11 ms·

The Internet Reacts To Australia's Anti-Encryption Bill

80 points by lysp 8y ago

DuskStar 8y ago
If the US couldn't pull it off 20 years ago, why the hell does Australia expect to successfully mandate encryption backdoors today?
- tanbog 8y ago
  Delusions of grandeur.
  - Smoosh 8y ago
    Also, a complete lack of understanding of the problem and/or wilful ignoring of the effects of the proposed solution.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Australia has effectively no free speech or privacy protections, and so it's very likely they'll get big companies to play ball. The US ran into trouble for a variety of reasons but it wasn't an "in principle this is untenable" problem (and let's not forget the "export" encryption has caused problems for many years thanks to the US policies). I am quite worried about free software that implements encryption. As an Australian, I'm quite concerned that software I've written and is free software will be asked to be backdoored by the Australian government. I'm small fish, but if I was a GnuPG developer I'd be more worried -- will GnuPG even accept my patches anymore given my nationality?
  - judge2020 8y ago
    I'm also concerned about the possibility of extradition. Say the Australian government decides to ask someone like Werner (Github/dd9jn) to backdoor GnuPG over the internet, and he doesn't comply. Disregarding five eyes, could he now be extradited from the US because he broke an Australian law? This question is in light of Huwaei's CFO being extradited from Canada. I know this law isn't something like the Iran sanctions, but I imagine extradition would still be a possibility.
  - caf 8y ago
    As an Australian, I'm quite concerned that software I've written and is free software will be asked to be backdoored by the Australian government. I don't believe this is a significant risk, at least for the case of source code. The proposed legislation doesn't allow them to ask for "systemic weaknesses" - so a sneaky change in the source that leaks few bits of key material or something should be out. And a big part of this is secrecy - they don't want those targeted to know they're under surveillance - so it would be self-defeating to ask you to put an "if (user == osama_bin_laden) { send_to_ausgov(msg); }" line in the public source. If you distribute your free software through an app store or something there could be more risk, in that you might be asked to distribute a binary with code to target certain users - but even there I'd say there's still too much chance that people analysing the binary would discover the backdoor code, so it's doubtful they'd go that way either. It seems to me that the most likely use of the TCN power would be to ask the OS vendor to deploy some Game Over malware to a targeted endpoint (using their existing update or app store mechanism). We already know what that malware looks like, the hardest part is getting it onto the device. I find it hard to credit that Apple would stomach this, after they were seemingly prepared to go to the mat with the FBI in the All Writs Act case over a very similar issue. Would they withdraw entirely from the Australian market? You'd have to think that is a live possibility.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      > The proposed legislation doesn't allow them to ask for "systemic weaknesses". My problem with this argument is that the whole "systemic weaknesses" restriction is just a word-game so that the bill can escape certain criticism. As a hypothetical, if I implement an e2e system which is "entirely secure" and as a provider I have no method of attacking it (and let's imagine it's free software and uses reproducible builds, so users can trivially verify if their binary is backdoored) -- how can I respond to a Technical Assistance Notice? I simply cannot, without taking my existing program and making it insecure. Without creating a weakness which, by the nature of the problem, is systemic. Do you see what happened? The government hasn't asked me to create a systemic weakness but because of the very situation I've now been forced to make one -- it's just a word-game. They can't ask you to create a systemic weakness, but they sure as hell can put you in a situation where (in order to fulfill a "completely reasonable request" under threat of exceptionally large fines and civil prosecution) you must create a systemic weakness. Now of course, most programs are insecure and so this hypothetical isn't entirely practical. But the principle stands that there will be many situations where (in order to avoid exceptionally large fines and civil prosecution) companies will opt into creating a systemic weakness out of fear of not being able to comply with future Technical Assistance Notices.
infradig 8y ago
First the UK and now Australia. Next New Zealand and then Canada. Then the USA will have its five-eyes partners outsourced and fully-equiped to do all its internal spying.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Australia has no privacy protections (and is the only Five-Eyes country where this is the case). There's no need to get a similar law passed in New Zealand, the Five-Eyes agreement allows for intelligence analysis to be outsourced. Basically Australia will now be used as a way to subvert the privacy rights of all other Five-Eyes countries -- including countries where such analysis would violate their laws. The most disgusting thing is that our opposition government voted for this shit. What a fucking joke.
sandov 8y ago
I wonder what goes on in the mind of politicians who support this kind of laws. Do they not understand it? Did they get paid to pass it? Do they hate freedom? Do they actually think it's a good law? Would they like to have lived in the USSR so they can experience the peak non-freedom experience? Are they masochists?
- GuiA 8y ago
  They often do not understand it, and more importantly they usually get nice dinner invitations (etc) from lobbyists with vested corporate interests.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    What is the corporate interest that you think is served by mandating encryption backdoors?
    - dwd 8y ago
      More access to US markets would be my first guess. The USGov want's this and would be offering some incentive. The government then use that as a selling point or threat of missed opportunity to keep MPs in line - not that you'll ever get someone crossing the floor. I assume the idea is to either "share" the data to a five-eyes partner or let them collect it and use their jurisdiction to compel it's decryption (including by US firms). There's also a lot of politics and point scoring going on, and a trade deal is always good coming into the next election.
      - aetherson 8y ago
        The US government may well be lobbying for this, but if so, I don't that they're doing it by going to Australian corporations and saying, "Hey, you lobby for this and if you do we'll give your something special." If for no reason other than that it's likely it would get out. What I'm saying here is that "corporate lobbying" is a bugaboo for many people. There are plenty of bad ideas that stem from sources other than corporate lobbying.
x0x0 8y ago
Does anyone understand how this affects fastmail? their blog post seems to say it isn't a big deal https://fastmail.blog/2018/09/10/access-and-assistance-bill/ https://fastmail.blog/2018/09/10/access-and-assistance-bill/
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Email providers already have the keys to all the data they store, so this bill does not affect them. They can already fulfill any lawful warrant that is requesting data. The fear is that a service that is encrypted end-to-end will be forced to add a backdoor to accommodate warrants for data. But email is not encrypted E2E.
  - BornInCode 8y ago
    Some email providers like Protonmail provide E2E emails. :)
  - ajwin 8y ago
    Unless your a bad guy who just uses a program on your own computer to do the email encryption preserver...
tanbog 8y ago
Hasn't passed the Senate yet. There is an arm-wrestle over a nasty piece of refugee legislation that might see both acts not get voted on today. That means it won't be back in parliament until next year and the government is looking so shaky it might not be in power then so... who knows!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cyphar 8y ago
  It just passed the Senate. But even if it hadn't passed, the problem was that Labor (to non-Aussies: the opposition) voted for it unanimously. Only two MPs voted against it in the House of Representatives (Andrew Wilkie [Independent] and Adam Bandt [Greens]).
_Nat_ 8y ago
Tangential, but the article badly malfunctions in Chrome with JavaScript disabled. It seems to redirect to https://www.gizmodo.com.au/?nojs=1 https://www.gizmodo.com.au/?nojs=1, which then starts to reload the page over-and-over at about half-second intervals on my machine. Anyone know what's going on with the article?
- tyingq 8y ago
  It is unusually bad. Loaded with javascript on, and after just scrolling and reading, it's up to 633 http requests and 6+MB to show an article: https://imgur.com/a/u0UZswK https://imgur.com/a/u0UZswK
aetherspawn 8y ago
Is this even technically possible? What happens to all the businesses in Australia that built products around crypto where it’s impossible to go backwards.
- clouddrover 8y ago
  They'll lose business: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-30/encryption-bill-tech-business-damage-international-reputation/10570316 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-30/encryption-bi... I suppose they could always go offshore.
- cyphar 8y ago
  They will get fined very heavily and thus will be forced to add backdoors or go out of business. The government claims that what they want aren't backdoors (they use the term "backdoor" to refer to a 0-day in possibly the most disgusting Orwellian doublespeak I've seen come out of this government in an attempt to avoid criticism) but that's simply false.
- caf 8y ago
  The meat of the bill is the ability to issue three sorts of notices to service providers (which only need have some incidental presence in Australia to be served, like for example a company owned storefront): Technical Assistance Request - a non-compulsory request to provide requested information they have access to; Technical Assistance Notice - a compulsory version of a Technical Assistance Request, to use a capability that the recipient already has to obtain data; Technical Capability Notice - a compulsory instruction to develop a new interception capability. So it doesn't constrain the way you can build products (now or in the past), they're instead just going to require your assistance to attack the targeted endpoints if that's the only way in.
  - aetherspawn 8y ago
    So the government can now ask you to do specialised software development to retardify your own systems and if you refuse then they can fine you? I didn’t think there was any basis whatsoever to be able to make a law that assumes a company is capable of maintaining or modifying their systems or infrastructure. That seems too generalised.. what if they’re running on a system that they don’t have the source code for?
contingencies 8y ago
Updating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_Australia ...
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  Published in 2014 so it's missing some of the up-to-date discussions and issues, but it's still worth a read for the history of paranoia: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23890331-australia-under-surveillance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23890331-australia-under...
ajwin 8y ago
173 Amendments = One wish for every politician granted to buy the bill?
schappim 8y ago
We (Australia) are doing this mostly as a five-eyes partner on behalf of the US to support their intelligence efforts. This is the price we the Australian people pay for: 1) The promise of future protection by the US in the event of a war (hmmm I wonder who will start it) [1] 2) In theory better terms of trade (ok, after lots of haggling) [2] 3) Access to exclusive visas w/ the US (ok, not so exclusive if Ireland have their way). [3] Worth it? [1] https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/the-miscalculation-that-could-escalate-into-war-between-china-and-the-us/news-story/c597fe4fa7ea9e7a9929b4258625bd19 [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-10/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-working-tariff-exemption-agreement/9534984 [3] https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/what-is-e3-bill-what-would-it-mean-for-irish
- dgzl 8y ago
  Of course not.
cyphar 8y ago
I think it's about time that we Australians had a discussion about a constitutional bill of rights (modelled on Switzerland ideally). The common argument against this is that common law protections would be strong enough to make it unnecessary, but that's ignoring that governments can pass laws that end up invalidating older common law protections. And as we've seen in the past decade, our government (both Labor and the Liberals) have been slowly degrading our rights -- they effectively suspended habeas corpus in 2005. From memory, there are even restrictions on how much you can tell your lawyers about you being tried for terrorism! A constitutional referendum is going to be a very hard fight. But I think that the Australian public could see the problem if we compare ourselves to other nations -- the "it's all for national security" argument is specious given that we can show evidence of many countries which have such protections and still have national security protections. One of the most concerning things is that the canonical example that motivated this bill actually includes a presumption of guilt of the person being investigated. That's a great start...
- schappim 8y ago
  People like to wave a constitutional bill of rights (or lack of it) as an issue for Australia. Whilst that is true, our rights are just spread out within Australia's common law. This can actually be a good thing, as the laws are in theory easier to get changed for the times. Such as the right to bear arms[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpeUznIhgLU
  - cyphar 8y ago
    I mention this in my comment, the problem is precisely that it is so easy to invalidate protections in common law -- a new law can easily invalidate an old freedom. And yes, "the right to bear arms" being restricted in Australia is an example where this was a net positive. But invalidating habeas corpus, privacy, and free speech are all things that have been done by our government in the past decade. The ability for fundamental rights to be invalidated that easily should be seen as a much bigger problem than people seem to view it as. I used to be in the "we don't need a constitutional bill of rights, we have common law protections" camp as well. But the slow march to remove many of our rights has drastically changed my viewpoint on this topic. [+]: And while it might be inflammatory, it is entirely correct to refer to detention centers as "concentration camps" because they concentrate a section of the population -- in this case possible asylum seekers -- into a single place.
senectus1 8y ago
ugh. I'll never forgive the LIB's for what they did to the NBN project. Now I'm being pushed to put the ALP on the same shelf. If this shitshow of legislation passes the senate then Australia is no longer safe and can no longer export tech to places like Europe. what a fucking joke.
jddj 8y ago
The expectation of bipartisanship on 'national security issues' definitely makes the average citizen feel powerless, which is particularly worrying because all of the privacy/centralised control overreaches are easily framed as such. I'd happily contribute monthly donations to an EFF-style organisation who are proving effective (or at least tenacious) in lobbying for individual rights protections and extensions, does anyone have any personal recommendations based on their own research? I'm aware that the EFF has an Australian partner branch, and that there are a small handful of other digital rights groups, but if someone has looked into it more thoroughly it would be nice to hear what you found.
- dwd 8y ago
  GetUp is probably the most effective group for mobilising activists (based on MoveOn.org) but are under a lot of pressure for supposedly taking donations from overseas. (George Soros was blamed as usual) The Government is trying to blunt their influence by passing laws to cut off their access to funding. I haven't seen anything specific regarding the anti-encryption bill but they supported action in protest of the data retention bill that was passed a few years ago. Expect to see them a lot this election, particularly in Dickson, Peter Dutton's electorate.
bigbluedots 8y ago
Is this really what passes for journalism, a bunch of links to twitter posts? Anyway, I believe that this law will result in technology providers ceasing to offer their services in Australia. Of course if that happens, only businesses that can be compelled provide technical assistance etc will be left.
hiisukun 8y ago
Here is my attempt at apolitical summary for those seeking a quick rundown on the situation. Apologies for brevity since I'm on mobile - there's a lot of small things joining together to make this an interesting situation. Aussie Parliament has two houses: the lower house of representatives, and the upper house (of review). A bill has to pass both in the same form before it can become an Act (law). This one has passed the lower house, and not yet the upper. The current government can't force through legislation without support from independents since they don't have a clear majority in both houses, and there are some types of lost votes in Parliament that if lost threaten the concept that they're actually a 'government'. This situation involves something like that, but it's a rare thing (1940s was the last time this kind of situation resulted in a government resigning). Today was the last day of Parliament sitting for this year, and the government had promised to put through the encryption legislation by now, so it's in place for Christmas. They have some reputation on the line, stating many times it is a necessary law to have in place for the safety of the Australian people over summer. At the same time, there is some legislation in the Parliament that will change how some Australian refugees on the island of Naru are treated, potentially allowing them into Australia. This is a very hot political topic with lots of debate and nuance - so forgive me if I simply say the government wants the refugees to stay on Naru and the opposition wants them to be able to come into Australia. Both of these law changes were in the Parliament today, and both were expected to go before a house for a vote this afternoon. There is argument over the opposition deliberately aligning the to issues, but I'm not across it. Importantly, it was almost certain that if the Naru bill went to a vote, the government would lose, and be in the unfortunate position above of perhaps not being a legitimate government anymore. The government therefore faced two choices: Allow the situation to contribute, lose on immigration and stability, but win on security and reputation; or prevent the Parliament continuing and win (for now) on Naru, but lose on security. They chose the latter. Subsequently, both the government and the opposition have blamed the other for putting politics before people, on one of the two issues respectively. However, the encryption bill only passed the lower house because of the support from the opposition (at the time), who may have been in a better position to know the Naru bill was going to line up in terms of timing. Quite a busy and tense close to our country's Parliament for the year!
cyphar 8y ago
An update to all those watching, it just passed the Senate and has been signed into law (once it gains Royal Assent).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

80 points by lysp 8y ago

If the US couldn't pull it off 20 years ago, why the hell does Australia expect to successfully mandate encryption backdoors today?

tanbog 8y ago
Delusions of grandeur.
- Smoosh 8y ago
  Also, a complete lack of understanding of the problem and/or wilful ignoring of the effects of the proposed solution.
cyphar 8y ago
Australia has effectively no free speech or privacy protections, and so it's very likely they'll get big companies to play ball. The US ran into trouble for a variety of reasons but it wasn't an "in principle this is untenable" problem (and let's not forget the "export" encryption has caused problems for many years thanks to the US policies). I am quite worried about free software that implements encryption. As an Australian, I'm quite concerned that software I've written and is free software will be asked to be backdoored by the Australian government. I'm small fish, but if I was a GnuPG developer I'd be more worried -- will GnuPG even accept my patches anymore given my nationality?
- judge2020 8y ago
  I'm also concerned about the possibility of extradition. Say the Australian government decides to ask someone like Werner (Github/dd9jn) to backdoor GnuPG over the internet, and he doesn't comply. Disregarding five eyes, could he now be extradited from the US because he broke an Australian law? This question is in light of Huwaei's CFO being extradited from Canada. I know this law isn't something like the Iran sanctions, but I imagine extradition would still be a possibility.
- caf 8y ago
  As an Australian, I'm quite concerned that software I've written and is free software will be asked to be backdoored by the Australian government. I don't believe this is a significant risk, at least for the case of source code. The proposed legislation doesn't allow them to ask for "systemic weaknesses" - so a sneaky change in the source that leaks few bits of key material or something should be out. And a big part of this is secrecy - they don't want those targeted to know they're under surveillance - so it would be self-defeating to ask you to put an "if (user == osama_bin_laden) { send_to_ausgov(msg); }" line in the public source. If you distribute your free software through an app store or something there could be more risk, in that you might be asked to distribute a binary with code to target certain users - but even there I'd say there's still too much chance that people analysing the binary would discover the backdoor code, so it's doubtful they'd go that way either. It seems to me that the most likely use of the TCN power would be to ask the OS vendor to deploy some Game Over malware to a targeted endpoint (using their existing update or app store mechanism). We already know what that malware looks like, the hardest part is getting it onto the device. I find it hard to credit that Apple would stomach this, after they were seemingly prepared to go to the mat with the FBI in the All Writs Act case over a very similar issue. Would they withdraw entirely from the Australian market? You'd have to think that is a live possibility.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    > The proposed legislation doesn't allow them to ask for "systemic weaknesses". My problem with this argument is that the whole "systemic weaknesses" restriction is just a word-game so that the bill can escape certain criticism. As a hypothetical, if I implement an e2e system which is "entirely secure" and as a provider I have no method of attacking it (and let's imagine it's free software and uses reproducible builds, so users can trivially verify if their binary is backdoored) -- how can I respond to a Technical Assistance Notice? I simply cannot, without taking my existing program and making it insecure. Without creating a weakness which, by the nature of the problem, is systemic. Do you see what happened? The government hasn't asked me to create a systemic weakness but because of the very situation I've now been forced to make one -- it's just a word-game. They can't ask you to create a systemic weakness, but they sure as hell can put you in a situation where (in order to fulfill a "completely reasonable request" under threat of exceptionally large fines and civil prosecution) you must create a systemic weakness. Now of course, most programs are insecure and so this hypothetical isn't entirely practical. But the principle stands that there will be many situations where (in order to avoid exceptionally large fines and civil prosecution) companies will opt into creating a systemic weakness out of fear of not being able to comply with future Technical Assistance Notices.

infradig 8y ago

First the UK and now Australia. Next New Zealand and then Canada. Then the USA will have its five-eyes partners outsourced and fully-equiped to do all its internal spying.

cyphar 8y ago
Australia has no privacy protections (and is the only Five-Eyes country where this is the case). There's no need to get a similar law passed in New Zealand, the Five-Eyes agreement allows for intelligence analysis to be outsourced. Basically Australia will now be used as a way to subvert the privacy rights of all other Five-Eyes countries -- including countries where such analysis would violate their laws. The most disgusting thing is that our opposition government voted for this shit. What a fucking joke.

sandov 8y ago

I wonder what goes on in the mind of politicians who support this kind of laws. Do they not understand it? Did they get paid to pass it? Do they hate freedom? Do they actually think it's a good law? Would they like to have lived in the USSR so they can experience the peak non-freedom experience? Are they masochists?

GuiA 8y ago
They often do not understand it, and more importantly they usually get nice dinner invitations (etc) from lobbyists with vested corporate interests.
- aetherson 8y ago
  What is the corporate interest that you think is served by mandating encryption backdoors?
  - dwd 8y ago
    More access to US markets would be my first guess. The USGov want's this and would be offering some incentive. The government then use that as a selling point or threat of missed opportunity to keep MPs in line - not that you'll ever get someone crossing the floor. I assume the idea is to either "share" the data to a five-eyes partner or let them collect it and use their jurisdiction to compel it's decryption (including by US firms). There's also a lot of politics and point scoring going on, and a trade deal is always good coming into the next election.
    - aetherson 8y ago
      The US government may well be lobbying for this, but if so, I don't that they're doing it by going to Australian corporations and saying, "Hey, you lobby for this and if you do we'll give your something special." If for no reason other than that it's likely it would get out. What I'm saying here is that "corporate lobbying" is a bugaboo for many people. There are plenty of bad ideas that stem from sources other than corporate lobbying.

x0x0 8y ago

Does anyone understand how this affects fastmail? their blog post seems to say it isn't a big deal https://fastmail.blog/2018/09/10/access-and-assistance-bill/ https://fastmail.blog/2018/09/10/access-and-assistance-bill/

snowwrestler 8y ago
Email providers already have the keys to all the data they store, so this bill does not affect them. They can already fulfill any lawful warrant that is requesting data. The fear is that a service that is encrypted end-to-end will be forced to add a backdoor to accommodate warrants for data. But email is not encrypted E2E.
- BornInCode 8y ago
  Some email providers like Protonmail provide E2E emails. :)
- ajwin 8y ago
  Unless your a bad guy who just uses a program on your own computer to do the email encryption preserver...

tanbog 8y ago

Hasn't passed the Senate yet. There is an arm-wrestle over a nasty piece of refugee legislation that might see both acts not get voted on today. That means it won't be back in parliament until next year and the government is looking so shaky it might not be in power then so... who knows!

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cyphar 8y ago
It just passed the Senate. But even if it hadn't passed, the problem was that Labor (to non-Aussies: the opposition) voted for it unanimously. Only two MPs voted against it in the House of Representatives (Andrew Wilkie [Independent] and Adam Bandt [Greens]).

_Nat_ 8y ago

Tangential, but the article badly malfunctions in Chrome with JavaScript disabled. It seems to redirect to https://www.gizmodo.com.au/?nojs=1 https://www.gizmodo.com.au/?nojs=1, which then starts to reload the page over-and-over at about half-second intervals on my machine. Anyone know what's going on with the article?

tyingq 8y ago
It is unusually bad. Loaded with javascript on, and after just scrolling and reading, it's up to 633 http requests and 6+MB to show an article: https://imgur.com/a/u0UZswK https://imgur.com/a/u0UZswK

aetherspawn 8y ago

Is this even technically possible? What happens to all the businesses in Australia that built products around crypto where it’s impossible to go backwards.

clouddrover 8y ago
They'll lose business: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-30/encryption-bill-tech-business-damage-international-reputation/10570316 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-30/encryption-bi... I suppose they could always go offshore.
cyphar 8y ago
They will get fined very heavily and thus will be forced to add backdoors or go out of business. The government claims that what they want aren't backdoors (they use the term "backdoor" to refer to a 0-day in possibly the most disgusting Orwellian doublespeak I've seen come out of this government in an attempt to avoid criticism) but that's simply false.
caf 8y ago
The meat of the bill is the ability to issue three sorts of notices to service providers (which only need have some incidental presence in Australia to be served, like for example a company owned storefront): Technical Assistance Request - a non-compulsory request to provide requested information they have access to; Technical Assistance Notice - a compulsory version of a Technical Assistance Request, to use a capability that the recipient already has to obtain data; Technical Capability Notice - a compulsory instruction to develop a new interception capability. So it doesn't constrain the way you can build products (now or in the past), they're instead just going to require your assistance to attack the targeted endpoints if that's the only way in.
- aetherspawn 8y ago
  So the government can now ask you to do specialised software development to retardify your own systems and if you refuse then they can fine you? I didn’t think there was any basis whatsoever to be able to make a law that assumes a company is capable of maintaining or modifying their systems or infrastructure. That seems too generalised.. what if they’re running on a system that they don’t have the source code for?

contingencies 8y ago

Updating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_Australia ...

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Published in 2014 so it's missing some of the up-to-date discussions and issues, but it's still worth a read for the history of paranoia: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23890331-australia-under-surveillance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23890331-australia-under...

ajwin 8y ago

173 Amendments = One wish for every politician granted to buy the bill?

schappim 8y ago

We (Australia) are doing this mostly as a five-eyes partner on behalf of the US to support their intelligence efforts. This is the price we the Australian people pay for: 1) The promise of future protection by the US in the event of a war (hmmm I wonder who will start it) [1] 2) In theory better terms of trade (ok, after lots of haggling) [2] 3) Access to exclusive visas w/ the US (ok, not so exclusive if Ireland have their way). [3] Worth it? [1] https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/the-miscalculation-that-could-escalate-into-war-between-china-and-the-us/news-story/c597fe4fa7ea9e7a9929b4258625bd19 [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-10/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-working-tariff-exemption-agreement/9534984 [3] https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/what-is-e3-bill-what-would-it-mean-for-irish

dgzl 8y ago
Of course not.

cyphar 8y ago

I think it's about time that we Australians had a discussion about a constitutional bill of rights (modelled on Switzerland ideally). The common argument against this is that common law protections would be strong enough to make it unnecessary, but that's ignoring that governments can pass laws that end up invalidating older common law protections. And as we've seen in the past decade, our government (both Labor and the Liberals) have been slowly degrading our rights -- they effectively suspended habeas corpus in 2005. From memory, there are even restrictions on how much you can tell your lawyers about you being tried for terrorism! A constitutional referendum is going to be a very hard fight. But I think that the Australian public could see the problem if we compare ourselves to other nations -- the "it's all for national security" argument is specious given that we can show evidence of many countries which have such protections and still have national security protections. One of the most concerning things is that the canonical example that motivated this bill actually includes a presumption of guilt of the person being investigated. That's a great start...

schappim 8y ago
People like to wave a constitutional bill of rights (or lack of it) as an issue for Australia. Whilst that is true, our rights are just spread out within Australia's common law. This can actually be a good thing, as the laws are in theory easier to get changed for the times. Such as the right to bear arms[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpeUznIhgLU
- cyphar 8y ago
  I mention this in my comment, the problem is precisely that it is so easy to invalidate protections in common law -- a new law can easily invalidate an old freedom. And yes, "the right to bear arms" being restricted in Australia is an example where this was a net positive. But invalidating habeas corpus, privacy, and free speech are all things that have been done by our government in the past decade. The ability for fundamental rights to be invalidated that easily should be seen as a much bigger problem than people seem to view it as. I used to be in the "we don't need a constitutional bill of rights, we have common law protections" camp as well. But the slow march to remove many of our rights has drastically changed my viewpoint on this topic. [+]: And while it might be inflammatory, it is entirely correct to refer to detention centers as "concentration camps" because they concentrate a section of the population -- in this case possible asylum seekers -- into a single place.

senectus1 8y ago

ugh. I'll never forgive the LIB's for what they did to the NBN project. Now I'm being pushed to put the ALP on the same shelf. If this shitshow of legislation passes the senate then Australia is no longer safe and can no longer export tech to places like Europe. what a fucking joke.

jddj 8y ago

The expectation of bipartisanship on 'national security issues' definitely makes the average citizen feel powerless, which is particularly worrying because all of the privacy/centralised control overreaches are easily framed as such. I'd happily contribute monthly donations to an EFF-style organisation who are proving effective (or at least tenacious) in lobbying for individual rights protections and extensions, does anyone have any personal recommendations based on their own research? I'm aware that the EFF has an Australian partner branch, and that there are a small handful of other digital rights groups, but if someone has looked into it more thoroughly it would be nice to hear what you found.

dwd 8y ago
GetUp is probably the most effective group for mobilising activists (based on MoveOn.org) but are under a lot of pressure for supposedly taking donations from overseas. (George Soros was blamed as usual) The Government is trying to blunt their influence by passing laws to cut off their access to funding. I haven't seen anything specific regarding the anti-encryption bill but they supported action in protest of the data retention bill that was passed a few years ago. Expect to see them a lot this election, particularly in Dickson, Peter Dutton's electorate.

bigbluedots 8y ago

Is this really what passes for journalism, a bunch of links to twitter posts? Anyway, I believe that this law will result in technology providers ceasing to offer their services in Australia. Of course if that happens, only businesses that can be compelled provide technical assistance etc will be left.

hiisukun 8y ago

Here is my attempt at apolitical summary for those seeking a quick rundown on the situation. Apologies for brevity since I'm on mobile - there's a lot of small things joining together to make this an interesting situation. Aussie Parliament has two houses: the lower house of representatives, and the upper house (of review). A bill has to pass both in the same form before it can become an Act (law). This one has passed the lower house, and not yet the upper. The current government can't force through legislation without support from independents since they don't have a clear majority in both houses, and there are some types of lost votes in Parliament that if lost threaten the concept that they're actually a 'government'. This situation involves something like that, but it's a rare thing (1940s was the last time this kind of situation resulted in a government resigning). Today was the last day of Parliament sitting for this year, and the government had promised to put through the encryption legislation by now, so it's in place for Christmas. They have some reputation on the line, stating many times it is a necessary law to have in place for the safety of the Australian people over summer. At the same time, there is some legislation in the Parliament that will change how some Australian refugees on the island of Naru are treated, potentially allowing them into Australia. This is a very hot political topic with lots of debate and nuance - so forgive me if I simply say the government wants the refugees to stay on Naru and the opposition wants them to be able to come into Australia. Both of these law changes were in the Parliament today, and both were expected to go before a house for a vote this afternoon. There is argument over the opposition deliberately aligning the to issues, but I'm not across it. Importantly, it was almost certain that if the Naru bill went to a vote, the government would lose, and be in the unfortunate position above of perhaps not being a legitimate government anymore. The government therefore faced two choices: Allow the situation to contribute, lose on immigration and stability, but win on security and reputation; or prevent the Parliament continuing and win (for now) on Naru, but lose on security. They chose the latter. Subsequently, both the government and the opposition have blamed the other for putting politics before people, on one of the two issues respectively. However, the encryption bill only passed the lower house because of the support from the opposition (at the time), who may have been in a better position to know the Naru bill was going to line up in terms of timing. Quite a busy and tense close to our country's Parliament for the year!

cyphar 8y ago

An update to all those watching, it just passed the Senate and has been signed into law (once it gains Royal Assent).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]