LogFAQs > #911315565

Tyranthraxus posted...

I don't really understand what the fuck Australia is asking for by "a backdoor through encryption."

Like, I legitimately cannot comprehend what such a thing would even look like. Do they want all encryption to be multikey with one private key belonging to the government? How does that interact with symmetrical encryption? Do they want to be able to intercept https? Like, I don't fucking understand what they're asking for. They're asking for an answer to 2 + 2 = ? Where the answer isn't 4.

@Tyranthraxus
The bill doesn't--strictly speaking--require creating back doors or breaking encryption. Instead, it asks for something far worse: the creation of new kinds of warrants that give the government and police the power to compel tech companies to develop software that allows them to gather any data they want. These capabilities can remain in place as long as the government wants and must be kept secret. So the government can compel Microsoft to create an update that will allow the police to remotely access a target's computer, and this will be pushed out quietly through Windows update. Or they can make Amazon turn Echo speakers into always-on listening devices. Is your suspect using encrypted messaging? No problem! Just serve a warrant to the company that makes the software or device and require that they capture the data before it is encrypted.

There are other ridiculous provisions too, like having staff to train police in the use of software the company will be forced to make, and trying to make this apply to foreign companies who make software and hardware products used by Australians. What is the justification for all of this? Law enforcement claims that criminals are increasingly using encryption to cover up their misdeeds, and that tech companies aren't providing enough assistance. When confronted about the obvious negative implications this bill has, the response has been lies about what it does, and claims that they will only be interested in a a small percentage of people's communications.

Several countries--including the US--have signaled that they intend to fight tech companies unless they voluntarily provide what law enforcement thinks they need. So don't think this is a problem just for Australia. There is no limit to the kinds of tech law enforcement might want access to build a case: routers, phones, web browsers, operating systems, maybe even things like office software. You can be sure there will be judges who just rubber stamp this shit just like they do over here for "security" reasons. But don't worry, they won't be capturing the data of any innocent people, right? Right?