Slashdot Mirror
Apple Rebukes Australia's 'Dangerously Ambiguous' Anti-Encryption Bill (techcrunch.com)
Apple has strongly criticized Australia's anti-encryption bill, calling it "dangerously ambiguous" and "alarming to every Australian." From a report: The Australian government's draft law -- known as the Access and Assistance Bill -- would compel tech companies operating in the country, like Apple, to provide "assistance" to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in accessing electronic data. The government claims that encrypted communications are "increasingly being used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid detection and disruption," without citing evidence. But critics say that the bill's "broad authorities that would undermine cybersecurity and human rights, including the right to privacy" by forcing companies to build backdoors and hand over user data -- even when it's encrypted. Now, Apple is the latest company after Google and Facebook joined civil and digital rights groups -- including Amnesty International -- to oppose the bill, amid fears that the government will rush through the bill before the end of the year. In a seven-page letter to the Australian parliament, Apple said that it "would be wrong to weaken security for millions of law-abiding customers in order to investigate the very few who pose a threat." The company adds, "We appreciate the government's outreach to Apple and other companies during the drafting of this bill. While we are pleased that some of the suggestions incorporated improve the legislation, the unfortunate fact is that the draft legislation remains dangerously ambiguous with respect to encryption and security. This is no time to weaken encryption. Rather than serving the interests of Australian law enforcement, it will just weaken the security and privacy of regular customers while pushing criminals further off the grid."
Either everyone is secure, or nobody is.
#DeleteFacebook
yet you will roll over for China. I guess the market there is bigger.
Key escrow would result in each device having 2 keys: 1 unique key for you, and 1 unique key held by the device manufacturer (e.g., Apple). Apple's key is different for each device, it's not some "master" key that decrypts all devices. Apple keeps the key in escrow.
If Apple is served with a lawful court order, Apple would provide its key for your device to law enforcement, who would then decrypt your device. Or law enforcement could turn the device over to Apple and Apple could perform the decryption. That's irrelevant to the discussion however.
At that point, it should be considered game over for your device and you would need to rekey or replace the device if you wanted to keep using it.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's sad that Apple hasn't got the balls to say "if you do this, we will no longer make or sell any products subject to these insecurities in your country."
If politicians are not prevented by economic and other (legal, not suggesting otherwise) means from destroying liberty, they will do so - because they are, for the most part, powerful and often rich, and this kind of behavior inevitably makes them more so.
Either we prevent that result, or we prevent the action that leads to that result — otherwise our liberties will continue to erode in favor of benefits for the rich and/or powerful.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The government claims that encrypted communications are "increasingly being used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid detection and disruption," without citing evidence
I know it isn't popular to say that a claim should be accepted without evidence, but I think it would be ignorant to assume that more and more terrorist groups and organized criminals are not using encrypted communications.
Isn't it also ignorant to assume that terrorist groups and organized criminals are going to stop using encrypted communications just because somebody passed a law? And that they won't jailbreak their phones, install encryption software that circumvents "back doors", and then the tech companies will still be helpless to assist in any case? It doesn't take a genius to see that one coming.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
This is the problem criminals don't follow the laws so yes they could get a phone and install encryption on it that doesn't have a back door but even worse they will absolutely use any weakness in encryption to take advantage of the rest of us.
Same with guns the bad guys don't go to a sporting goods store and buy and register a gun that can be traced they get illegal guns.
Exactly! Though you might be interested to know that all of the five eyes countries have had their anti-terrorism acts (like patriot and homeland security) lifted from the Soviet criminal code but go far further than the soviets ever could because our technology is more capable and ubiquitous.
These laws are a complete betrayal of any notion of democracy that our grandfathers fought for in the world wars. This is the stuff they fought against. Our governments don't have to ask for our "Papers Please" because they already have more than they need.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Actually, there is a third option: unbreakable and useless. And that is the one the Australian Government is going for. They don't want Apple to break encryption. The bill allows the government to force Apple to download spyware to the phone via the autoupgrades, so said spyware can send the data back while it's unencrypted.
The only mystery is why Apple says the bill is ambiguous. It outright says the expect to be able to silently download the app, they expect Apple to provide them with the mechanism will hide it from the user (and that includes up to and including writing the app for them), they expect the app will send whatever data it collects (keystrokes, phone calls, GPS position, photos) silently and in real time back to the cops offices. And it doesn't just cover phones - it covers all devices like Apple TV's, Macbooks, and watches. This is all laid out in relatively simple terms in the explanatory notes they released with the bill.
If Apple thinks it's ambiguous and could somehow be worse, I've love to know what could be worse than what they have already asked for.
Yep, it would be ignorant to assume that. Which is why they aren't assuming it.
The bill doesn't allow them to ask Apple to break encryption. It allows them to force Apple to write some spyware for them, download via auto upgrades to any device they nominate, force Apple to make said spyware undetectable to the user or virus scanners, and says the spyware must send back all data in the device in realtime while it's unencrypted (which it must be when the user sees it). This isn't just the data the user has encrypted - it's additional data the user things completely safe because he didn't know it was being recorded - like his voice, keystrokes, and GPS position.
So my friend, they are not ignorant. Criminally reckless and power hungry perhaps - but not ignorant or stupid.