4 ms·
They were going to supply a definition of "systemic weakness", but I can't find one in the bill itself. I'm patiently waiting for their proposed method of read
by brokenmachine 8y ago
They were going to supply a definition of "systemic weakness", but I can't find one in the bill itself.
I'm patiently waiting for their proposed method of reading end-to-end encrypted messages without introducing a systemic weakness.
But the meaning of words don't seem to matter anymore in the reality distortion field that is the Australian government. This is all supposedly to somehow make us more secure for Christmas.
- StavrosK 8y agoIndeed, the laws of mathematics make this impossible. Count yourself lucky to be living in a country where the laws of mathematics don't apply.
- brokenmachine 8y agoThe laws of mathematics are "commendable", but they're nothing compared to Australian laws hurriedly passed 5 minutes before the Christmas holidays. History will not remember these people well.
- bigiain 8y agoHistory will most likely remember these people as the completely incompetent board of director of the fossil fuel industry that presided over the final execution of the planet's habitable eco system. The fact that they were politicians or even the Prime Minister for 5 minutes briefly in late 2018 won't even be a footnote...
- cvwright 8y agoThis line of argument is not helpful. What are you going to do if/when somebody shows up with a scheme that shows you're wrong, and the laws of mathematics do in fact permit such schemes?
- StavrosK 8y agoFix cryptography.
- caf 8y agoI'm patiently waiting for their proposed method of reading end-to-end encrypted messages without introducing a systemic weakness. I imagine that they ask for some tailored malware to be delivered to the specifically targeted device/user.
- bigiain 8y agoSo the UK spooks have a wonderful euphemism for this. "Equipment interference": https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2018/12/06/uk_gchq_bulk_equipment_interference/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2018/12/06/uk_gchq_bulk_eq... Which, of course, leads on to a somewhat less specifically targeted "Bulk equipment interference", because once we have the capability, it'll _surely_ not get misused, right? I'm eagerly awaiting the hilarious verbal gymnastics they'll come up with to make a Technical Assistance Notice compelled "Bulk equipment interference" capability some how not a "systemic weakness"... I'm sure that'll end up in linguistics textbooks and industry jokes for decades...
- brokenmachine 8y agoWe won't see any of that hilarious verbal gymnastics because any individual would be crazy to try to fight one of these orders and face 10 years in jail. The govt will just secretly compel them, and their activity stays secret - except the bad guys can now hack our compromised infrastructure and there will be inevitable leaks of data and exploits, just like Wannacry which was originally an NSA exploit.
- cyphar 8y agoAccording to the proposed amendments (which weren't included) that had definitions, their definition of a systemic weakness is different to everyone else (yet another example of the doublespeak that this Bill contains). A systemic weakness is a weakness that is targeted, even if in order to target it you need to weaken your entire architecture in order to fulfil it. And to paraphrase the Greens MP, "the target could be as vague as all Victorians or everyone over the age of 30 and still not be considered a systemic weakness".
- Grollicus 8y agoAs long as we don't know P!=NP we're not sure if we actually need to introduce a systemic weakness to break crypto, no?