4 ms·

Thank you for this, there is a lot of doomsaying in this thread but this reads to me that it would be possible to refuse requests based on these limitations.

brokenmachine 8y ago
There's doomsaying because this is doom. That's a pretty big call to refuse a secret request that you're not allowed to disclose to anyone, risking a lengthy jail term without the possibility of even seeking legal advice. War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength. Have a safe Christmas Australia! Papers please!!
- magduf 8y ago
  It's interesting how the English-speaking countries seem to be doing their very best to emulate the novel "1984".
cyphar 8y ago
The problem is that you are reading it as though the words mean what a technical person means by "systemic weakness" (such as weakening the crypto in an app in order to target a user). This is not what the words mean (and this entire bill and discussion around it is full of Orwellian doublespeak -- they redefine the word "backdoor" to mean 0-day for instance). The words aren't defined at all in the bill (which should be a massive red flag), but even the amendments that include definitions completely miss the point and basically imply that only something like Dual_EC_DRBG is considered a "systemic weakness". There is a lot of doomsaying because it is very seriously, no-kidding bad. Not to mention that denying such a request should almost certainly be done with some very serious (and expensive) legal advice.
- manicdee 8y ago
  Noting that you can’t seek legal advice because you’re not allowed to talk to anyone about the request.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Obviously the section on disclosure doesn't involve talking to your own legal representation (there is common law on this already). But even if there wasn't common law covering this it's explicitly allowed in Sect 317ZF.3e. You can even reveal it in a legal proceeding under Sect 317ZF.3b. Australia may be leading the path toward a Kafka-esque state but we're not there yet.
    - alfiedotwtf 8y ago
      Please note that disclosure for legal advice was not in the first reading, but added later.
stephen_g 8y ago
They legislated the power to hand a developer a $50K fine and put them in jail for 10 years for refusing. And you can't tell anybody else about it, for them to back you up with their technical input etc. At the end of the day, if they tell you to do it, chances are you'll have to do it. And you can't complain to anybody.
- cyphar 8y ago
  As far as I can tell there isn't a criminal penalty for refusing, what version of the bill are you looking at? In the first reading and all the amendments I could see there is "just" a 230-odd penalty units fine (which is about $25k in NSW).

brokenmachine 8y ago

There's doomsaying because this is doom. That's a pretty big call to refuse a secret request that you're not allowed to disclose to anyone, risking a lengthy jail term without the possibility of even seeking legal advice. War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength. Have a safe Christmas Australia! Papers please!!

magduf 8y ago
It's interesting how the English-speaking countries seem to be doing their very best to emulate the novel "1984".

cyphar 8y ago

The problem is that you are reading it as though the words mean what a technical person means by "systemic weakness" (such as weakening the crypto in an app in order to target a user). This is not what the words mean (and this entire bill and discussion around it is full of Orwellian doublespeak -- they redefine the word "backdoor" to mean 0-day for instance). The words aren't defined at all in the bill (which should be a massive red flag), but even the amendments that include definitions completely miss the point and basically imply that only something like Dual_EC_DRBG is considered a "systemic weakness". There is a lot of doomsaying because it is very seriously, no-kidding bad. Not to mention that denying such a request should almost certainly be done with some very serious (and expensive) legal advice.

manicdee 8y ago
Noting that you can’t seek legal advice because you’re not allowed to talk to anyone about the request.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Obviously the section on disclosure doesn't involve talking to your own legal representation (there is common law on this already). But even if there wasn't common law covering this it's explicitly allowed in Sect 317ZF.3e. You can even reveal it in a legal proceeding under Sect 317ZF.3b. Australia may be leading the path toward a Kafka-esque state but we're not there yet.
  - alfiedotwtf 8y ago
    Please note that disclosure for legal advice was not in the first reading, but added later.

stephen_g 8y ago

They legislated the power to hand a developer a $50K fine and put them in jail for 10 years for refusing. And you can't tell anybody else about it, for them to back you up with their technical input etc. At the end of the day, if they tell you to do it, chances are you'll have to do it. And you can't complain to anybody.

cyphar 8y ago
As far as I can tell there isn't a criminal penalty for refusing, what version of the bill are you looking at? In the first reading and all the amendments I could see there is "just" a 230-odd penalty units fine (which is about $25k in NSW).