4 ms·

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?

• 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.
        • dwd 8y ago
          The lobbying path for this would be US security (NSA/CIA/FBI) lobbying to both USGov and their AU counterparts ASIO/FedPolice who in turn lobby the AusGov. They in turn talk to USGov and work on what they get and the selling points. From the politicing it was the old "you're going to put people's safety at risk" if we don't do this message. So, no idea what AU gets out of it unless there a deal that makes some other issue go away for the Gov like taking some of our refugees, etc. Corps get no say unless they need a sweetener to keep giving politicians money or favourable media via various industry bodies and groups.
    • Joakal 8y ago
      The ol' five eyes conspiracy; to help big companies by collecting sensitive information on SME businesses.
• judge2020 8y ago
  I can't read minds, but I would think it's a party decision. One member of the party knows what the consequences (and benefits) of a law like this are, so all other party members "choose" to vote the same way as what everyone else in the party is voting. I'm sure whoever is proposing the law knows precisely what they're doing: making Apple and co. choose between money or values.
  • judge2020 8y ago
    Side note: There is this [0] section of the GSuite admin console. If this law passes, I can see Australia gaining a place here (but five eyes complicates that). 0: https://judge.sh/XCgDVqI0XP.png https://judge.sh/XCgDVqI0XP.png
• prawn 8y ago
  They worry that they'll be wedged on national security if they vote against it and then there is an incident. Their opponents will aggressively label them soft on terrorism and the 'reason' the attack couldn't be stopped. Meanwhile, if they vote for it, they annoy the few people paying attention or who have strong feelings about it. Low risk in the short term.
  • cyphar 8y ago
    This is exactly the reason. It's one of the many risks of having a de-facto two-party system -- if you piss off the other guy's base you'll lose the next election. As I've said for many years, we need much stronger third parties in Australia. Personally, I think problem is that there's too much political apathy.
    • BLKNSLVR 8y ago
      "too much political apathy" x 21,000,000 I only took an interest in politics since the selling of Telstra and then the NBN stuff, and man, I wish I'd been more aware earlier in my life. I haven't worked out how I'm going to introduce my kids to "the decisions that will shape their futures" yet, without turning them into suicidal nihilists bereft of hope for the future of the species / planet - but that's kinda the point.
      • Joakal 8y ago
        I agree and what disturbs me the most is that the two parties have recently massively increased requirements to being a candidate with more requirements on the way. Why? One independent senator out of 76 got elected legitimately by votes and ABC Antony Green complaining about too many choices on the ballot. The biggest attackers to Australian democracy is Liberal/Labor's actions. Are they trying to turn Australia's democracy into USA's?
• mindslight 8y ago
  It's based on a delusion of centralized control. It does not require maliciousness, simple-minded benevolence leads to the same thing. There's a problem that exists, and they need to solve it, so more control can only help - or so the thinking goes. Plus, a law like this only really sets the stage for future actions. If it turns out those type of actions are unnecessary or have detrimental effects, the capability can be restrained in the future! And it is true that the egregious totalitarian scenarios we're thinking of won't be done immediately. The frog will just slowly boil over time as the invasive behavior is normalized and gradually used for more and more routine policing. It takes a very principled stance to assert that the unenumerable harm such laws do to the future outweighs the immediate threat of the day. Which is why totalitarian laws such at this gain more ground after violent media spectacles.