3 ms·

I expect the discussion here to focus on the encryption part, but very little of this is actually about encryption. The full draft is worth reading, it’s not lo

I expect the discussion here to focus on the encryption part, but very little of this is actually about encryption. The full draft is worth reading, it’s not long: https://www.communications.gov.au/file/52396/download?token=g5mtd5WJ https://www.communications.gov.au/file/52396/download?token=.... In fact, I suspect the discussion here might be more beneficial if the link for this were changed from the ZDNet article to the actual draft PDF. Here’s the full text of the part about encryption: > 8 Additional expectation—provider will take reasonable steps regarding encrypted services > If the service uses encryption, the provider of the service will take reasonable steps to develop and implement processes to detect and address material or activity on the service that is or may be unlawful or harmful. In other words: you can’t just hide behind end-to-end encryption and say it’s out of your hands, you’re still at least somewhat responsible for what happens through your channel if you’re deliberately operating it as a communications channel. (And section 9 is much the same thing but about anonymity.) Certainly all of divisions 1 and 2 is described in impressively vague terms; in practical terms, sections 5 and 6 say roughly nothing, and section 7 says “actually we’re not defining things, it’s up to the commissioner to decide what it means”. Divisions 3 and on are a good deal more specific, giving some insights into what sorts of things would need to be implemented on the client side in an end-to-end encryption scenario. (Would the recent Apple stuff match? I’m not certain, as I haven’t paid close enough attention to that to know, but this Determination is about communication, not storage—notwithstanding possible interpretations of Division 3—so I suspect not.) I’m sighing at clauses 17(1)(d) + 17(2)(a) which say that documents like terms of service “must be written in plain language”, and having a happy dream of a world where large companies actually got taken to task by government for writing their terms of service in legalese.

stephen_g 5y ago
Yeah, we have a big problem with this kind of thing in Australia - a lot of legislation is being written in more and more vague terms, with more and more things delegated either to the cabinet ministers or (as in this case) unelected bureaucrats to make decisions. More and more laws have the fuzzy kind of "oh, also anything else that we feel like it applies, we'll know it when we see it" kind of clause in their definitions. The problem is that apart from making for literally just bad laws, it's actually moving away from the principle of "the rule of law" into more and more arbitrary territory - and this isn't just in areas like this, but things like but energy policy, awarding of grants, etc. More and more, Government tenders go as "preferred tenders" rather than open/competitive tenders, and there's just been a big scandal about over a billion dollars of grant programs (in sports, commuter car parks, regional development, etc.) being used around the last election specifically targeted to seats held by the party or marginal seats they wanted to win - with no merit based procedures being followed. But many people might have missed the whole thing, if they mostly only read News Ltd. papers (70% of readership) or watch Sky News here, which curiously didn't report on it... It's really a big mess, everything seems to be getting more and more corrupted...
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  On the other hand, if you try to be too specific about things like this, people will work around the legislation. In the EU, GDPR is deliberately rather vague in some areas because otherwise the whole thing would have been rendered useless. (Mind you, I think this one is probably too vague, because it leaves a vast range of possible interpretations open and really does say just about nothing about what will actually be required.)
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >a lot of legislation is being written in more and more vague terms, with more and more things delegated either to the cabinet ministers or (as in this case) unelected bureaucrats to make decisions. not necessarily a bad thing. Has somewhat of a democratic deficit, but these days in most countries the quality of legislators is horrid while most independent bureaucratic institutions are still relatively competent. who'd you want to write anti-trust legislation in the US, Lina Khan or Diane Feinstein? The political institutions in many countries are basically decomposing compared to the technical and administrative ones.
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    Our executive and legislature is combined in Australia (the cabinet is made up of members of the House of Representatives or senators from the party with the majority) and our public service (which cabinet ministers oversee in their portfolios) used to be really good and fiercely independent but has been increasingly politicised (especially over the last six or seven years, given the party in power) so not so much here.
Animats 5y ago
"unlawful or harmful." This is getting out of hand. First, child pornography. (US) Then, Holocaust denial. (Germany) Then, criticism of Islam. (Most of the Islamic world) Then, criticism of the monarch. (Thailand) Then, criticism of the ruling party. (China) Then, promotion of LGBT lifestyles. (Russia). And that's just the "unlawful" part. "Harmful" can cover bullying, fat-shaming, gun rights, negative product reviews, unauthorized benchmarking of software... All of which have been punished by one or more dominant companies. All this gets applied arbitrarily, with no hearing or recourse, of course.
- bigiain 5y ago
  And it's not just "unlawful or harmful.", it's "is or may be unlawful or harmful." So the burden of proving whether or not it is unlawful or unharmful seems insane. What do you do when a cop says "Maybe it is harmful, it might look innocuous, but it's also street code for murder!"
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    The digital equivalent of US civil forfeiture ...
bigiain 5y ago
As an Australian, I'm wondering how much longer Signal will be available for download here...

stephen_g 5y ago

Yeah, we have a big problem with this kind of thing in Australia - a lot of legislation is being written in more and more vague terms, with more and more things delegated either to the cabinet ministers or (as in this case) unelected bureaucrats to make decisions. More and more laws have the fuzzy kind of "oh, also anything else that we feel like it applies, we'll know it when we see it" kind of clause in their definitions. The problem is that apart from making for literally just bad laws, it's actually moving away from the principle of "the rule of law" into more and more arbitrary territory - and this isn't just in areas like this, but things like but energy policy, awarding of grants, etc. More and more, Government tenders go as "preferred tenders" rather than open/competitive tenders, and there's just been a big scandal about over a billion dollars of grant programs (in sports, commuter car parks, regional development, etc.) being used around the last election specifically targeted to seats held by the party or marginal seats they wanted to win - with no merit based procedures being followed. But many people might have missed the whole thing, if they mostly only read News Ltd. papers (70% of readership) or watch Sky News here, which curiously didn't report on it... It's really a big mess, everything seems to be getting more and more corrupted...

chrismorgan 5y ago
On the other hand, if you try to be too specific about things like this, people will work around the legislation. In the EU, GDPR is deliberately rather vague in some areas because otherwise the whole thing would have been rendered useless. (Mind you, I think this one is probably too vague, because it leaves a vast range of possible interpretations open and really does say just about nothing about what will actually be required.)
Barrin92 5y ago
>a lot of legislation is being written in more and more vague terms, with more and more things delegated either to the cabinet ministers or (as in this case) unelected bureaucrats to make decisions. not necessarily a bad thing. Has somewhat of a democratic deficit, but these days in most countries the quality of legislators is horrid while most independent bureaucratic institutions are still relatively competent. who'd you want to write anti-trust legislation in the US, Lina Khan or Diane Feinstein? The political institutions in many countries are basically decomposing compared to the technical and administrative ones.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  Our executive and legislature is combined in Australia (the cabinet is made up of members of the House of Representatives or senators from the party with the majority) and our public service (which cabinet ministers oversee in their portfolios) used to be really good and fiercely independent but has been increasingly politicised (especially over the last six or seven years, given the party in power) so not so much here.

Animats 5y ago

"unlawful or harmful." This is getting out of hand. First, child pornography. (US) Then, Holocaust denial. (Germany) Then, criticism of Islam. (Most of the Islamic world) Then, criticism of the monarch. (Thailand) Then, criticism of the ruling party. (China) Then, promotion of LGBT lifestyles. (Russia). And that's just the "unlawful" part. "Harmful" can cover bullying, fat-shaming, gun rights, negative product reviews, unauthorized benchmarking of software... All of which have been punished by one or more dominant companies. All this gets applied arbitrarily, with no hearing or recourse, of course.

bigiain 5y ago
And it's not just "unlawful or harmful.", it's "is or may be unlawful or harmful." So the burden of proving whether or not it is unlawful or unharmful seems insane. What do you do when a cop says "Maybe it is harmful, it might look innocuous, but it's also street code for murder!"
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  The digital equivalent of US civil forfeiture ...

bigiain 5y ago

As an Australian, I'm wondering how much longer Signal will be available for download here...