Proposed Australian law forces tech companies to decrypt customer messages

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member

    I still have not heard a good reason why allowing governments to see your messages is a bad thing.  I really have no problem with it.
    Are you willing to give your bank accounts to the mob? If your daughter (or sister or mom) was being stalked by a potential serial rapist, would you want him to be able to track her phone?
  • Reply 42 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    steven n. said:

    I still have not heard a good reason why allowing governments to see your messages is a bad thing.  I really have no problem with it.
    Are you willing to give your bank accounts to the mob? If your daughter (or sister or mom) was being stalked by a potential serial rapist, would you want him to be able to track her phone?
    You imagine securing your smartphone secures your privacy? It does not.

    You were (quite likely) photographed and your license tag noted when you drove to work this morning. Walking on major city streets gets you recorded yet again. Walk in a store and their security cams get you too. Even in your own neighborhood there's probably someone recording your comings and goings including time-logs. It doesn't help your daughters privacy and ability to be tracked either when she probably lives on social sites like Facebook. Worry about a "serial rapist stalking your daughter" is downright silly IMO. Worry instead about who her online friends are as they are far more likely to affect her life negatively than that imaginary rapist stranger you conjured up. 

    And all that ignores the fact that private companies like Experion and Acxiom have FAR more personal information about you than any government, and it's all for sale. Where you bank, work, live, travel, your SS and drivers' license numbers, your family dynamics, childrens' names and SS numbers, your income, your credit cards, your account numbers, the clubs and organizations you belong to, your sexual persuasion, record of any legal dealings over your lifespan, the color of the car you drive, the prescriptions you filled, the size of your home and its layout, where you went to school and where your children attend now...

    But it's the government you fear? Open your eyes a bit wider. We should be fearing what we do to ourselves.  
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 43 of 67
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    grangerfx said:
    A modest proposal: Make Australia the example. Open a data center in Australia just for data belonging to Australian users, just like they are doing in China. Give copies of the encryption key for each user to the Australian government. Let nature take its course. Then we will never have to deal with this idiocy again after Australia realizes that they have no privacy, no secrets and no security and their power grids and hospitals no longer function.
    You forgot - make Aussie gov-t sign some kind of paper that they agreed to what they said and they guarantee that anything bad that they were warned about, will never happen.
  • Reply 44 of 67
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    gatorguy said:
    rob53 said:
    noelos said:
    "Australia's Attorney-General George Brandis said he believes the new law can be implemented without building backdoors into encrypted platforms"

    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. 
    Actually, he's correct.  As GrangerFx proposes, it's not a backdoor into the device that would be needed to adhere to this law; it's a simple matter of not encrypting communications sent from devices.  

    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.  
    Can't believe an AI moderator doesn't understand the trap you just suggested. Give in once and you've set the precedent for it to be used all over the world. 
    Encrypt everything and protect your own keys. 
    But you lock your phone with a pass-code and no legal authority can force you to unlock it making it essentially a stand-off, right? Not exactly. If you the foreign traveler refuse to unlock your device you may be barred from entering the country.
    Yes, because entering another country is not a right, but a privilege. And it is the right of that sovereign state to decide what they do about that (including most idiotic ways of refusing the entry).
  • Reply 45 of 67
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    We need Elon Musk's space-based Internet (Exonet?) now more than ever. Get the Web off this planet and away from the unending parade of dipshits attempting to kill our privacy and freedom.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 46 of 67
    This is also the same gov't that took away their guns...What freedoms? I once wanted to visit Australia, but now I'm not so sure...
  • Reply 47 of 67
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    gatorguy said:
    steven n. said:

    I still have not heard a good reason why allowing governments to see your messages is a bad thing.  I really have no problem with it.
    Are you willing to give your bank accounts to the mob? If your daughter (or sister or mom) was being stalked by a potential serial rapist, would you want him to be able to track her phone?
    You imagine securing your smartphone secures your privacy? It does not.

    You were (quite likely) photographed and your license tag noted when you drove to work this morning. Walking on major city streets gets you recorded yet again. Walk in a store and their security cams get you too. Even in your own neighborhood there's probably someone recording your comings and goings including time-logs. It doesn't help your daughters privacy and ability to be tracked either when she probably lives on social sites like Facebook. Worry about a "serial rapist stalking your daughter" is downright silly IMO. Worry instead about who her online friends are as they are far more likely to affect her life negatively than that imaginary rapist stranger you conjured up. 

    And all that ignores the fact that private companies like Experion and Acxiom have FAR more personal information about you than any government, and it's all for sale. Where you bank, work, live, travel, your SS and drivers' license numbers, your family dynamics, childrens' names and SS numbers, your income, your credit cards, your account numbers, the clubs and organizations you belong to, your sexual persuasion, record of any legal dealings over your lifespan, the color of the car you drive, the prescriptions you filled, the size of your home and its layout, where you went to school and where your children attend now...

    But it's the government you fear? Open your eyes a bit wider. We should be fearing what we do to ourselves.  
    So from you very own description, there is absolutely no need for any government to have even more data since everything we do is already monitored? You need a reality check.
    Likewise, I never once said I feared the government.
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 48 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    steven n. said:
    gatorguy said:
    steven n. said:

    I still have not heard a good reason why allowing governments to see your messages is a bad thing.  I really have no problem with it.
    Are you willing to give your bank accounts to the mob? If your daughter (or sister or mom) was being stalked by a potential serial rapist, would you want him to be able to track her phone?
    You imagine securing your smartphone secures your privacy? It does not.

    You were (quite likely) photographed and your license tag noted when you drove to work this morning. Walking on major city streets gets you recorded yet again. Walk in a store and their security cams get you too. Even in your own neighborhood there's probably someone recording your comings and goings including time-logs. It doesn't help your daughters privacy and ability to be tracked either when she probably lives on social sites like Facebook. Worry about a "serial rapist stalking your daughter" is downright silly IMO. Worry instead about who her online friends are as they are far more likely to affect her life negatively than that imaginary rapist stranger you conjured up. 

    And all that ignores the fact that private companies like Experion and Acxiom have FAR more personal information about you than any government, and it's all for sale. Where you bank, work, live, travel, your SS and drivers' license numbers, your family dynamics, childrens' names and SS numbers, your income, your credit cards, your account numbers, the clubs and organizations you belong to, your sexual persuasion, record of any legal dealings over your lifespan, the color of the car you drive, the prescriptions you filled, the size of your home and its layout, where you went to school and where your children attend now...

    But it's the government you fear? Open your eyes a bit wider. We should be fearing what we do to ourselves.  
    So from you very own description, there is absolutely no need for any government to have even more data since everything we do is already monitored? You need a reality check.
    Likewise, I never once said I feared the government.
    Of course there can be a need for law enforcement to "access more data" in the event of a crime. Let's use you daughter and serial rapist example since you've already considered that scenario. The serial rapist DOES find your daughter despite her phone being encrypted. Your sheriff believes she was attacked by somebody she knew and want's to look at the recent messages she sent and rec'd. But they can't. Her phone is encrypted. But assume you know her pass-code and can unlock it, leading you and the sheriff to suspect one particular acquaintance. All that's needed now is to have a look at his iPhone to establish where he was since he claims he was in another city and has a "friend" that will testify to that.... but guess what? So now is it okay with you if he walks free because the case can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt? 

    Hey at least he was protected from those snoopy guv'mint folks. 
  • Reply 49 of 67
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    gatorguy said:
    Of course there can be a need for law enforcement to "access more data" in the event of a crime. Let's use you daughter and serial rapist example since you've already considered that scenario. The serial rapist DOES find your daughter despite her phone being encrypted. Your sheriff believes she was attacked by somebody she knew and want's to look at the recent messages she sent and rec'd. But they can't. Her phone is encrypted. But assume you know her pass-code and can unlock it, leading you and the sheriff to suspect one particular acquaintance. All that's needed now is to have a look at his iPhone to establish where he was since he claims he was in another city and has a "friend" that will testify to that.... but guess what? So now is it okay with you if he walks free because the case can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt? 

    Hey at least he was protected from those snoopy guv'mint folks. 
    Do you outlaw math? Why don't we go back and live in caves? Better yet, go back to the Ocean where we came as fish?

    Yes, there is a need for law enforcement to get to data and I don't disagree with that concept in the slightest. What I am saying, is the math is available to everyone on the planet. The Source Code is available to everyone on the planet. The platforms are available to everyone on the planet. Implementing your own encrypted messaging system with E2E encryption is a simple thing to do. There is nothing stopping any government from people doing this short of going back to 1950. The battle of keeping encryption secrete is lost. Period. End of sentence.

    As for your hypothetical? Yes, if he/she can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquittal is the answer. Luckily for you (in your universe) the phone data isn't needed since everything we do is watched and tracked anyway so there is no new data available on her phone.

    To catch a few people you have to expose millions. The price simply is not worth it.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 50 of 67
    Eric_WVGGEric_WVGG Posts: 960member
    markg71 said:

    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.

    For a people who have a reputation for a rugged cowboy-like culture, I've always been amazed by the fear and general sissiness of their elected officials. 
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 51 of 67
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,282member
    Once data is encrypted, there is no way for Apple to know the password.
  • Reply 52 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    steven n. said:
    gatorguy said:
    Of course there can be a need for law enforcement to "access more data" in the event of a crime. Let's use you daughter and serial rapist example since you've already considered that scenario. The serial rapist DOES find your daughter despite her phone being encrypted. Your sheriff believes she was attacked by somebody she knew and want's to look at the recent messages she sent and rec'd. But they can't. Her phone is encrypted. But assume you know her pass-code and can unlock it, leading you and the sheriff to suspect one particular acquaintance. All that's needed now is to have a look at his iPhone to establish where he was since he claims he was in another city and has a "friend" that will testify to that.... but guess what? So now is it okay with you if he walks free because the case can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt? 

    Hey at least he was protected from those snoopy guv'mint folks. 
    Do you outlaw math? Why don't we go back and live in caves? Better yet, go back to the Ocean where we came as fish?

    Yes, there is a need for law enforcement to get to data and I don't disagree with that concept in the slightest. What I am saying, is the math is available to everyone on the planet. The Source Code is available to everyone on the planet. The platforms are available to everyone on the planet. Implementing your own encrypted messaging system with E2E encryption is a simple thing to do. There is nothing stopping any government from people doing this short of going back to 1950. The battle of keeping encryption secrete is lost. Period. End of sentence.

    As for your hypothetical? Yes, if he/she can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquittal is the answer. Luckily for you (in your universe) the phone data isn't needed since everything we do is watched and tracked anyway so there is no new data available on her phone.

    To catch a few people you have to expose millions. The price simply is not worth it.
    I have no issue with folks encrypting their communications. Zero. My point went right past you so I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I was pointing out that encryption doesn't  accomplish what you seem to think it does. It does not protect either your privacy or personal safety. But if it serves as a placebo to make you think it does its fine with me. 

    ...and I suspect your attitude towards all of this might change a bit if it ever hits close enough to home. Hopefully it never does. 
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 53 of 67
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    gatorguy said:
    steven n. said:
    gatorguy said:
    Of course there can be a need for law enforcement to "access more data" in the event of a crime. Let's use you daughter and serial rapist example since you've already considered that scenario. The serial rapist DOES find your daughter despite her phone being encrypted. Your sheriff believes she was attacked by somebody she knew and want's to look at the recent messages she sent and rec'd. But they can't. Her phone is encrypted. But assume you know her pass-code and can unlock it, leading you and the sheriff to suspect one particular acquaintance. All that's needed now is to have a look at his iPhone to establish where he was since he claims he was in another city and has a "friend" that will testify to that.... but guess what? So now is it okay with you if he walks free because the case can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt? 

    Hey at least he was protected from those snoopy guv'mint folks. 
    Do you outlaw math? Why don't we go back and live in caves? Better yet, go back to the Ocean where we came as fish?

    Yes, there is a need for law enforcement to get to data and I don't disagree with that concept in the slightest. What I am saying, is the math is available to everyone on the planet. The Source Code is available to everyone on the planet. The platforms are available to everyone on the planet. Implementing your own encrypted messaging system with E2E encryption is a simple thing to do. There is nothing stopping any government from people doing this short of going back to 1950. The battle of keeping encryption secrete is lost. Period. End of sentence.

    As for your hypothetical? Yes, if he/she can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquittal is the answer. Luckily for you (in your universe) the phone data isn't needed since everything we do is watched and tracked anyway so there is no new data available on her phone.

    To catch a few people you have to expose millions. The price simply is not worth it.
    I have no issue with folks encrypting their communications. Zero. My point went right past you so I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I was pointing out that encryption doesn't  accomplish what you seem to think it does. It does not protect either your privacy or personal safety. But if it serves as a placebo to make you think it does its fine with me. 

    ...and I suspect your attitude towards all of this might change a bit if it ever hits close enough to home. Hopefully it never does. 
    Your point didn't go by me, your point was simplistic and wrong IMO. And no, I seriously doubt my attitude toward the would change. I understand the price of civil liberties and freedom.
  • Reply 54 of 67
    The thing is, if someone like a terrorist is determined to not have their communications discovered, they will do the research and find a way to do it properly. The "terrorist card" that these governments roll off their tongue is not who they truly are trying to monitor. The governments want a way to mass monitor the entire population through software "key word" scanning and encryption simply gets in the way of automating this process. One day, the governments will attempt to make any civilian use of encryption a crime. That's where we're headed.
  • Reply 55 of 67
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Politicians can pass any laws they want, but you can't fight the math behind the encryption.
  • Reply 56 of 67
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    The thing is, if someone like a terrorist is determined to not have their communications discovered, they will do the research and find a way to do it properly. 
    They hope to catch the dumb ones. Which ends up being quite a few since "smart" and "willing to be a human trigger that dies in the process" don't often go together. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 57 of 67
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    nht said:
    The thing is, if someone like a terrorist is determined to not have their communications discovered, they will do the research and find a way to do it properly. 
    They hope to catch the dumb ones. Which ends up being quite a few since "smart" and "willing to be a human trigger that dies in the process" don't often go together. 
    Right... Quite a few. Well, then It would be easy to get that info huh. When did that happen?

    Even when they HAVE THE INTEL, they can't stop the guys. That's what we mostly see. Most of those that did the deed in england were already known by authorities.

    Why, because well, you can't stop people until somebody's actually planning something and even stupid terrorists know not to use their own phones (or any phones) to communicate this kind of info. Most terrorist attacks seemingly were organized in a matter of days or as spur of the moment things.

    Getting the info after the fact won't save many cause most cells are quite isolated and they're all dead or they're caught through conventional means
    (that's certainly the case in britain, belgium or France).

    The one using this stuff don't need to smart, they're not coding the software, they're just using it.
    Unlike the PC days, you don't need to be a savvy to use just about anything on a cell phone.

    I code a pretty decent software just using javascript libs and a few encryption one in an hour an run it from my browser, no server component.
    Buy a burner phone/sim, go into a public WIFI, blast it accross the internet.
    Voila, every terrorist got a software... even the dumb ones.
    Why that's not being done? Well it has, there are already hundreds of variants of all kind of software on the net and all the terrorists need is a few to be vetted.
    If they're able to find mass murder videos, they can easily find the proper software...

    Now, they only have to buy a cheap burner, load up the software and voila, they're done and there is nothing that the little bozos in power or the police can do about it.
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 58 of 67
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    Trump supporters must be happy about this considering his stance on companies on encrypted communications and boycott statement against Apple.
  • Reply 59 of 67
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    The thing is, if someone like a terrorist is determined to not have their communications discovered, they will do the research and find a way to do it properly. 
    They hope to catch the dumb ones. Which ends up being quite a few since "smart" and "willing to be a human trigger that dies in the process" don't often go together. 
    Right... Quite a few. Well, then It would be easy to get that info huh. When did that happen?

    Even when they HAVE THE INTEL, they can't stop the guys. That's what we mostly see. Most of those that did the deed in england were already known by authorities.

    Why, because well, you can't stop people until somebody's actually planning something and even stupid terrorists know not to use their own phones (or any phones) to communicate this kind of info. Most terrorist attacks seemingly were organized in a matter of days or as spur of the moment things.

    Getting the info after the fact won't save many cause most cells are quite isolated and they're all dead or they're caught through conventional means
    (that's certainly the case in britain, belgium or France).

    The one using this stuff don't need to smart, they're not coding the software, they're just using it.
    Unlike the PC days, you don't need to be a savvy to use just about anything on a cell phone.

    I code a pretty decent software just using javascript libs and a few encryption one in an hour an run it from my browser, no server component.
    Buy a burner phone/sim, go into a public WIFI, blast it accross the internet.
    Voila, every terrorist got a software... even the dumb ones.
    Why that's not being done? Well it has, there are already hundreds of variants of all kind of software on the net and all the terrorists need is a few to be vetted.
    If they're able to find mass murder videos, they can easily find the proper software...

    Now, they only have to buy a cheap burner, load up the software and voila, they're done and there is nothing that the little bozos in power or the police can do about it.
    Actually, they have broken cells after attacks so info after the fact is useful.  You want to catch the bomb makers and support infrastructure to stop the next attack.

    The police exist to protect you and the bozos in power were elected by you.  To side with terrorists is pretty lame but I guess I'm not too surprised you do.
    edited July 2017 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 60 of 67
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    nht said:
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    The thing is, if someone like a terrorist is determined to not have their communications discovered, they will do the research and find a way to do it properly. 
    They hope to catch the dumb ones. Which ends up being quite a few since "smart" and "willing to be a human trigger that dies in the process" don't often go together. 
    Right... Quite a few. Well, then It would be easy to get that info huh. When did that happen?

    Even when they HAVE THE INTEL, they can't stop the guys. That's what we mostly see. Most of those that did the deed in england were already known by authorities.

    Why, because well, you can't stop people until somebody's actually planning something and even stupid terrorists know not to use their own phones (or any phones) to communicate this kind of info. Most terrorist attacks seemingly were organized in a matter of days or as spur of the moment things.

    Getting the info after the fact won't save many cause most cells are quite isolated and they're all dead or they're caught through conventional means
    (that's certainly the case in britain, belgium or France).

    The one using this stuff don't need to smart, they're not coding the software, they're just using it.
    Unlike the PC days, you don't need to be a savvy to use just about anything on a cell phone.

    I code a pretty decent software just using javascript libs and a few encryption one in an hour an run it from my browser, no server component.
    Buy a burner phone/sim, go into a public WIFI, blast it accross the internet.
    Voila, every terrorist got a software... even the dumb ones.
    Why that's not being done? Well it has, there are already hundreds of variants of all kind of software on the net and all the terrorists need is a few to be vetted.
    If they're able to find mass murder videos, they can easily find the proper software...

    Now, they only have to buy a cheap burner, load up the software and voila, they're done and there is nothing that the little bozos in power or the police can do about it.
    Actually, they have broken cells after attacks so info after the fact is useful.  You want to catch the bomb makers and support infrastructure to stop the next attack.

    The police exist to protect you and the bozos in power were elected by you.  To side with terrorists is pretty lame but I guess I'm not too surprised you do.
    They have broken them THROUGH NORMAL MEANS YOU DES-INGENIOUS TROLL.
    They don't need a fracking back door in encryption inviting a police state with constant surveillance from whoever is in office while well motivated terrorists roll their own encryption. How the hell am I "for terrorists" when that in no way fixes terrorisms and current means of breaking up cells after  the fact are perfectly adequate and this won't help at all. Most of those people were KNOW BEFORE THE BOMBINGS and even some even investigated; putting everyone under wiretap wouldn't change anything when they can't even track the few people they could have put physical surveillance on.

    Getting better human intelligence and analysts, better community outreach, better policing especially keeping track of persons of interests as they move around the EU and more thorough physical surveillance, bugging the places, putting trackers on, people they actually know might be dangerous, might help. There are many things to fix that lead to better results with less collateral damages than this.

    That's what  moronic about this shit argument. It doesn't protect against terrorists; terrorists will continue doing their evil deeds while everyone's transactions will be a  less secure.

    If they really want to get into those phone because those guys were in fact BAD, put some money into it.
    They can pay a few millions to a few firms and decap the chips inside, instrument them and
    try to get through the encryption that way. It shouldn't be easy; it should be damn hard and only be used in the most extreme of cases.

    I'm sure if a democrat was still in Office, shit talkers like you would be the first to whine about the gov intruding on privacy and "taking da guns" (sic) cause you guys did it for every single second a dem was in office in the last 27 years.

    So, this "solves" nothing about terrorism and breaks down a ton of stuff that works perfectly work now.
    That's the kind of  "straw man" right wing intellectually bankrupt non sequitur pushers keep pulling out of their ass.
    Same argument as when the good ol' "think of the children"... That ass is a deep well of logical fallacies.

    BTW, I was caught up in a real life mass shooting december 6 1989 in Montreal were 14 people, most of them women (like me), died at Ecole Polytechnique (my engineering school) and lost a few friends so you can STFU about the insinuation slimeball.


    edited July 2017 Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.