Crypto-Bashing Prime Minister Argues The Laws Of Mathematics Don't Apply In Australia (independent.co.uk)

An anonymous reader quotes the Independent:Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said the laws of mathematics come second to the law of the land in a row over privacy and encryption... When challenged by a technology journalist over whether it was possible to tackle the problem of criminals using encryption -- given that platform providers claim they are currently unable to break into the messages even if required to do so by law -- the Prime Minister raised eyebrows as he made his reply. "Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia," he said... "The important thing is to recognise the challenge and call on the companies for assistance. I am sure they know morally they should... They have to face up to their responsibility."
Facebook has already issued a statement saying that they "appreciate the important work law enforcement does, and we understand the need to carry out investigations. That's why we already have a protocol in place to respond to any requests we can.

"At the same time, weakening encrypted systems for them would mean weakening it for everyone."

Comments

Idiots everywhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't take this anymore...

transcript of Turnbull's press conference

[caviare]

https://www.malcolmturnbull.co...

Re:If, by his own admission, he is not....

[mark-t]

If he didn't disagree with the math, then he would know that there is no possible way to do that without compromising the security of things that *should* legitimately be encrypted, such as electronic bank transactions, for example. If back doors exist, they will be just as usable by people with nefarious intentions as they would be by those who may mean, however sincerely, to protect us from such people.

If law enforcement has an encryption back door, then that exact same back door can and most certainly would be used by criminals. Laws against it wouldn't actually stop anyone who was already intent on breaking the law anyways, so all one is accomplishing by adding such backdoors is endangering everybody so that law enforcement is more readily able to catch people that may have otherwise used it for nefarious purposes.... except now law enforcement has exponentially *MORE* work to do, because now they also have to catch all of the bad guys who are using these back doors with nefarious intentions to harm people... people they wouldn't even have to *TRY* to catch if private individuals were allowed to use truly secure encryption.

To be fair, it is certainly regrettable that criminals can get away with their actions by using externally undecipherable encryption to conceal any evidence of their misdoings, but in the end, it is simply outside of the realm of the principles of reality by which this world seems to operate that one can ever really prevent this without seriously endangering those that could have had an entirely legitimate use for encryption.

There is no agent in this world, or for that matter in all of the entire knowable universe, that could hope to actually enforce the notion of "X can do this math, but Y cannot", so that is why what he is asking for defies the laws of math.... and unlike laws of a nation, the laws of math are not simply constraints by which people or things are expected or obligated to conform to, they are observations that have been rigorously proven to be universally true within the domain that any given such law governs.

Re: The PM is an idiot.

[xQx]

I remember Stephen Conroy. He gave us an all-fiber NBN.

So what did we do? We voted him out, and we piss and moan that the LNP is killing our NBN (making good on their pre-election promise).

Who's the real idiot here?

"Real engineer" don't just sit in the office

[sjbe]

So the idea was to get the engineers (who are really technicians and troubleshooters in the show; ; the real engineers are back at Mars designing the next-generation starships) to cut corners to come up with something workable even if it's very risky, or to come up with some new approach that takes less time (again, risky).

I'm wondering if you haven't actually worked as an engineer by that statement or if you do you have an exceptionally rare ivory tower job. I've got nearly three decades experience as a working engineer and I can assure you that a good portion of nearly every real world engineer's time is spent troubleshooting and fixing technical problems. Exactly the sort of stuff you are describing on the show. Very few engineers worthy of the title manage to stay back at the home office designing product without getting their hands dirty fixing the inevitable problems that result when their design breaks or is asked to do what it wasn't designed for. Engineers are asked all the time to come up with stop gap solutions as well as ways to same money, time, or other resources. Think Apollo 13. You seriously want to claim those guys were just "technicians and troubleshooters" just because they were coming up with workable-but-risky solutions? The "real engineers" aren't just drawing stuff on a white board in the office - the job is actually much more diverse than that and the good news is that it's much more interesting as a result.

Another part of the engineer's job they don't tell you about in school is how much time you'll spend writing and revising documentation. And it's been my experience that a large portion of the engineers out there are rather bad at this mundane but very important task. They tend to overlook details rather routinely and they forget that they aren't writing primarily for themselves. The point of engineering documentation is to describe something so OTHER PEOPLE can understand what needs to be done efficiently and to the smallest relevant detail. That's something they could teach in colleges but do not for some reason.

Re:obey gravity...it's the law

[Kjella]

I think you're setting up a false impression that "uncrackable" is the standard most people have had or are looking for.

Most people consider:

• their home private, even though it can be invaded and searched by the police.
• a safe private, even though it can be seized and drilled open by the police.
• letters private, even though they can be opened and read by the police.
• packages private, even though they can be opened and inspected by the police.
• phone calls private, even though they can be wiretapped by the police.

That the general public has access to truly unbreakable encryption (except for the $5 wrench) is a new situation that's fundamentally different from the past few centuries. Did people really ask for it? Or did it more or less just happen, robbing law enforcement, military intelligence etc. of powerful tools to fight crime, terror and enemy states? Look at all the people who saw Snowden and more or less said "duh, that's what the NSA should be doing you traitor". There are a lot of people that want to revive the Clipper chip and backdoor everyone's phones.

That said, I think globalism will throw a monkey wrench in their efforts. Would Americans trust a backdoor made by Apple? Maybe. Would Russia, China, Germany or the rest of the world? Hell no, not as long as all the keys are on US soil, one NSL or NSA black ops job and it's all compromised. And no handing the keys directly to the government, that's too open for abuse. It would have to be to my local ISP or telco, with the government asking permission through a warrant. But as long as I could use some inner crypto without repercussions, what's the point? They decrypt it, find my PGP message and... nothing. They'd also have to outlaw everything else.

That could be one route though, say that if you use these law enforcement compliant devices there is a system and a process for retrieving the key. Everything else, you either hand over the key or go to jail. I think you're kinda missing the point of what he said, if you've built a system relying on some form of "willful ignorance" of what the key is, they can always make a law to force you to change the way the system works. Like, either comply or shut down - those are your options, like they did with Lavabit. They can't compel you to the impossible, but they can compel you to cease doing whatever they don't like.

Re:obey gravity...it's the law

[Immerman]

One of the big differences is that it takes a warrant and some non-negligble effort and expense to raid your house, crack your safe, etc.

Back-doored encryption takes essentially zero effort to break, and we already know that most of the major governments around the world are sweeping up all the commnications they can get their hands on with absolutely no regard for the letter of the law, much less the spirit (i.e. information exchange between intelligence agencies that are prohibited from spying on their own populace, but are more than happy to spy on each other's populace and then trade the results).

Individual people can't hope to read even a tiny fraction of the information collected - but computer analysis can sift through mountains in moments, and is getting better at "understanding" and condensing the information at an incredible rate.

There's a world of difference between law enforcement invading your privacy when they have a warrant-worthy reason to suspect wrong-doing, and shady intelligence agencies constantly invading *everybody's* privacy.