Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Criticizes Proposed Anti-Encryption Legislation in Australia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"We decide who comes into this country!" Except for Apple of course who can come in and decimate a culturally significant area right in the middle of our city centre in Melbourne without our government even being aware.....Oh but wait, not sure about your policy mate.
Or the first move by one of the 5 eyes.
Pass legislation, which demands the impossible or irrational, making it the consumer and industry's problem.
Sit back and let the legal system tear it all up while pointing at "terrorists" saying "we only acted in the public interest".
It's horrific but it's happening. Such is the new political age we have entered...
So they are a "bad guy" for refusing to weaken encryption wholesale for a pack of fools who have shown time and again that their ability to keep things safe is, to be generous, pathetic.
26,000 requests have been processed..... and those requests were?
Did Apple unlock or facilitate the unlocking of 26,000 phones, tablets and computers that their users were made to assume were locked down with encryption?
I know what you’re saying, and definitely a very interesting political climate in the US as you have described.
However, I’m not from the US and I was merely highlighting that the divisive views/debate you have in the US won’t even exist in China, because the government there doesn’t need to answer to anyone’s questions, nor do the citizens have a say in matters like this, let alone foreign companies like Apple (which the original post I was replying to implied they had).
Apple does need encryption for the online shop, App Store (macOS & iOS), iTunes, iCloud, macOS and iOS devices (T1, T2 chip, FDE, FileVault, ...) and all other services which are important for Apples business. Privacy is important for the end user, not for Apple.
[doublepost=1539376406][/doublepost]
Then they (U.S. authorities) have also access to encrypted data on Apple devices / servers and so on.
Criminals develop their own communication networks. It is useless to intercept messages from John and Jane Doe. As you say, a really dumb idea.
You do realise increasing the power of the state over the individual is something a socialist government does, a collectivist action. That is, this Bill is what you would expect as a typical type of action of the left. Right wing politics is supposed to favour the rights of the individual over the State.
Your mistake is thinking the modern liberal party is right wing. That is as naive as thinking the ALP is there for the workers. The modern politician is first and foremost there for themselves. It’s why both majors are losing membership, and struggling to get volunteers to work booths on polling day.
There are many reasons for not voting for these LPA clowns, and I would be tempted to list this Bill as an example, but sadly I suspect the ALP are right on board with it. At most they would only propose amendments to it.
But at least get your labels right.
I understand the Left and Right Political continuum. I'm talking about Australian Conservatism, which is strikingly different than in the US. For instance, a ban on automatic rifles, handgun etc and tight control over who can own a Gun was introduced and enforced by the Australian Conservatives - The LNP. Today a majority of Australian's and Conservatives still support that legislation. Although, I believe US influences have had some effect. And this type of legislation is typical of Conservative Australian Governments. You're comparing our Politics to an Americanized standard, ours is closer to the UK. Even our Parliamentary system somewhat mirrors the UK's (Westminster). It's not as black and white as you suggest. And I see there are moves away from the major parties and I understand the dissatisfaction of the electorate, but turning to minor party's as an answer to our problems could very well cause even more divisions and problems.
That's not true at all. Both left and right wing governments want more and more totalitarian control. Who do you think came up with PNAC, the war on terror, Homeland Security, the NSA, warrantless wiretaps, in the US etc.? Who wanted more and more totalitarian surveillance in the name of 'law and order' It was the neo-cons.
No need for tribalism, there's plenty of blame to go around.
It amazes me when Governments legitimately believe thst weakening encryption will simply stop people be8ng terrorists, as opposed to driving them deeper underground where they’re even harder to track.
In regards to Australians, you know something is terribly wrong with your Government when a foreign tech company is advocating for your privacy.
Pretty sad when the people with the least technical knowledge are the ones making/passing laws regarding technology.
The Australian government is a known user of encryption so, ipso facto, they must be terrorists.
The convenience for those high-paying men-in-power is definitely way way more important than all regular citizen's privacy and security, combined.
Seems legit.
I'd like to see the source of that data summary. Sounds like an interesting, scientific poll though.
Sorry, but they do sell your data like everyone else does, don't for a second think they don't.
You seem to be under the impression that they're passing this law to stop terrorists.
lol.
[doublepost=1539381564][/doublepost]
What data and to which entity? What's your source on this?
Here is a fairly simple solution:
Get the hardware manufacturers out of the loop, have them open up APIs that allow third party companies to encrypt devices. Then the manufacturers can legitimately say that they have no control over it and no possible way to build in a back door. And if the government continues to force the developers to build in back doors, you can always roll your own system and make it as secure as you want.
It has been done this way for years on computers, why make it any different just because a device is portable?
Get the hardware manufacturers out of the loop, have them open up APIs that allow third party companies to encrypt devices. Then the manufacturers can legitimately say that they have no control over it and no possible way to build in a back door. And if the government continues to force the developers to build in back doors, you can always roll your own system and make it as secure as you want.
It has been done this way for years on computers, why make it any different just because a device is portable?
Of course. Apple will always do what's best for the customer right up until it significantly hurts their profit margin.
It is a simple fact that anytime you give your information to another company it will get sold at some point. Let's not try to pretend it doesn't. Every TOS says they have the right to do so, including Apple's. Apple buries it in legalese, but it is there.