbull in his statement said the firms "know morally they should" cooperate with government agencies.
"There is a culture, particularly in the United States, a very libertarian culture, which is quite anti-government in the tech sector," he said. "We need to say with one voice to Silicon Valley and its emulators: All right, you've devised these great platforms, now you've got to help us to ensure that the rule of law prevails.'"
Australia's Attorney-General George Brandis said he believes the new law can be implemented without building backdoors into encrypted platforms, a technique widely panned by service providers who the technique inherently weakens security. Apple, for instance, has long declined to build in backdoors to iMessage, iCloud and its other network offerings, citing consumer privacy concerns.
Last year, Apple found itself embroiled in an intense debate over strong device encryption when it refused to comply with a federal court order mandating it help the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation unlock an iPhone connected to the San Bernardino terror attack. At the time, Apple argued that bypassing iPhone's security protocols, even for a single device, was dangerous and would put millions of iOS users at risk.
Comments
This is a good read as well: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/07/oz_governments_definition_of_backdoor/
I had this discussion this week twice and each time the terrorist card was played:
"If the government reading my iMessage just stops 1 terror attack then I am happy to give up my privacy!"
Great in theory and if the magic would exist to keep it "good governments" only and if I would believe it would stop a single incident, then I may even be persuaded.
Herein lies the tri-fold issue:
1. This magic does not exist - it will get out and will get exploited. It's either total encryption or none
2. There are not so good governments, and you can't really say: Australia is nice, but I don't give it to North Korea (anybody having issues with North Korea reading their communications?
3. Once all the big messaging providers comply, the 'bad guys' will just make their own little encryption up and load it on their android cheap phones. - IE: They can still communicate 'securely' while the rest of the 'good people' are exposed.
Funny enough the "I don't need privacy" people I talked to did not understand any of the above points.
The solution to terrorism has never, and will never be, a game of whack-a-mole with messaging services.
That's because George Brandis is a world-class moron with no understanding of technology. He could be even define what "meta-data" was when they wanted to bulk-collect that. If he does an interview on this topic, and half-informed interviewer will tear him to shreds.
This is the same government that also wants to apply a government mandated filter on the internet. Also the same government that assisting in blocking websites that are considered to be breaching copyright by filesharing. Same government that is dedicated to providing an outdated, crippled fibre to the node network that provides a expensive, slow service using outdated rotten copper wiring.
The Australian government really has a few screws loose. Our government is not perfect either, but when politicians pretend to know about technology, we're all in trouble.
That's because George Brandis is a world-class moron with no understanding of technology. He could be even define what "meta-data" was when they wanted to bulk-collect that. If he does an interview on this topic, and half-informed interviewer will tear him to shreds.
I've long held the position that the device itself should be considered an extension of its owner's mind, and therefore should be sacrosanct with respect to backdoors to encryption, at least as long as society maintains that it's wrong to probe our minds (using torture or sodium pentathol or some such means). Let Apple do as GrangerFx suggests, use these governments as a test case for the rest of the world, by dropping encryption on inter-device communications. Any communications that leaves the device leaves with encryption for which a key is provided to the Australian government. But data on the device remains under the same strong encryption as is currently utilized. As EsquireCats suggests, it will do nothing to stop terrorists who can simply decide to utilize one of the many hundreds of available apps that provide encrypted communications, or roll their own, for use on either Andriod or jailbroken iPhones.
"Morally..." indeed. That is rich coming from a politician and the man who spearheaded the ruination of the Australian NBN.
After the fiasco that that is Australia's revamped NBN (a revamp championed by Turnbull as the then Minister) no one should ever listen to this man on anything that even remotely involved technology.
100% Geoge Brandis an absolute F**** Baboon, alongside his goofball mate Malcom Turnbull who mind you uses "Whisper" for its so called
security