3 ms·

For those that would like more reading here is the explanatory bill: https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh Three important things to note technical ass

For those that would like more reading here is the explanatory bill: https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh Three important things to note technical assistance requests, technical assistance notice and technical capability notice.

lucb1e 8y ago
No need to use URL shorteners on HN, it's not as if there is a character limit... Here is the full URL: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/explanatory-document.pdf https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/expla... Protip for those playing along at home: add a + to a bitly URL to view info, such as the target URL without having to go there.
- coretx 8y ago
  And this is the culprit. ""Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information ... we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other(!) measures" Translation: Fuck your sovereignty, we'll use violence to get what we want.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    I strongly doubt any tactical military response. They'd use pressure from the other countries, most likely the US given the country-of-origin of the biggest tech companies. Australia doesn't interfere with sovereignty to a fault. Julian Assange, The Bali 9, Peter Greste. So it'll be interesting if there's any Australian response to the James Ricketson situation in Cambodia.
steve_taylor 8y ago
They keep insisting they're not asking for backdoors. Here's what the explanatory bill says: The type of assistance that may be requested or required under the above powers include (amongst other things): * Removing a form of electronic protection applied by the provider, if the provider has an existing capability to remove this protection. * Providing technical information like the design specifications of a device or the characteristics of a service. * Installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment given to a provider by an agency. * Formatting information obtained under a warrant. * Facilitating access to devices or services. * Helping agencies test or develop their own systems and capabilities. * Notifying agencies of major changes to their systems, productions or services that are relevant to the effective execution of a warrant or authorisation. * Modifying or substituting a target service. * Concealing the fact that agencies have undertaken a covert operation
- lsh 8y ago
  the bill is so brazen, I keep wondering if they mean for it to not pass. Like they put it out there just to appease some organisation that they are 'at least trying'. Hopefully it doesn't backfire a'la Brexit
- adrian_mrd 8y ago
  I wonder if the bureaucrat(s) or technocrat(s) who originally wrote or co-wrote this bill, has a technology background or is a white label lawyer from one of the big legal firms who often write legislation for the Australian Parliament on an expensive consulting basis? Or just an in-house lawyer from the A-G's office - whose expertise is purely legal rather than technological? Many of these clauses are so vague ("Providing technical information like the design specifications...") that they show either a fundamental lack of practical technology knowledge, or, are deliberately vague so that the arms of the Orwellian Australian federal government octopus can create the intended backdoor without explicitly calling it a backdoor. Maybe both are true? Was it William Shakespeare who once proffered: is a backdoor by another, obfuscated name, still a backdoor?

lucb1e 8y ago

No need to use URL shorteners on HN, it's not as if there is a character limit... Here is the full URL: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/explanatory-document.pdf https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/expla... Protip for those playing along at home: add a + to a bitly URL to view info, such as the target URL without having to go there.

coretx 8y ago
And this is the culprit. ""Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information ... we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other(!) measures" Translation: Fuck your sovereignty, we'll use violence to get what we want.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  I strongly doubt any tactical military response. They'd use pressure from the other countries, most likely the US given the country-of-origin of the biggest tech companies. Australia doesn't interfere with sovereignty to a fault. Julian Assange, The Bali 9, Peter Greste. So it'll be interesting if there's any Australian response to the James Ricketson situation in Cambodia.

steve_taylor 8y ago

They keep insisting they're not asking for backdoors. Here's what the explanatory bill says: The type of assistance that may be requested or required under the above powers include (amongst other things): * Removing a form of electronic protection applied by the provider, if the provider has an existing capability to remove this protection. * Providing technical information like the design specifications of a device or the characteristics of a service. * Installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment given to a provider by an agency. * Formatting information obtained under a warrant. * Facilitating access to devices or services. * Helping agencies test or develop their own systems and capabilities. * Notifying agencies of major changes to their systems, productions or services that are relevant to the effective execution of a warrant or authorisation. * Modifying or substituting a target service. * Concealing the fact that agencies have undertaken a covert operation

lsh 8y ago
the bill is so brazen, I keep wondering if they mean for it to not pass. Like they put it out there just to appease some organisation that they are 'at least trying'. Hopefully it doesn't backfire a'la Brexit
adrian_mrd 8y ago
I wonder if the bureaucrat(s) or technocrat(s) who originally wrote or co-wrote this bill, has a technology background or is a white label lawyer from one of the big legal firms who often write legislation for the Australian Parliament on an expensive consulting basis? Or just an in-house lawyer from the A-G's office - whose expertise is purely legal rather than technological? Many of these clauses are so vague ("Providing technical information like the design specifications...") that they show either a fundamental lack of practical technology knowledge, or, are deliberately vague so that the arms of the Orwellian Australian federal government octopus can create the intended backdoor without explicitly calling it a backdoor. Maybe both are true? Was it William Shakespeare who once proffered: is a backdoor by another, obfuscated name, still a backdoor?