Maybe I shouldn’t give my tourism dollars to Australia. I think I won’t go until this bill is overthrown.
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.
Australia Passes Controversial Encryption Bill Despite Opposition From Apple and Other Tech Companies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, but Apple went out of their way to make installation of RAM in the new Mini exceedingly difficult. Surely the Australian market is worth more than what Apple can make with their evil Mini design.
Be careful. That kind of information can’t go into a liberal’s head without causing harm, since they refuse to accept the fact that they are more like the convervatives than different. It eats them up inside.
As for Apple, they need to drop messaging support in AU and show us they care about more than just money.
Nothing bizarre about it. The opposition sucked the air out of the up-coming election. They know full well that these implementations will be resisted by tech companies for years. But with an election looming, they are aware that the incumbent government are likely to grand-stand on the 'law and order' platform, which they are stuck on running on high rotation. This whole bill was a grandstanding practice that they know is near impossible for them to enforce.
That was kind of the problem. The tech industry and some other people were trying to get the word out how dangerous this was, but the media just ignored it, or if they did a story, they tended to just repeat the Governments talking point: “our security services can’t find terrorists/paedophiles cause they are hiding behind encryption”.
So there was no mainstream campaign against it because the mainstream never got informed.
There was a very short public submission period at one stage (again, not widely publicised), and the feedback there was literally >99% negative (someone counted), yet the day after the submission period ended they introduced the bill to parliament with no changes. They obviously didn’t care what the public/companies had to say.
For a brief moment the opposition actually opposed it, before crumbling literally at the last minute in fear of being accused of being “weak”.
This absolutely crazy. Those who really want to hide things will hide everything and there isn’t a law or a government in this world that can change that. However, normal users and their security will suffer. If this means back doors then results could be devastating for normal users. Some one will misuse such a capability, that’s given. However, even if every single normal user gets hacked the terrorists and criminals won’t because they have every reason to take precautions. In all honesty, I don’t think governments are really trying to catch terrorist and criminals with these actions. They aren’t that stupid. What the want to do is access regular users data and mine it like there is no tomorrow.
Aussie here speaking for myself, certainly not the whole clountry (where there are obviously mixed views and privacy advocates...etc).
The site (and privacy advocates) have misrepresented it. The crucial part is that crime agencies can now go to the court and apply to be able to decrypt a phone and use the data as evidence in a court. This will only be granted by the court (like a warrant) if, for example, you've already been charged with paedophilia offences because the messages of the kid's phone prove you groomed/raped them and you're going to prison anyway.
This then provides the other piece of the puzzle and allows the cops to crack your phone open and crack your encrypted messages within apps (which they can already physically do) and use that as evidence so that they can be charged with raping/grooming 20 other kids who didn't report it (and protect potential victims...etc).
Thus, all the part that MR is blowing up about does is give crime agencies the power to ask for a bit of cooperation with this if needed (again... for this to happen a court would need to grant the order in the first place based on the weight of evidence already stacked against the person). Clearly companies can't do what they can't do and that's written into the leg. Thus, the fears are false at best.
Last edited:
Ok Apple, this is your chance to show how much you really care about customer privacy. Pull all products out of Australia until this bill is gone.
Open source the encryption, publish it as a 1 click compile/install, hell even allow Siri to build it "Hey Siri build encryption"
Law demands help, point them to the source code.
Apple should also close the stores in Australia and shift their Australasian base to New Zealand so Australia also looses the tax income.
Law demands help, point them to the source code.
Apple should also close the stores in Australia and shift their Australasian base to New Zealand so Australia also looses the tax income.
In theory, yes. They did comply with a law that required them to story sensitive encryption keys locally. But they did so in a secure manner and retain control over them. No back doors were created.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-...n-keys-in-china-1519497574?mod=article_inline
How the opposition leader (and probably Prime Minister after the next election given the brand damage the current government has) flipped and supported this rushed legislation with "oh we don't like it but we'll fix it up later" comment.
Terrorists aren't as lazy. They will just encrypt before sending messages. Less convenient but if the intent is there it wont be hard to do. Surely they already clear-code text messages swapping dangerous words for something innocuous. We all do it in workplaces now where labels like "Muppet 1" is used for a worker we all dislike just in case someone sees or reads a private message.
For the vast majority of app users it just means they'll always wonder if their private messages get handed over, monitored or scrutinized. Opening the back door impacts worldwide. Would US citizens stand for this? By allowing it here in Australia, surely people overseas should be worried.
If I chat with someone in another country, aren't all our conversations now going to be available? The legal boundary of back door access won't stop at our borders.
Australian will be seen a security weak point.
How many people internationally will have higher risks fighting for civil rights and justice because they have Australian friends their government wouldn't approve of? You'd think twice living in Russia or China and chatting with an Aussie.
Is it any wonder the general public are sick of the our current leaders?
Thinking independents will hopefully hold the balance next time a general election is held and can stop poorly thought out legislation like this being passed.
Terrorists aren't as lazy. They will just encrypt before sending messages. Less convenient but if the intent is there it wont be hard to do. Surely they already clear-code text messages swapping dangerous words for something innocuous. We all do it in workplaces now where labels like "Muppet 1" is used for a worker we all dislike just in case someone sees or reads a private message.
For the vast majority of app users it just means they'll always wonder if their private messages get handed over, monitored or scrutinized. Opening the back door impacts worldwide. Would US citizens stand for this? By allowing it here in Australia, surely people overseas should be worried.
If I chat with someone in another country, aren't all our conversations now going to be available? The legal boundary of back door access won't stop at our borders.
Australian will be seen a security weak point.
How many people internationally will have higher risks fighting for civil rights and justice because they have Australian friends their government wouldn't approve of? You'd think twice living in Russia or China and chatting with an Aussie.
Is it any wonder the general public are sick of the our current leaders?
Thinking independents will hopefully hold the balance next time a general election is held and can stop poorly thought out legislation like this being passed.
Apple already barely pays any taxes in Australia, so that's a fairly moot point.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...x/news-story/7c0b49efea4c44e90978aab6d216a30e
Back on the topic - This whole issue has been followed heavily here in Oz on the ABC (govt funded "Australian Broadcasting Corporation"), and they have always shown it in a negative light, not just for the loss of privacy, but also the damage it will do to local software companies, that will suffer a loss of confidence on the global stage as foreign entities will have to assume that their software by default will include a backdoor key for the Government... But admittedly the ABC is not "mainstream" media.
The government is parading the law as being anti-terrorist - ie to help police stop terrorist acts by accessing messages between terrorist suspects before they commit a crime. As the ABC has pointed out however, a wide variety of government bodies use the already existing, similar laws to access people's data for a myriad of reasons, none of which are terrorist (or even organised crime) related.
If these laws "work" for the government - do you really think that the US government will not follow their example? How happy do you think the FBI has been when Apple has continually refused access upon request? Apple was able to fight off the requests to date, but if the laws in America were amended... do you really think that Tim will continue to resist - will face jail time - over this issue?
New Zealand currently gets ZERO tax from Apple because it is run out of Australia .
My guess is that the US pushed Australia for the back door because they know that those laws would not undergo the same scrutiny and legal challenges that would in the USA. Those back doors will be given directly to the USA, so the US government will end up with what it wants via its own back door (Australia).
There will be a MASSIVE amount of effort put into finding this back door by other governments and by criminal groups and it WILL be found.
You are correct, Australian software will be viewed with suspicion, and rightly so.
Apple should just come out and place a bloody great warning on every secure web page that "At the Australian government has deemed that you are not entitled to safety on the internet, this page could be compromised and any information you give is at your own risk"
Apple has one of two choices, give a backdoor which they know will end up in the USA, or withdraw from the Australian market. A MAJOR shift of IT businesses from Australia to New Zealand would see these laws removed.
Encryption is a Pandora's box. It's already been opened and cannot be closed. If a government wants to open Apple's encryption, they will move to an app or to android with end to end apps there instead, or even legacy hardware. You cannot have a backdoor for one country because it allows a backdoor to ALL countries if you do that. It's the stupidity of the law makers not comprehending this decision and they look so foolish it's actually hilarious. There is no such thing as national security if you can spy on the general populous, you can be guaranteed that hackers/nefarious types will hack the politicians phones and cause WAY more damage than the infinitesimally small chance of being caught in crime or terror attacks. This whole idea that we need to fear something is getting very strained, we are not at risk of terror because criminals can communicate anonymously. There is nothing to fear in reality. More people die in cars a day than in terror attacks it's complete fantasy and highly dangerous to remove encryption just so the government can do what they really want to do, to spy and control the masses and kill any descent dead.
Why must we be always associated with a bloody kangaroo ??. I'm in Perth.
Of course tech companies are gonna oppose it. That's there job... You wouldn't see anyone agreeing as a "once off", but that would be god to see..
Although tech companies already have a means to provide law enforcement agencies with needs required. its only based on THEIR terms as reasonable, not the law's terms.. Sounds one way.... "I'll give you his but first you must tell me what the reasons are"
Need to fine a better balance, other than just "trusting" ..Not sure if there would be one, but it's still worth thinking about.
Of course tech companies are gonna oppose it. That's there job... You wouldn't see anyone agreeing as a "once off", but that would be god to see..
Although tech companies already have a means to provide law enforcement agencies with needs required. its only based on THEIR terms as reasonable, not the law's terms.. Sounds one way.... "I'll give you his but first you must tell me what the reasons are"
Need to fine a better balance, other than just "trusting" ..Not sure if there would be one, but it's still worth thinking about.
This reminds me a little bit of the Bluray industry where they try to stop bootleggers by making it more expensive and harder to watch the Disc by the paying customer via DRMs, region codes, and and necessary online updates.
I can see where they are coming from, but the attempt is futile. Heck you can even program your own software and use it for cross internet communication I guess.
On the other side, if you monitor everyones communication over the internet, then this is just an exact dystopian replica of 1984. The free world used to make fun of dictators that didn't allow free speech and monitor individuals.
Why would they? Google and FaceBook main income is from selling your information. I even heard Google does not state how long they keep your data even if you delete your account, they can keep it for decades I guess.
[doublepost=1544251709][/doublepost]
Whatsapp was bought by FB for like $20B. I didn't think they did it to make sure the gov. can not read your communications. This company thrives on selling data and breaching privacy.
I do not trust any big corporate, even if they say they encrypt I believe they can always unencrypt. Not only that, but there is probably something int he "Terms & Conditions" where it says they can and will sell your data and info if required and not responsible if a breach happens or something like that.
It is a bit too paranoid, but I have found out that the only secure thing on the internet is not to put it on the internet in the first place.
I can see where they are coming from, but the attempt is futile. Heck you can even program your own software and use it for cross internet communication I guess.
On the other side, if you monitor everyones communication over the internet, then this is just an exact dystopian replica of 1984. The free world used to make fun of dictators that didn't allow free speech and monitor individuals.
Why would they? Google and FaceBook main income is from selling your information. I even heard Google does not state how long they keep your data even if you delete your account, they can keep it for decades I guess.
[doublepost=1544251709][/doublepost]
Whatsapp was bought by FB for like $20B. I didn't think they did it to make sure the gov. can not read your communications. This company thrives on selling data and breaching privacy.
I do not trust any big corporate, even if they say they encrypt I believe they can always unencrypt. Not only that, but there is probably something int he "Terms & Conditions" where it says they can and will sell your data and info if required and not responsible if a breach happens or something like that.
It is a bit too paranoid, but I have found out that the only secure thing on the internet is not to put it on the internet in the first place.
Short version: election politics from very desperate government, don't freak out just yet fellow geeks.
Longer version: I am as opposed to this type of law as anybody. But the reality on the ground is a lot more complex and subtle than it might seem from media reporting.
There is not only virtually zero chance these laws will ever be used, but they won't even survive for more than 3-4 months without major amendment to the point of being almost completely rewritten.
We have an election soon, and hysterical beat-ups (especially those two perennial favourites – terrorists & kiddie prawn) are basically the only political weapon left for the current hard right government to try bashing the centrist opposition, who are well on track to kick the government's arse so hard on election day it could be the biggest win ever in our history.
The opposition knows exactly what the problems and risks are with this law, and have proposed dozens of good amendments demonstrating exactly this.
Plus, the opposition simply does not have the numbers to stop it anyway. For them to vote against it would have been token at best, and quite possibly made the situation worse.
For full and boring details of just why this law got through parliament, read this rather long but accurate explanation. (It is written by a member of the opposition party, so factor in some self-interest. But the basic facts and context are correct.)
Last edited:
While I don't think there's a strong right to privacy as such, I nevertheless think that personal computing devices, even personal computing coupled with cloud services, should be treated as an extension of a person's brain, not as mere property or passive printed records; because sooner or later, that's exactly what personal computing devices will be - coupled into one's brain (giving antivirus protection a whole new meaning); already, people comfortable with their devices use them extensively, consulting them on anything where they'd otherwise just guess.
If you can't use force to get a person to answer or compel them to incriminate themselves, you shouldn't be allowed to have law enforcement use their devices against them. Foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, maybe, but then you shouldn't be able to use the information in trial (nor in most cases, as the primary justification for a search warrant for conventional evidence).
If you can't use force to get a person to answer or compel them to incriminate themselves, you shouldn't be allowed to have law enforcement use their devices against them. Foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, maybe, but then you shouldn't be able to use the information in trial (nor in most cases, as the primary justification for a search warrant for conventional evidence).
Serious question: So, are you saying that the AUS Government are doing all they can to end homelessness and poverty and as such that would mean they no longer exist within Australia?
[doublepost=1544302229][/doublepost]
I hear what you are saying but with respect this is Apple we are talking about. Apple take privacy and security VERY seriously indeed. So therefore I doubt it would be that easy to hack Apple. If it was then it would have been done by now.
I am not saying it would never be done, merely that it is very VERY difficult.
Regarding the secure enclave, it is as secure as it can get. It can not be brute forced nor can you walk back the encryption.
It is asymmetrical encryption. It is extremely difficult to break. I think that even the NSA could not break it without having access to the chip itself and a whole mountain time full of computing power from the world's fastest and greatest supercomputers.
[doublepost=1544302779][/doublepost]
I disagree. Tim Cook is NOT out for world dominance. If was really giving in to the worst of each government around the world then he would have given into the FBI in 2016 instead of sticking his middle finger up at them.
Wanting to make profits is one thing, world dominance its more Dr Evil than Tim Cook.
[doublepost=1544302987][/doublepost]
Err no he did not. China has no access to iPhones or their information. The report by Bloomberg was false.
Everyone from Apple to the FBI and many others have categorically stated so. if you think they are all lying then perhaps you are paranoid or a conspiracy theorist.
[doublepost=1544303148][/doublepost]
China has ZERO access to iPhones and the users data. In many ways it is impossible because of end to end encryption of iMessage etc etc.
If the FBI saga in 2016 is anything to go by the Apple IS VERY concerned with Australians citizen's rights to privacy and security.
[doublepost=1544303249][/doublepost]
Yes and for all we know Elvis stole Shergar and is living on a secret Caribbean island with Jesus and the Roswell Aliens LOL
Keeping the data for themselves and providing it to governmental agencies are different things, so your comment doesn't entirely map.
In any event, re-read my second sentence. I have no expectation any of the three would actually take any action in protest.
The governments say they want to "stop terrorism" but actually they would use this law to find people who criticize them. Suppose you send really mean anti-Trump messages back and forth to your friends. With the decryption law the government spooks would decode your message and send someone to "have a talk" with you, resulting in your imprisonment or death.
Any half competent terrorist can find an encrypt/decrypt technique that is not part of the OS - they can come up with their own encryption with their own keys and their messages will still be unreadable.
If iMessage or some other program sends a message that is already encrypted, then the OS will have no way to decrypt it.
Any half competent terrorist can find an encrypt/decrypt technique that is not part of the OS - they can come up with their own encryption with their own keys and their messages will still be unreadable.
If iMessage or some other program sends a message that is already encrypted, then the OS will have no way to decrypt it.
Nonsense. Encryption only protects the text from prying eyes while it’s traveling between devices. After it arrives, it’s no longer encrypted. Now... those messages are backed up to Apple’s servers... encrypted again, but this time the keys are available to Apple and anyone with a Court Order.
Meanwhile, it’s even less complicated in China. Apple turned the iMessage services over to a third party, and China’s government has uncontested access to the encryption keys.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcr...n-keys-for-chinese-users-to-china/amp/?espv=1