Slashdot Mirror
Australians Who Won't Unlock Their Phones Could Face 10 Years In Jail (sophos.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Sophos security blog:
The Australian government wants to force companies to help it get at suspected criminals' data. If they can't, it would jail people for up to a decade if they refuse to unlock their phones. The country's Assistance and Access Bill, introduced this week for public consultation, strengthens the penalties for people who refuse to unlock their phones for the police. Under Australia's existing Crimes Act, judges could jail a person for two years for not handing over their data. The proposed Bill extends that to up to ten years, arguing that the existing penalty wasn't strong enough...
[C]ompanies would be subject to two kinds of government order that would compel them to help retrieve a suspect's information. The first of these is a "technical assistance notice" that requires telcos to hand over any decryption keys they hold. This notice would help the government in end-to-end encryption cases where the target lets a service provider hold their own encryption keys. But what if the suspect stores the keys themselves? In that case, the government would pull out the big guns with a second kind of order called a technical capability notice. It forces communications providers to build new capabilities that would help the government access a target's information where possible. In short, the government asks companies whether they can access the data. If they can't, then the second order asks them to figure out a way....
The government's explanatory note says that the Bill could force a manufacturer to hand over detailed specs of a device, install government software on it, help agencies develop their own "systems and capabilities", and notify agencies of major changes to their systems.
"[T]he proposed legislation also creates a new class of access warrant that lets police officers get evidence from devices in secret before the device encrypts it, including intercepting communications and using other computers to access the data. It also amends existing search and seizure warrants, allowing the cops to access data remotely, including online accounts."
[C]ompanies would be subject to two kinds of government order that would compel them to help retrieve a suspect's information. The first of these is a "technical assistance notice" that requires telcos to hand over any decryption keys they hold. This notice would help the government in end-to-end encryption cases where the target lets a service provider hold their own encryption keys. But what if the suspect stores the keys themselves? In that case, the government would pull out the big guns with a second kind of order called a technical capability notice. It forces communications providers to build new capabilities that would help the government access a target's information where possible. In short, the government asks companies whether they can access the data. If they can't, then the second order asks them to figure out a way....
The government's explanatory note says that the Bill could force a manufacturer to hand over detailed specs of a device, install government software on it, help agencies develop their own "systems and capabilities", and notify agencies of major changes to their systems.
"[T]he proposed legislation also creates a new class of access warrant that lets police officers get evidence from devices in secret before the device encrypts it, including intercepting communications and using other computers to access the data. It also amends existing search and seizure warrants, allowing the cops to access data remotely, including online accounts."
This was actually an issue for agents during WW2. Marks got agents to stop using memorized encryption keys and instead use one time codes written on silk, with instructions to burn each piece after use.
That way the Nazis could not torture there code out of them and then read their back traffic, which could be very serious.
Oh the irony, the current Australian government responsible for this is the conservative right wing LNP, verging on far right. If you were even reasonably informed you would know this, but your paranoia about duh Marxist does not allow you to conceive that this is the work of the right wing, as was the removal of a lot of guns by the same parties as currently in government.
Virtually nobody here cares about owning guns, and those who live in the country on farms frequently do have weapons on hand.
You are pretty much wrong in every single point, your lack of any knowledge is disturbing, tell me which part of the US are you from?
Australia has jumped the Marxist shark.
This is much closer to fascist than anything else. Marxist is an economic ideology. Fascism is political/legal.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
It's worse than that in most countries. Don't normalise America's constitution on the internet, you only represent 5% of the world.