4 ms·

It says specifically that the government will _not_ pursue the backdoor options; seems that they just want to have clearer international protocols around warran

It says specifically that the government will _not_ pursue the backdoor options; seems that they just want to have clearer international protocols around warrants for information. Seems sensible if you ask me.

HXFIVE 9y ago
A rose by any other name
white-flame 9y ago
Or, they're just going to redefine the term "backdoor" so it doesn't include automated access to endpoints, which is what this attempt smells like it would require. They might not want to call such a thing a backdoor for marketing/political purposes, but it still would be one. It would not be backdooring the encryption, but backdooring the software driving the user-facing plaintext.
wzdd 9y ago
How do you think the government will access end-to-end encrypted data without making use of a backdoor? (Or alerting the user.) Brandis said warrants should be "sufficiently strong to require companies, if need be, to assist in response to a warrant to assist law enforcement or intelligence to decrypt a communication". A company which makes end-to-end encryption will not be able to assist law enforcement in this way unless they make a backdoor. Conclusion: Brandis either doesn't know what a backdoor is, or he does know but realises that "backdoor" has negative connotations so he is pretending that that's not what it is. Both possibilities are pretty reprehensible in my opinion.
- cam_l 9y ago
  I take the second option, this is a man who tried to claim metadata is not data. And it took them just a few weeks to breach the 'safe guards' in place for the warrantless data retention scheme. Http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/police-illegally-obtained-journalists-phone-records-under-new-metadata-retention-regime-20170428-gvutjx.html
natch 9y ago
They're using doublespeak. They just want the same thing but they're trying to pretend they're asking for something different. They think we're stupid like criminals too.

HXFIVE 9y ago

A rose by any other name

white-flame 9y ago

Or, they're just going to redefine the term "backdoor" so it doesn't include automated access to endpoints, which is what this attempt smells like it would require. They might not want to call such a thing a backdoor for marketing/political purposes, but it still would be one. It would not be backdooring the encryption, but backdooring the software driving the user-facing plaintext.

wzdd 9y ago

How do you think the government will access end-to-end encrypted data without making use of a backdoor? (Or alerting the user.) Brandis said warrants should be "sufficiently strong to require companies, if need be, to assist in response to a warrant to assist law enforcement or intelligence to decrypt a communication". A company which makes end-to-end encryption will not be able to assist law enforcement in this way unless they make a backdoor. Conclusion: Brandis either doesn't know what a backdoor is, or he does know but realises that "backdoor" has negative connotations so he is pretending that that's not what it is. Both possibilities are pretty reprehensible in my opinion.

cam_l 9y ago
I take the second option, this is a man who tried to claim metadata is not data. And it took them just a few weeks to breach the 'safe guards' in place for the warrantless data retention scheme. Http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/police-illegally-obtained-journalists-phone-records-under-new-metadata-retention-regime-20170428-gvutjx.html

natch 9y ago

They're using doublespeak. They just want the same thing but they're trying to pretend they're asking for something different. They think we're stupid like criminals too.