4 ms·
Maybe something like a warrant canary makes more sense? An encryption canary? Would that even pass with the new laws though? Also you stating that you might ha
by ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
Maybe something like a warrant canary makes more sense? An encryption canary? Would that even pass with the new laws though?
Also you stating that you might have been forced to insert malware by the government surely breaks the rule that says you can't tell anyone too, if I'm understanding it correctly.
- zmmmmm 8y agoI think me merely stating that I am subject to the laws of my country under which an individual can be compelled to ... etc. probably isn't illegal. It may be illegal if I modify that statement after being issued with an order and directed not to reveal the existence order.
- int_19h 8y agoAustralia has a law that specifically bans warrant canaries. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/australian-government-minister-dodge-new-data-retention-law-like-this/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/australian-gover...
- cyphar 8y agoWarrant canaries aren't necessary (nor are they legal in Australia). The law allows you to provide aggregated statistics on how many requests you've received in a 6-month period.
- brokenmachine 8y agoYes but a single request can include an unlimited number of targets. They can literally ask for all communications of every one of your users.
- zmmmmm 8y agoIt would be very hard for that to pass the proportionality test in the law. I know it's tempting to go for the worst case dystopian scenarios but it's actually important not to go overboard. Politicians and other people with a say immediately stop listening once they hear that. This law is extremely problematic even with a conservative interpretation, so I think we should stick with that.
- brokenmachine 8y agoWhat proportionality test? Lets go with how the law is actually written. Say they decide hn is a den for hackers. I mean, it's right there in the name! Hacking attracts a >3yr sentence - hence, we need the data of all hn users, they're all potential hackers!
- zmmmmm 8y agoThe bill states: The Director General of Security or the chief officer of an interception agency must not give a technical assistance notice to a designated communications provider unless the Director General of Security or the chief officer, as the case requires, is satisfied that: (a) the requirements imposed by the notice are reasonable and proportionate; and (b) compliance with the notice is: (i) practicable; and (ii) technically feasible So I don't believe intercepting en masse the communications of all the visitors to a web site purely based on its name would be seen as "reasonable and proportionate".
- jeeeeb 8y agoJust to add to this, it is also a requirement to give consideration to the privacy expectations of the Australian community and the legitimate interests of the communications provider. However, there is no guidelines on how these judgements should be made and what is / isn't acceptable. Effectively it will be left to the courts to decide through legal disputes.
- brokenmachine 8y agoI thought that decision was made by a "retired judge" and a "technology expert". Is that correct?
- rorykoehler 8y agoAsking for a backdoor is never reasonable. This law is rife for abuse the way it's worded.
- 8y ago