28 ms·
Australian PM Calls for End-To-End Encryption Ban
- jacques_chester 9y agoI see that we Australians have resumed our international role as laughing-stock of the technology industry. As much as I disagree with the Greens generally, losing Scott Ludlam at this moment is a serious loss. For those of you able to donate, the equivalent of the EFF in Australia is the EFA: https://www.efa.org.au/ https://www.efa.org.au/
- cyphar 9y agoDid we ever stop being the laughing stock? Our only recent claim to fame is Atlassian (plus some of the stuff CommBank pioneered). Aside from that, everything else has been a total shit-show.
- vacri 9y agoThere was a time when we had a world-class telephony setup, the CSIRO was making waves (literally as well as figuratively), and we punched well above our (actually rather small) weight in the high tech and medical research fields.
- jacques_chester 9y ago> Did we ever stop being the laughing stock? We managed to slip off the front pages for a bit.
- turblety 9y agoYeah it's pretty bad, but don't feel alone. Our PM is just as incompetent: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
- jacques_chester 9y agoWe Queenies have to stick together, I suppose. Can't let the yanks have all the fun.
- chris_wot 9y agoHe didn't say that when he was using end-to-end encryption.
- cam_l 9y agoWhen / did he stop?
- BigJono 9y agoWell I assume he has to if the law comes into place, or he'd be breaking it. I'm fine with the government tracking everything as long as it goes both ways. If this goes through, Turnbull shouldn't be able to so much as send a fucking Facebook poke without the population of Australia knowing it.
- sk0g 9y agoThe police look down on speeding, but they are allowed to speed, go through red lights, etc. The law doesn't apply to the ones that make them, apparently.
- eloop 9y agoA few years ago ... http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/malcolm-turnbull-uses-secret-messaging-app-instead-of-sms/6276712?pfmredir=sm http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/malcolm-turnbull-us...
- gingernaut 9y agoPushed on how encrypted messages could be read when service providers don't hold the keys necessary decryption, and Turnbull had this to say: Well, the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only laws that applies in Australia is the law of Australia. https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2017/07/14/uk_spookhas_gchq_can_crack_endtoend_encryption_says_australian_ag/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2017/07/14/uk_spookhas_gch...
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoSo if Australia made gravity illegal....nope, too easy.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tp3z4u 9y agoAlmost a literal god complex there. Sounds about right for Turnbull.
- quink 9y ago> The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only laws that applies in Australia is the law of Australia. Explains their broadband policy too.
- cyphar 9y agoEveryone knows that photons can't travel uphill. NBN says so!
- Silhouette 9y agoIt's horrifying that standards of education have fallen so far that a national political leader can say things like this with a straight face and enough voters will believe them to make it a viable political strategy. Our leaders here in the UK and in several of our European neighbours are no better.
- wisty 9y agoAs I understand it, it means banning end to end communication between clients. So you can chat over https, but only if the server in the middle (which can be served warrants) is doing the encryption.
- askvictor 9y agoThat's not end to end encryption.
- vermilingua 9y ago...which is why GP said "banning end to end communication"?
- lucb1e 9y agoTo me it is. The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. Of course, there's no way you can tell from the outside since it looks like an ordinary https connection to an ordinary server. Then again, I can think of more ways to implement end-to-end encryption over wiretapped channels without it being obvious that encrypted data is being exchanged (stego is quite easy to make but very hard to detect if you don't know the method). So the whole ban is pointless. Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy, so they'll succeed. The general public will not care enough, and any widely used end-to-end solution will be banned anyway, so they'll just have to give up a little bit of privacy. No gains but at least the government is trying, right?
- openfuture 9y ago"Terrorists are now only allowed to use waterpistols, this will dramatically lessen civilian casualties and help us identify them"
- lucb1e 9y agoNo, everyone except themselves. They're not saying "terrorists are not allowed to use end-to-end", they're saying "nobody but us".
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoNo, it's "nobody but us and anyone who's willing to break the law, even bankers and other terrorists."
- openfuture 9y ago"Terrorists are now only allowed to use waterpistols, this should dramatically lessen casualties and help with identifying them"
- Geojim 9y agowhispering is next on the ban list...
- navs 9y agoWhy must you give them ideas?
- dingo_bat 9y agoAlthough murdering people is really illegal. And that seems to deter at least some murderers. It's a similar logic with encryption. The only difference is that encryption is mostly used for non-nefarious purposes, but 99% murders are bad. There is no reason to laugh at the statement. We should highlight that benefits of encryption far outweigh the few possible misuses. What he's saying is perferfectly logical if he views encryption like a weapon used by bad actors (like a sniper gun).
- lngnmn 9y agoInstead of better education, social security and jobs creation...
- daxfohl 9y agoMay as well let's ban talking. Wait, and thinking too! Except for dickheads that run for office because ... (somebody smarter and better connected than me please end this sentence in a way that makes sense).
- Quequau 9y agoOr more to the point all forms of electronic banking.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- type0 9y agoYou just can't turn the bull, all pun intended.
- forgottenacc57 9y agoIt's stupid cause it doesn't solve the problem it is intended to.
- kabdib 9y agoThe problem they are trying to solve is not the problem that they say they are trying to solve.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- blubb-fish 9y agoand I thought he's a good and smart guy because he made fun of trump.
- chrischen 9y agoI wish the gun nuts in the US realize that the constitutional protection of gun rights was drafted in a time when guns weren't niche and were necessary as a check on government power. Today, encryption is a check on government overreach, and guns are effectively a vestigial hobby (unless you're in a gang or the illicit drug industry).
- fantispug 9y agoThis is a great analogy. Encrypted messages are used by both criminals and whistleblowers. Weakening encryption will likely help apprehend criminals and even create a chilling effect on criminal communications. It will equally help apprehend police and government whistleblowers and create a chilling effect on criticism of authorities.
- joegosse 9y agoHow do we start the process of getting an amendment protecting encryption added to the Constitution?
- protomyth 9y agoEither through Congress or a convention of the States. More likely through the States if you can hop on that movement.
- pdkl95 9y agoAlthough export restrictions on encryption were eased after Bernstein v United States and the political fight over the 'international edition" of Netscape/etc, I believe encryption for military purposes is still on the Munitions List. Therefor, the 2nd Amendment should apply.
- kuschku 9y agoActually, export restrictions on encryption are still there – you de jure need approval from the DoD. There was a huge thread about it on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045
- borplk 9y agoLast week at G20 he saw Theresa May and said "I'll have what she's having". And here we are.
- javiramos 9y agoClassic. It is always the politicians who screw things up.
- corndoge 9y agoYou know, every time I see something like this, I really hope the legislation passes. Then as the enforcement attempts to handle their impossible task we get to sit back and watch as Tor and I2P and EFF get funded, citizens and politicians gain a basic understanding of encryption, and governments learn that one does not simply ban crypto. It would be fun. So more power to them! Let's see Britain create their own crypto free internet! Let's watch the public uproar as Google and WhatsApp becomes unavailable in Australia! These things are just big opportunities to get people familiar with what's at stake.
- nileshtrivedi 9y agoThis is dangerous. Bad laws usually involve discretion so, sure, everyone would be in violation of the letter of the law, but the govt would choose and decide who gets sued. That's worse.
- meowface 9y agoExactly. If a law like this were to get passed, they'll pick and choose cases to prosecute for use of end-to-end encryption. Someone suspected of a crime for which there's no strong evidence could potentially be imprisoned just for talking to someone over an encrypted channel. "We can't get them on the main charge, but we can always just charge them for the encryption. If they weren't doing anything shady then why would they be using encryption anyway?" It would be a horrible precedent.
- narag 9y agoLet's watch the public uproar as Google and WhatsApp becomes unavailable in Australia! You mean more or less like western Internet isn't available in Chine, don't you?
- corndoge 9y agoYeah I knew someone would pull the China card, being a communist country that doesn't even pretend to support western ideas of freedoms they're obviously an exception
- Zigurd 9y ago"The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" Once they pass a law barring gravity from affecting police investigations, it will be a crime to use gravity to prevent flying cops from investigating.
- stevew20 9y agoI usually go the high route and write something insightful or informative on HN. However, the only thing that comes to mind after reading this are phrases like "What a fucking nut", or "Did no one review his speech for him, because they were too busy pulling the stuck fruit loops from his nose?" Australia, shame on you for letting this moron take up this position of power. Oh wait.... I live in the USA.... Shame on me too.
- arkem 9y agoI think calling this a ban on end-to-end encryption is an mis-characterization. According to the press conference where this comes from[1] it seems that they're talking about legislation that would expand the Telecommunications Act's provisions to require communications providers to assist law enforcement[2] to cover internet messaging platforms. This doesn't necessarily mean that Facebook would be obligated to backdoor their encryption or store a keys for all communications or change the architecture of their platform. They would be obligated to comply with interception warrants to the best of their ability. Forms that this assistance could take (from the act): (7) A reference in this section to giving help includes a reference to giving help by way of: (a) the provision of interception services, including services in executing an interception warrant under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 ; or (b) giving effect to a stored communications warrant under that Act; or (c) providing relevant information about: (i) any communication that is lawfully intercepted under such an interception warrant; or (ii) any communication that is lawfully accessed under such a stored communications warrant; or (ca) complying with a domestic preservation notice or a foreign preservation notice that is in force under Part 3-1A of that Act; or (d) giving effect to authorisations under Division 3 or 4 of Part 4-1 of that Act; or (e) disclosing information or a document in accordance with section 280 of this Act. I prefer to see law enforcement have broad authorizations but limited special powers (i.e. they're allowed to do a lot of things in pursuit of an investigation but they don't have many ways to compel assistance) but I think this story is overblown (largely because Turnbull's quote out of context is pretty funny). [1] http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-07-14/press-conference-attorney-general-senator-hon-george-brandis-qc-and-acting http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-07-14/press-conference-attor... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s313.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/...