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 Proposes Law That Would Compel Tech Companies to Decrypt Messages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"We need to ensure the internet is not used as a dark place for bad people to hide their criminal activities from the law," Australian Prim Minister Malcolm Turnbull told reporters in Sydney.
Sounds more like addressing a new kindergarten intake.
No Mr Turnbull, what you really need to work towards is actually creating favourable conditions for people to be happy with their lives, so they do not need to steal, push drugs, etc.
If you continue along that root, let's stop selling hammers, as somebody might use them to badly hurt somebody else. Nonsense. More regulation does not address the root cause here and does not even help with the consequences.
Sounds more like addressing a new kindergarten intake.
No Mr Turnbull, what you really need to work towards is actually creating favourable conditions for people to be happy with their lives, so they do not need to steal, push drugs, etc.
If you continue along that root, let's stop selling hammers, as somebody might use them to badly hurt somebody else. Nonsense. More regulation does not address the root cause here and does not even help with the consequences.
Seems like the old FBI argument also applies to this story.
Common sense, because it has been proven that man is inherently evil and not good. Jer 17:9
Of course it is given enough money and time. What you might mean is that for the average person it is not economically feasible.
Because they fundamentally can't understand. They believe that it can be done, so it must be possible. They simply can't understand a world in which there are rules that are superior to their own. Rules that they cannot legislate out of existence.
[doublepost=1500038304][/doublepost]
It's my understanding (and I may be wrong) is that Apple hold the encryption keys for iMessage and as such can decrypt them, if forced to do so (unlike WhatsApp who do not have the decryption keys and as such cannot be forced to decrypt messages, even under a court order).
It would be good to know that I am wrong about this.....
It's my understanding (and I may be wrong) is that Apple hold the encryption keys for iMessage and as such can decrypt them, if forced to do so (unlike WhatsApp who do not have the decryption keys and as such cannot be forced to decrypt messages, even under a court order).
It would be good to know that I am wrong about this.....
Last edited:
"Notably, Australia has not explained how the proposed law would prevent nefarious actors from using open-source encryption tools to encrypt messages that can be transferred through conventional means such as email."
This. Exactly and simply this. Strong encryption is based on mathematics that any computer science undergraduate can understand, so artificially building in back doors will only affect normal law-abiding people (and the truly stupid criminals).
This. Exactly and simply this. Strong encryption is based on mathematics that any computer science undergraduate can understand, so artificially building in back doors will only affect normal law-abiding people (and the truly stupid criminals).
Every time I see these stories I assume the same response. Stop selling in that country. I'm sure they buy a lot of devices, but the risk of decreased sales globally must be greater than the loss of sales in one country.
The wording leaves the door open to not help goverments?
"It appears to take cues from the U.K.'s Investigatory Powers Bill, which includes provisions that require technology companies to bypass encryption where technically feasible."
So if they put it into law and then Apple, or anyone, says that they can't help because their system does not have the keys, they are in the clear?
"It appears to take cues from the U.K.'s Investigatory Powers Bill, which includes provisions that require technology companies to bypass encryption where technically feasible."
So if they put it into law and then Apple, or anyone, says that they can't help because their system does not have the keys, they are in the clear?
The point of view partly depends on whether or not you're charged with keeping people safe.
If your job is to prevent terrorism, you're going to want as many tools as you can get.
Western governments especially are not interested in spying on their populace, but being able to implement legal warrants in search of information that can safeguard life and property, or catch a past criminal.
Related programs like PRISM data collection are not about realtime surveillance, but being able to do a Google-like search of past history when legally needed. (Like how mass stored UK public camera videos are used only after a crime has been committed.)
An example was catching the person behind the failed Times Square bombing a few years back. A burner phone was used to buy the bomb vehicle, which had its VIN removed. However, investigators were able to find the Craigslist ad used to purchase the vehicle, look up the burner phone used, then request and get all the numbers that phone had called, or had called it, along with locations during the calls.
The ability to do this kind of legally warranted research quickly from stored records is why they were able to arrest the perpetrator only two days later and take him off an international flight from JFK which he had already boarded, Otherwise he'd have gotten away.
So there is definitely a balance to be made between protecting our privacy, and the right / need of governments to protect those same people and bring to justice those who would harm them.
If your job is to prevent terrorism, you're going to want as many tools as you can get.
Western governments especially are not interested in spying on their populace, but being able to implement legal warrants in search of information that can safeguard life and property, or catch a past criminal.
Related programs like PRISM data collection are not about realtime surveillance, but being able to do a Google-like search of past history when legally needed. (Like how mass stored UK public camera videos are used only after a crime has been committed.)
An example was catching the person behind the failed Times Square bombing a few years back. A burner phone was used to buy the bomb vehicle, which had its VIN removed. However, investigators were able to find the Craigslist ad used to purchase the vehicle, look up the burner phone used, then request and get all the numbers that phone had called, or had called it, along with locations during the calls.
The ability to do this kind of legally warranted research quickly from stored records is why they were able to arrest the perpetrator only two days later and take him off an international flight from JFK which he had already boarded, Otherwise he'd have gotten away.
So there is definitely a balance to be made between protecting our privacy, and the right / need of governments to protect those same people and bring to justice those who would harm them.
This isn't correct. iMessage is end to end encrypted can only be decrypted by the sender or recipient, apple does not hold a decryption key. The exception to this is if messages have been backed up to iCloud, currently these messages can be recovered by Apple.
Now the '5 eyes' countries will have even more power to spy on their collective citizenry. Supposedly the US cannot spy on its own citizens, but I truly wonder how the NSA avoids spying on me while I'm in the UK. Perhaps they just let the UK do it for them.
I wonder where this is going to leave VPN's....
I wonder where this is going to leave VPN's....
As a Brit my country is pulling this sort of **** too. Why can't they just go and f*** themselves instead.
Like banning encryption? Are these morons completely incapable of critical thought. I'll take freedom and liberty over security any day of the week.
And like someone said, letting in millions of illegal immigrants from some of the worst and most backwards places on earth with no security or background checks is totally fine but sending a private message is where the real worry is? What is wrong with these people.
[doublepost=1500042585][/doublepost]
The US spies on British citizens and the UK spies on US citizens then exchanges the information. This is how they trample all over our rights without breaking the law. It's absolutely disgusting, this is the sort of **** the Stasi and the Gestapo would dream of being able to do.
Like banning encryption? Are these morons completely incapable of critical thought. I'll take freedom and liberty over security any day of the week.
And like someone said, letting in millions of illegal immigrants from some of the worst and most backwards places on earth with no security or background checks is totally fine but sending a private message is where the real worry is? What is wrong with these people.
[doublepost=1500042585][/doublepost]
The US spies on British citizens and the UK spies on US citizens then exchanges the information. This is how they trample all over our rights without breaking the law. It's absolutely disgusting, this is the sort of **** the Stasi and the Gestapo would dream of being able to do.
Ultimately, government will ban the existence of people because man can skirmish another and kill him with decent combat skills.
WTF??? What's next? Each of us having a dedicated government drone that follows us around all day???
I read about them being able to read what was written without opening the mail as well but can't spend the time right now to look for source so toss that in the speculation column.
To further rattle your nerves there's this.
In related news, Australia will now also require all regular physical mail to be written/printed only on postcards, so those pesky envelopes don't get in their way while trying to catch dangerous criminals, and now all conversations must be carried out in a public place at a loud volume. No more of this inherently dangerous "speaking in private" - clearly it was a bad idea to have ever allowed that in the first place.
