3 ms·

Prime Minister claims laws of mathematics 'do not apply' in Australia

21 points by valentinebm 9y ago

aphextron 9y ago
Sensational headlines like this completely miss the point of the constructive conversation that should be taking place around crypto. The fact is that old school politicians simply do not understand these things, and think that it's something that can still be legislated away as things were in the past. That's an information issue, not a political issue. He went on to say >"They can’t just wash their hands of it and say it’s got nothing to do with them.”" And he's right. Tech companies have an obligation to figure out a balance of privacy and public safety that works for everyone, not just stonewalling governments with complete noncompliance and then wondering why politicians become adversarial.
- shakna 9y ago
  The conversation was being had: this is the politicians ending it. They've consulted with security experts, who said it would be universally bad for encryption. They've consulted with economists, who said it would be a dangerous idea that could have unintended effects. They consulted with sociologists, who said that history shows that this power will be abused. They consulted with lawyers, who said that this kind of law cannot currently be made safe for the populace. After all this consultation with the right people in the right fields... They've decided that the handful of dangerous individuals who may make use of this technology, without hard evidence that they actually do, make the risks worthwhile. In direct contradiction to those they consulted. What conversation is left to be had?
  - exodust 9y ago
    I have no idea what Turnbull's game is, but his late-to-the-party argument is flawed. People want encryption to work properly, not 'sorta, kinda'. The internet is plagued by enough security flaws and threats, we don't need more. In the event he gets his back door or weak encryption by law, there's nothing stopping criminals from using systems that aren't part of the "broken encryption gang". There's no conversation left to be had. There is only comics... https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >And he's right. Tech companies have an obligation to figure out a balance of privacy and public safety that works for everyone, not just stonewalling governments with complete noncompliance and then wondering why politicians become adversarial. Tech companies have not (and should not have) such an obligation. Figuring out the balance of privacy and public safety that works for everyone has to be determined by the elected by the people, not by a company. The elected ones have also the responsbility to propose something that is actually possible/doable, and only then the tech companies start having an obligation (only that of implementing it, in the best way possible for them as long as the Law is respected).
  - kjs3 9y ago
    Criminalizing crypto is "actually possible/doable" (though not without consequences). Such a thing has been proposed by an elected official. Watch your step...that slope looks slick.

21 points by valentinebm 9y ago

Sensational headlines like this completely miss the point of the constructive conversation that should be taking place around crypto. The fact is that old school politicians simply do not understand these things, and think that it's something that can still be legislated away as things were in the past. That's an information issue, not a political issue. He went on to say >"They can’t just wash their hands of it and say it’s got nothing to do with them.”" And he's right. Tech companies have an obligation to figure out a balance of privacy and public safety that works for everyone, not just stonewalling governments with complete noncompliance and then wondering why politicians become adversarial.

shakna 9y ago
The conversation was being had: this is the politicians ending it. They've consulted with security experts, who said it would be universally bad for encryption. They've consulted with economists, who said it would be a dangerous idea that could have unintended effects. They consulted with sociologists, who said that history shows that this power will be abused. They consulted with lawyers, who said that this kind of law cannot currently be made safe for the populace. After all this consultation with the right people in the right fields... They've decided that the handful of dangerous individuals who may make use of this technology, without hard evidence that they actually do, make the risks worthwhile. In direct contradiction to those they consulted. What conversation is left to be had?
- exodust 9y ago
  I have no idea what Turnbull's game is, but his late-to-the-party argument is flawed. People want encryption to work properly, not 'sorta, kinda'. The internet is plagued by enough security flaws and threats, we don't need more. In the event he gets his back door or weak encryption by law, there's nothing stopping criminals from using systems that aren't part of the "broken encryption gang". There's no conversation left to be had. There is only comics... https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
jaclaz 9y ago
>And he's right. Tech companies have an obligation to figure out a balance of privacy and public safety that works for everyone, not just stonewalling governments with complete noncompliance and then wondering why politicians become adversarial. Tech companies have not (and should not have) such an obligation. Figuring out the balance of privacy and public safety that works for everyone has to be determined by the elected by the people, not by a company. The elected ones have also the responsbility to propose something that is actually possible/doable, and only then the tech companies start having an obligation (only that of implementing it, in the best way possible for them as long as the Law is respected).
- kjs3 9y ago
  Criminalizing crypto is "actually possible/doable" (though not without consequences). Such a thing has been proposed by an elected official. Watch your step...that slope looks slick.