If I were a tech entrepreneur in Australia, this would be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. I would do whatever was necessary to set up my product's home base in a country that...
If I were a tech entrepreneur in Australia, this would be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. I would do whatever was necessary to set up my product's home base in a country that respects user/crypto privacy, wherever that may be.
If Aus decided that it applied to all tech companies, including ones not headquartered there, all that Australian users would see is a splash page that talks about forcibly revealed encryption on their product, and a pledge not to operate there until the requirement was repealed.
I wonder if there might be some loophole, where all the actual encryption/decryption is handled by a trusted, internationally-based third party. An Australian service could just be responsible for...
I wonder if there might be some loophole, where all the actual encryption/decryption is handled by a trusted, internationally-based third party. An Australian service could just be responsible for transmitting and storing arbitrary data. If that data happens to be encrypted when we get it, it's not our responsibility... that is the plaintext we received from the user, which just happens to be gibberish. From our perspective it's already decrypted. Sorry, can't help you.
Once again, politicians who don't understand how encryption works trying to force their world view onto new technology. I like to use the example of reading encrypted conversations vs tapping a...
Once again, politicians who don't understand how encryption works trying to force their world view onto new technology.
I like to use the example of reading encrypted conversations vs tapping a telephone line. On the surface, they do look the same, and I can see where the confusion comes from in uneducated lawmakers. But the differences are massive. When you tap someone's line, you only have access to their conversations over the agreed-upon period of time. When you have a master encryption key, you'll have access to every conversation everyone has ever had.
Let's be clear here: They have to get that legislation through Parliament before it becomes law. While the government has the numbers to pass this legislation in the House of Representatives, the...
Let's be clear here:
The government has drafted legislation to be introduced in the coming months that would force companies to co-operate with security agencies seeking access to encrypted data.
They have to get that legislation through Parliament before it becomes law. While the government has the numbers to pass this legislation in the House of Representatives, the Senate is an entirely different matter.
The Senate recently passed a motion in favour of strong encryption - with the support of the main opposition party (Labor). It's not clear yet whether Labor will vote for or against this new government legislation. If they vote for it, they'll look like hypocrites, but the legislation will pass. If they vote against it, this means the government has to start negotiating with all the minor parties and independents who sit on the Senate crossbench to get the numbers to pass it - and they're a temperamental bunch. There are a couple of libertarians (nope), some pro-privacy advocates (nope), some racists (yep), and various others (dunno). It's going to take a lot of horse-trading to get enough of them to agree.
I wouldn't count these unhatched chickens just yet.
so they point out how terribly inept the existing laws are, and then propose brand new, terribly inept laws. how would this ever make it out of a committee with anyone not a complete moron?
so they point out how terribly inept the existing laws are, and then propose brand new, terribly inept laws.
how would this ever make it out of a committee with anyone not a complete moron?
If I were a tech entrepreneur in Australia, this would be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. I would do whatever was necessary to set up my product's home base in a country that respects user/crypto privacy, wherever that may be.
If Aus decided that it applied to all tech companies, including ones not headquartered there, all that Australian users would see is a splash page that talks about forcibly revealed encryption on their product, and a pledge not to operate there until the requirement was repealed.
I wonder if there might be some loophole, where all the actual encryption/decryption is handled by a trusted, internationally-based third party. An Australian service could just be responsible for transmitting and storing arbitrary data. If that data happens to be encrypted when we get it, it's not our responsibility... that is the plaintext we received from the user, which just happens to be gibberish. From our perspective it's already decrypted. Sorry, can't help you.
Once again, politicians who don't understand how encryption works trying to force their world view onto new technology.
I like to use the example of reading encrypted conversations vs tapping a telephone line. On the surface, they do look the same, and I can see where the confusion comes from in uneducated lawmakers. But the differences are massive. When you tap someone's line, you only have access to their conversations over the agreed-upon period of time. When you have a master encryption key, you'll have access to every conversation everyone has ever had.
Thanks Tom Scott
Let's be clear here:
They have to get that legislation through Parliament before it becomes law. While the government has the numbers to pass this legislation in the House of Representatives, the Senate is an entirely different matter.
The Senate recently passed a motion in favour of strong encryption - with the support of the main opposition party (Labor). It's not clear yet whether Labor will vote for or against this new government legislation. If they vote for it, they'll look like hypocrites, but the legislation will pass. If they vote against it, this means the government has to start negotiating with all the minor parties and independents who sit on the Senate crossbench to get the numbers to pass it - and they're a temperamental bunch. There are a couple of libertarians (nope), some pro-privacy advocates (nope), some racists (yep), and various others (dunno). It's going to take a lot of horse-trading to get enough of them to agree.
I wouldn't count these unhatched chickens just yet.
so they point out how terribly inept the existing laws are, and then propose brand new, terribly inept laws.
how would this ever make it out of a committee with anyone not a complete moron?