4 ms·

Is there a (non-alarmist/non-defensive/non-partisan) summary available of what the bill actually contains and what its practical effects might be?

cyphar 8y ago
I'd recommend actually reading the bill to form your own conclusions. The main problem is that it mostly is a series of amendments, and many of them are quite unrelated. Most of the discussion is about the Technical Capability Notice section (which allows the government to compel a telecommunication provider, under threat of 5 years imprisonment, to create the ability to access communications otherwise inaccessible) but very few people are talking about the Computer Access Warrant sections... And it's possible for employees to be forced to do this, and you cannot reveal information about these technical notices to your employer -- in fact you are given immunity from civil persecution precisely for this reason. So you now have to sabotage your employer because of an order by the Australian government. Good luck keeping your job.
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  I very well may end up reading the whole thing, but that's partly why i'd actually like an expert summary, because my understanding is that these are amendments to existing legislation, and as a non-expert, the ability for me to be able to understand all the other legislation and implications that it works with is probably pretty close to zero...
- rswail 8y ago
  The best discussion I've found in terms of the legislation is at [1]. The most insidious part to me as a programmer, is the definition of a "Designated Communications Provider" which (amongst others) includes (S317C, item 6): "the person develops, supplies or updates software used, for use, or likely to be used, in connection with: (a) a listed carriage service; or (b) an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia" and the "eligible activities" are: (a) the development by the person of any such software; or (b) the supply by the person of any such software; or (c) the updating by the person of any such software" [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/6370016/upload_binary/6370016.pdf;fileType=application/pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ashildr 8y ago
    So australian software developers have become pretty much toxic now?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- teraflop 8y ago
  I haven't read the whole thing, but my favorite part so far is 317E (1)(c), which says that the "listed acts" (the things the government can require you do to) include "installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment". In other words, they can just hand you a flash drive containing malware and force you to install it. You're not allowed to say no, and you're not allowed to tell anybody.
ggm 8y ago
I do not have one. I'd also love one apart from the aph one below. (It's good btw) What I believe, is that this bill is heavily influenced by the emerging UK law, by experiences failing decrypt on devices, a pervasive sense of panic and an election year. Australian police and security have form here asking big when they know the outgoing government is their last chance that gets big wins. Australia card (digital ID) died in labor (party) days. Censorship died in Conroy's day (labor) Anti corruption body changes which would actually help material cases in official corruption are being opposed and we're fed "think of the children" KP arguments which are "when did you stop beating your wife" dog whistle politics. Is there a real problem with decrypts on bad people electronic comms? Sure. Will this law stop that? Nope.
- kibibu 8y ago
  Censorship didn't die with Conroy. Australian ISPs/DNS servers are required to block The Pirate Bay, for example. Just because it's trivial to work around doesn't mean it isn't censorship
  - ggm 8y ago
    True. Alston had a lot of this story too. Brian Harradine and redneck wowserism. But what we got was less than the moral crusade and the police wanted going in.
brokenmachine 8y ago
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/inprinciple-deal-struck-on-controversial-encryption-bill/news-story/75492c0ee5a389a0ada7955733529af4 https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/inprincip... The (autoplay! grr) video summary at the bottom is pretty good. State police forces are getting these powers. So state police, federal police and ASIO can compel devs to break their security for the investigation of any crime that attracts a penalty of 3 years jail or more. This is not an interim arrangement either. God this whole thing is so idiotic and scary.

cyphar 8y ago

I'd recommend actually reading the bill to form your own conclusions. The main problem is that it mostly is a series of amendments, and many of them are quite unrelated. Most of the discussion is about the Technical Capability Notice section (which allows the government to compel a telecommunication provider, under threat of 5 years imprisonment, to create the ability to access communications otherwise inaccessible) but very few people are talking about the Computer Access Warrant sections... And it's possible for employees to be forced to do this, and you cannot reveal information about these technical notices to your employer -- in fact you are given immunity from civil persecution precisely for this reason. So you now have to sabotage your employer because of an order by the Australian government. Good luck keeping your job.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago
I very well may end up reading the whole thing, but that's partly why i'd actually like an expert summary, because my understanding is that these are amendments to existing legislation, and as a non-expert, the ability for me to be able to understand all the other legislation and implications that it works with is probably pretty close to zero...
rswail 8y ago
The best discussion I've found in terms of the legislation is at [1]. The most insidious part to me as a programmer, is the definition of a "Designated Communications Provider" which (amongst others) includes (S317C, item 6): "the person develops, supplies or updates software used, for use, or likely to be used, in connection with: (a) a listed carriage service; or (b) an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia" and the "eligible activities" are: (a) the development by the person of any such software; or (b) the supply by the person of any such software; or (c) the updating by the person of any such software" [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/6370016/upload_binary/6370016.pdf;fileType=application/pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ashildr 8y ago
  So australian software developers have become pretty much toxic now?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
teraflop 8y ago
I haven't read the whole thing, but my favorite part so far is 317E (1)(c), which says that the "listed acts" (the things the government can require you do to) include "installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment". In other words, they can just hand you a flash drive containing malware and force you to install it. You're not allowed to say no, and you're not allowed to tell anybody.

ggm 8y ago

I do not have one. I'd also love one apart from the aph one below. (It's good btw) What I believe, is that this bill is heavily influenced by the emerging UK law, by experiences failing decrypt on devices, a pervasive sense of panic and an election year. Australian police and security have form here asking big when they know the outgoing government is their last chance that gets big wins. Australia card (digital ID) died in labor (party) days. Censorship died in Conroy's day (labor) Anti corruption body changes which would actually help material cases in official corruption are being opposed and we're fed "think of the children" KP arguments which are "when did you stop beating your wife" dog whistle politics. Is there a real problem with decrypts on bad people electronic comms? Sure. Will this law stop that? Nope.

kibibu 8y ago
Censorship didn't die with Conroy. Australian ISPs/DNS servers are required to block The Pirate Bay, for example. Just because it's trivial to work around doesn't mean it isn't censorship
- ggm 8y ago
  True. Alston had a lot of this story too. Brian Harradine and redneck wowserism. But what we got was less than the moral crusade and the police wanted going in.

brokenmachine 8y ago

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/inprinciple-deal-struck-on-controversial-encryption-bill/news-story/75492c0ee5a389a0ada7955733529af4 https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/inprincip... The (autoplay! grr) video summary at the bottom is pretty good. State police forces are getting these powers. So state police, federal police and ASIO can compel devs to break their security for the investigation of any crime that attracts a penalty of 3 years jail or more. This is not an interim arrangement either. God this whole thing is so idiotic and scary.