The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Other than the removal of due process, what powers does this new law offer these agencies that they don't already have if they just follow a system?
 

Binaural

Eats Squid
Other than the removal of due process, what powers does this new law offer these agencies that they don't already have if they just follow a system?
There's plenty of process in the new laws. It's just that the process is broken. For a general non-technical description of the new powers, you can do much worse than the article Johnny posted the previous page.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
There's plenty of process in the new laws. It's just that the process is broken. For a general non-technical description of the new powers, you can do much worse than the article Johnny posted the previous page.
I read the article, it was long and yesterday. All that stuck in my mind was the ability to seize/detain/search etc.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
‘Five Eyes’ Nations Quietly Demand Government Access to Encrypted Data


By David E. Sanger and Sheera Frenkel

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration and its closest intelligence partners have quietly warned technology firms that they will demand “lawful access” to all encrypted emails, text messages and voice communications, threatening to compel compliance if the private companies refuse to voluntarily provide the information to the governments.

The threat was issued last week by the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the so-called Five Eyes nations that broadly share intelligence. Collectively, they have been frustrated by the spread of encrypted apps on cellphones and the ability to send encrypted messages through social media and, most prominently, on Apple’s iPhones.

The issue flared repeatedly during the Obama administration, with the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, warning that law enforcement officials were “going dark” as nefarious actors relied on encrypted channels to discuss or plan criminal activity or terrorist plots. But the Trump administration has said little about the subject, even after the meeting in Australia where the demand was issued in a joint statement by the five nations.

“Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries,” the joint statement said, “we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions.”

On Wednesday, leaders from two major social media firms, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter, will testify at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on curbing election interference by Russia and other powers. The social networks are also expected to answer Republican charges that their firms, and others, use their platforms to emphasize news media sources with liberal bias.

But the new demands by the five nations threaten to rekindle a debate that seized Washington and Silicon Valley after Apple gradually began encrypting more data on its phones.
At the core of the dispute is whether Apple, Facebook, Google and others should be compelled to provide a “back door” to their products that would allow government investigators to gain access to all communications, with a legal order.

It is far from clear that Congress is ready to take on the technology companies on this issue, especially because more companies and citizens are turning to encryption to protect sensitive conversations and financial transfers.

Ordinary Americans — including President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen — are also increasingly using encrypted apps to conduct delicate conversations to prevent monitoring by the government or others.

On Tuesday, staff members of key congressional committees said they had received no briefings on the new accord from Australia, and questioned how they could construct rules that provided access to all encrypted communications.

One Senate staff member said the memo was unenforceable in its current form.

Facebook and Google were similarly surprised, and questioned what sort of measures would be put into place with companies that did not comply.

Facebook did not comment directly on the memo, but referred questions back to a public blog it published in May explaining the company’s policies on encryption, and why it did not want to create back doors.

“Cybersecurity experts have repeatedly proven that it’s impossible to create any back door that couldn’t be discovered — and exploited — by bad actors,” Facebook said in the blog post. “It’s why weakening any part of encryption weakens the whole security ecosystem.”

The debate was fueled in part by Apple’s refusal to unlock an iPhone used by one of the attackers in a 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., as demanded by the F.B.I. A year earlier, Mr. Comey had cited “concerns” about encryption apps that he described as “companies marketing something expressly to allow people to hold themselves beyond the law.”

In response, Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, contended that once phones or messaging systems were designed to allow legal access, hackers from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere would use the breach to pry their way in, destroying technology devised to protect privacy.

“It’s our job to provide you with the tools to lock up your stuff,” Mr. Cook said in an interview in 2015.


He tried, unsuccessfully, to convince former President Barack Obama that there was no safe technological way to create back doors; Apple deliberately does not retain the keys to unlock those communications, so they can tell investigators, or the courts, that they are unable to comply with demands for access.

But Mr. Obama left office without resolving the issue of the government’s ability to compel access. Both Mr. Trump and his rival in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, sided with law enforcement authorities on giving access to the government.

One Facebook official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said that the memo from Australia had no teeth, and was part of an escalating war between government officials and Silicon Valley over access to people’s private data.
 

Binaural

Eats Squid
The points about this idiot law being unenforceable are strong. The CEO of Facebook or Amazon is going to have to google Scott Morrison to find out he's the Australian PM before he tells him to fuck off. These guys know it's commercial death if they get caught backdooring their systems, and Australia has zero leverage in international law to make them do a damn thing.
 

Binaural

Eats Squid
Anyone who strongly believes that legislators take the time and effort to engage with technical issues should watch the following cringe-making exchange in the US senate, where google's CEO is currently testifying. His company's search engine is accused of being "biased against against conservatives".

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/google-hearing-congress-ted-lieu-steve-king-2018-12

Steve King, btw, is an open white nationalist who is nevertheless a Republic in good standing, and also a man who would need to find half a brain somewhere to be described as a halfwit.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
So you're basing your position on legislators all over on one person who was deliberatly making a political point to a misinformed base?

Next time we catch up I'll show you the outcomes from day long cyber game we ran, which had members of the govt and opposition participating in, along with a large cohort of policy professionals alongside industry and academics - that was a game based around challenges of data theft, IoT futures and threats to middle sized businesses. I'll also run you through the roundtables, deep dives, scenario exercises, workshops and all kind of engagements that we host which brings in govt, industry, academia and policy practitioners. You know, where legislators aren't taking the time and effor to engage with technical issues and those they are regulating.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Just spoke with a tech lawyer, related to the national security community who echoed many of the complaints here: rushed, lack of oversight and not accounting well enough for unintended consequences. This person suggests that the process has been politicised between ALP/LNP, which then creates an oppotunity to get a law through that has been wanted for a long time, so the mentatily of "just get it in and amend it later" is likely driving some decisions that wouldn't otherwise be made.
 

Binaural

Eats Squid
So you're basing your position on legislators all over on one person who was deliberatly making a political point to a misinformed base?
Yes, that's exactly what I said, it's uncanny. I am a big believer in extrapolating from the smallest sample size possible. Or, you know, I was using an example.

Just spoke with a tech lawyer, related to the national security community who echoed many of the complaints here: rushed, lack of oversight and not accounting well enough for unintended consequences. This person suggests that the process has been politicised between ALP/LNP, which then creates an oppotunity to get a law through that has been wanted for a long time, so the mentatily of "just get it in and amend it later" is likely driving some decisions that wouldn't otherwise be made.
Shorten doesn't want to get wedged on national security in the lead up to the next election, and Scott Morrison is desperate to look tuff. Meanwhile, the damage is already done. Amendments can be effective if the basic law is good, which can't be said in this case. There's not enough air freshener in the world to make this stinker palatable.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Yes, that's exactly what I said, it's uncanny. I am a big believer in extrapolating from the smallest sample size possible. Or, you know, I was using an example.
An example of what, hyperbole??!

You were trying to make a case for legislators not engaging properly or adequately on tech matters, no?
 

Binaural

Eats Squid
An example of what, hyperbole??!

You were trying to make a case for legislators not engaging properly or adequately on tech matters, no?
Jeeeeez. You know, Archimedes talked about a lever long enough to move the world, but even he would be impressed at how much work you did to ignore all my previous posts on the failures of legislative process to present a single complementary anecdote as the sole basis of my argument.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I’ve not ignored your previous posts, I’ve even added to them when recounting my discussion with a qualified person today.

But going by the post in question, you’ve got a great career awaiting you as a sub-editor at the Telegraph.

Anyway, whatever, I’m drinking beer, there is a graduation in process outside so I’m surrounded by lots of 20-something Chinese girls and that means I win everything.
 

Comic Book Guy

Likes Bikes and Dirt
This person suggests that the process has been politicised between ALP/LNP, which then creates an oppotunity to get a law through that has been wanted for a long time, so the mentatily of "just get it in and amend it later" is likely driving some decisions that wouldn't otherwise be made.
Libs wedged Labor right up the.....

Classic example of wedge politics. Labor capitulated to stop this being a wedge issue over the xmas/new year break and in the lead up to the election. Labor played the politics first on this one. Super poor form.

Said it before and will say it again. Build a backdoor and everyone can use it.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
And that’s why I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of the pollies, because they politicized it and cut the public debate and and amendments to the bill. Not to say that the national security community are blameless but they are also in a position where they will react to the political landscape to get what they can.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
And I’m drinking and arguing on Internet forums.

We gotta catch up for a ride/beer sometime.
 
Top