Slashdot Mirror
Australia To Pass Bill Providing Backdoors Into Encrypted Devices, Communications (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: The Australian government has scheduled its "not-a-backdoor" crypto-busting bill to land in parliament in the spring session, and we still don't know what will be in it. The legislation is included in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's schedule of proposed laws to be debated from today (13 August) all the way into December. All we know, however, is what's already on the public record: a speech by Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Angus Taylor in June, and the following from the digest of bills for the spring session: "Implement measures to address the impact of encrypted communications and devices on national security and law enforcement investigations. The bill provides a framework for agencies to work with the private sector so that law enforcement can adapt to the increasingly complex online environment. The bill requires both domestic and foreign companies supplying services to Australia to provide greater assistance to agencies."
Apart from the dodgy technological sophistry involved, this belief somewhat contradicts what Angus Taylor said in June (our only contemporary reference to what the government has in mind). "We need access to digital networks and devices, and to the data on them, when there are reasonable grounds to do so," he said (emphasis added). If this accurately reflects the purpose of the legislation, then the Australian government wants access to the networks, not just the devices. It wants a break-in that will work on networks, if law enforcement demands it, and that takes us back to the "government wants a backdoor" problem. And it remains clear that the government's magical thinking remains in place: having no idea how to achieve the impossible, it wants the industry to cover for it under the guise of "greater assistance to agencies."
Apart from the dodgy technological sophistry involved, this belief somewhat contradicts what Angus Taylor said in June (our only contemporary reference to what the government has in mind). "We need access to digital networks and devices, and to the data on them, when there are reasonable grounds to do so," he said (emphasis added). If this accurately reflects the purpose of the legislation, then the Australian government wants access to the networks, not just the devices. It wants a break-in that will work on networks, if law enforcement demands it, and that takes us back to the "government wants a backdoor" problem. And it remains clear that the government's magical thinking remains in place: having no idea how to achieve the impossible, it wants the industry to cover for it under the guise of "greater assistance to agencies."
This really, really, REALLY doesn't matter. The cat is out of the bag. If Australians won't rise up against their tyrannous government, they can have SKUs with all of our protections ripped out. But there will be many dead men turning over in their graves before the US succumbs to such a law. We've seen this encroachment before, and it has never passed.
Somebody living in the country that voted into law the so-called "Patriot Act" talks about what kind of encroachment on liberties won't pass in the US?
That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Also the saddest.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
This story says 'Australia to pass bill'. No, the bill is scheduled for debate and the government will hope to pass a bill, but they have a weak majority. It's likely to be contentious, I would not bet on it passing at all.
Secondly, there's the implication of a encryption backdoor. This is lifted from the TFA which is an opinion piece. So far the only real source is a political speech made by Angus Taylor (minister for law enforcement and cyber security) in June. The Register (TFA) implies encryption backdoor, despite the minister's own words ("This Government is committed to no 'backdoors' ... We simply don’t need to weaken encryption in order to get what we need.").
That said, the TFA is right to be concerned because elsewhere Taylor says "We need access to digital networks and devices, and to the data on them", which does imply an attack on encryption. Now, I'm no fan of our current government, or regressive right-wing government in general, but I have to say, the speech demonstrates a fair bit more understanding than previous efforts in Australia, the UK and recently the US, aimed squarely at encryption. There's only one group arguing for golden keys, and that's the spooks. If a government listens to spooks *and* industry, they usually come to understand why it's not practical. Angus comes out and says industry has moved towards encryption, and that's good, that tech giants oppose weakening encryption, and that's not what they government wants to do. He spends more time talking about that, than the clumsily worded line that implies he's lying in all the other bits.
I find myself in the unlikely position of defending the government in this narrow sense because miscategorising their position makes it harder to present a reasoned opposition when it is needed.
The Register has, I think, the right of the real goal here. To ensure that end devices are breakable. Of course they dog whistle about phones shipping with 'root kits', but before we all get hysterical... this is what law enforcement already does. When they nab crooks, they break into their phones. I suppose if I was an American I'd be worried because it's pretty clear the US gov will want to systematically break into everyone's phone when they enter the country... but most of the industrialised world isn't there yet. We all worry about law enforcement overreach, we all know breaking or weakening encryption is impractical, regardless of what any one nation state desires (barring nuclear options available to systems like China's GFW).
There are, however, probably some reasonable cases when you want law enforcement to be able to break into stuff. I don't know where the line is, I guess we'll be worrying about this for decades but it'd be nice if it wasn't categorised as a binary proposition. We get enough of that in politics.