7 ms·

There is a government consultation process open RIGHT NOW for this bill. You have to get your submissions in by the end of today (6 hours time). Every Australia

• tomglynch 8y ago
  Email sent!
• Sag0Sag0 8y ago
  Email sent!
• ehnto 8y ago
  I have already sent my reaponse in, I definitely implore everyone to read the bill and write an appropriate response. This isn't an anit-encryption bill specifically, it's a framework for strong-arming companies into undermining all consumer security measures no matter what they are. I will say, I found the bill palatable and sympathetic to the concerns of industry. I am impressed at the delicacy of the bill. I still disagree with it fundamentally and emailed to that effect. But I am impressed by our government's ability to read the situation.
• ajdlinux 8y ago
  I've sent my submission - my approach for this particular submission, and I'm not sure whether it's the best approach, was to indicate that I agree with the general arguments that this bill is bad for privacy, but also that if a scheme like this is going to be introduced anyway, that the oversight and transparency regime is not tough enough to allow the public to have confidence that the new powers are being used appropriately, or for researchers to be able to accurately measure the impact of the new regime on privacy and security. I will also be writing to (and maybe phoning!) my MPs and Senators, and I anticipate this bill will go to a Senate committee for inquiry at which point there will be a further opportunity for submissions. edit: and oh yeah, don't forget to contact your senators, not just your local MP. I only have 2, those of you who have 12 may have a few crossbench senators who will be crucial if, somehow, Labor can be persuaded to vote against, and in any case could have an outsized impact on proposing amendments to make the new powers less-bad.
• Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  > Australia first, your country next. Absolutely, specifically if you're living in a country that is a member of the Five Eyes. They've actually been surprisingly transparent that this is a coordinated effort. The Official Communiqué opens with: > We, the Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Immigration Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States met on the Gold Coast, Australia, on August 28-29 2018, to discuss how we can better collaborate to meet our common security challenges. Full read: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-country-ministerial-2018 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-...
  • fit2rule 8y ago
    The 5 eyes nations are a true New World Order. This is terrifying, and we should not be allowing our sovereignty to be so easily usurped for the purpose of building this new order.
    • myrryr 8y ago
      The others maybe, but new Zealand is no one's new world order :). Aus + UK + US are the real drivers.
      • ta2354235235 8y ago
        Aus the primary driver? A 25m population country with an economy smaller than California, and we're driving things. Dutton is being fed from defense dollars, from the US.
        • SamReidHughes 8y ago
          Australia is kind of an entire continent, with big territorial national security concerns, so they might be a bit more independently interested than Canada.
        • adiusmus 8y ago
          Driving under the influence. UK and Australia are the test beds. US is the target. From there it flows onwards and outwards. Like raw sewage over the Niagara Falls. The AU my.health opt-out debacle[1] is similar. UK got in first, promised they wouldn’t sell the data then did so. AU then started by copying the UK’s best practice. So... fun times ahead. They’re still trying to get the gun laws fit for size in the US but the political climate and history is too different. And the attempt on the health system via Obamacare didn’t quite take either. More time needed apparently. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/22/my-health-record-identical-to-failed-uk-scheme-privacy-expert-says https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/22/my-he...
• ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
  FWIW, I've had pretty good success in getting non-techie friends and family to write in after showing them this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE It's very entertaining, and explains it in a way that everyday people can understand how bad it will be. I highly urge all Australians to either send this video out to your circles. (No affiliation, it came up in a previous thread about this topic)
  • dbg31415 8y ago
    Easily one of the best channels right now. Every video is hilarious. * thejuicemedia - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKRw8GAAtm27q4R3Q0kst_g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKRw8GAAtm27q4R3Q0kst_g Suggested videos similar to the one above. * Honest Government Ad | My Police State! - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlUQMH19BkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlUQMH19BkQ * Honest Government Ad | Article 13 (Internet Censorship Bill) - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw
• hazz99 8y ago
  Here is a template: ----------------------- Hello, I'm writing to oppose the 2018 Assistance & Access Bill. Although I recognize the difficulties encryption poses to law enforcement & counter-terrorism, it is not a strong enough reason to compromise the safety, security & privacy of 24 million Australian citizens. Every Australian has a right to reliable, mathematically guaranteed privacy & security, not compromised/undermined by oppressive legislature. Neither domestic nor international companies should be required to assist anyone in breaking privacy protections, nor should warrants allow access to protected devices, and nor should existing legislature be strengthened. Would these changes help law enforcement catch a few criminals? Probably. Will it weaken the safety, security & privacy of millions of respectable, law-abiding Australians? Definitely. Cheers, <Name> ----------------------- I really hope this doesn't pass.
  • NamTaf 8y ago
    Just a side note: Change 'recognize' to 'recognise' since we use Proper English ;)
    • hazz99 8y ago
      Damn yankie autocorrect!
  • gwillz 8y ago
    It's nick-picking - 25 million citizens. As of last month or whatever. Also +1 for a good template.
    • lann 8y ago
      I wouldn't normally do this but it seems appropriate in this context: nitpicking
      • gwillz 8y ago
        Touché.
  • 8y ago
• jjcm 8y ago
  A bunch of us at Atlassian are sending a group letter (not an official one from the company, just a bunch of us who think the bill is dangerous). Thanks for the info femto. Edit - Here's the letter we wrote: Hello, we are a collection of employees who work for Atlassian (a major Sydney based tech company) and we’d like to give our view of why we think this bill is dangerous. First and foremost, it will damage the view of Australian tech companies. If a foreign company is deciding between our products or a non-Australian company, but knows that Australia may have required Atlassian to build a backdoor into their encryption, the objectively better choice would be to choose the non-Australian company. This isn't just Atlassian losing because of this; the entire Australian tech scene will be damaged. Secondly, a master key to unlock encryption is a master key that’s available to steal. Time and time again in the tech world we’ve seen “security that can’t be beat” get beat. Equifax lost nearly every American Social Security number. Bitcoin gets stolen every day because someone’s private key gets compromised. Even as far back as World War II, we saw encryption get beat because a master key (the enigma machine) got stolen. History has shown us countless times that a master key leads to a non-secure product. Even if the this bill is only requiring companies to provide the capability to decrypt information, that only changes who controls the master key. It doesn’t remove the damage to security. Thirdly, requiring companies to be able to break their own encryption will never be a game you can win. Even if every company in the world were compliant with this bill, the tools to make your unbreakable encryption are trivial to find and use. Any agent that was an actual threat to national security would have the resources available to them to create a non-breakable encrypted communication method. The only people who would be affected by this law would be petty criminals, but the dragnet of its implications would affect every Australian citizen in its wake. Fourthly, this will damage the Australian startup scene. When choosing where to fund a company, the laws and world view of a country come heavily into play. If someone is creating the next messaging app but the public opinion of Australia is that their products are legally required to be insecure, that person will choose a more tech-friendly company to start their company in. Not only that, but if a company knows there are more requirements for compliance in Australia, then it makes a startup’s job harder to release a product. Startups are difficult enough as it is, and lowering the barrier to entry (not raising it) is how you make a tech industry blossom. Lastly, even if one agrees that the damage to security is worth the tradeoff, the lack of judicial oversight in this bill is extremely worrying. Giving multiple people the ability to issue notices without judicial oversight is a power no person should be able to exercise alone. Overall we feel this bill will harm not only the tech industry, but Australia as a whole.
• ra 8y ago
  I just made this submission: ------ I am a business owner, an employer, a technologist, a programmer and a company director. I oppose this proposed bill on the basis of it weakening the effective security of Australian Internet service providers, which would be bad for national security. I would like to raise the following points: 1) The proposed bill will inevitably lead to the creation of systemic weaknesses in the security of Australian companies that provide Internet services or products. The burden of complying with voluntary requests will lead to new, exploitable "backdoors", despite what the home affairs department asserts. Whether these backdoors are electronic, or process based (i.e. responding to a fraudulent request), the bill would mandate companies to effectively create new attack surfaces; weaknesses in operational security introduced to comply with the bill. 2) The Internet can only facilitate services like payments, banking and communication because of encryption. Encryption is based on mathematics. You do not need to understand the mathematics to understand that if you provide an alternative to the encryption, you provide a weaker level of security. As a result, Australian financial, communication or payment services are less secure than international counterparts not burdened by this backdoor. 3) Any crime under investigation can be investigated by existing legal procedures. It is proper for a warrant to be required to access any secure or private information. 4) Providing a "back door" for law enforcement is not necessary. This bill is akin to providing a backdoor for law enforcement to enter a persons home or business without seeking a warrant from a court. 5) Encryption is good. Encryption makes the Internet work. Australia has critical infrastructure that can only function with proper encryption. Encryption is easily invalidated by inadequate process or procedure. This bill would encourage (or require) Australian companies to compromise their security practices. Please don't assume that the laws of mathematics can be overruled by the laws of Australia. This would be foolhardy, and not in the interest of Australia's national security.
• danieltillett 8y ago
  I sent off my email although I doubt it is going to do any good.
• psynapse 8y ago
  Thanks for the heads up on the consultation process. Just sent my email.
• gsich 8y ago
  Don't write emails, make a phonecall.