Turnbull understands perfectly well he can't outlaw Math. What he can do is build and international alliance to outlaw end-to-end encryption.

That's the goal here, and laughing at 'stupid' comments instead of looking at how it might actually be accomplished is what got us metadata retention laws.

"First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" doesn't just apply to good things.

Unfortunately our prime minister whoshiuld know a lot better as a result of being an IT pioneer in this country, is being fucking rediculous when it comes to his current political reality, because he doesn't have any balls.

More generally, the incredible stupidity in those calls for encryption bans is that the "bad guys" will abide to the law. There's a dark market for botnets etc., so why not for custom stealth encryption tools? I wouldn't be surprised if it already exists.

I guess it will only impact law abiding citizens then.

This means he can't have it both ways

I suspect the power asymmetry of the gov't being able to decide which of its own data is subject to FOI means he can have it both ways.

If ridicule worked, this madness would have already stopped at the point where the Australian PM implied the laws of mathematics are secondary to the laws of Australia.

JACOB: The force of nearly all modern authority is derived from violence or the threat of violence. One must acknowledge with cryptography no amount of violence will ever solve a math problem.

JULIAN: Exactly.

JACOB: This is the important key. It doesn’t mean you can’t be tortured, it doesn’t mean that they can’t try to bug your house or subvert it in some way, but it means that if they find an encrypted message it doesn’t matter if they have the force of the authority behind everything that they do, they cannot solve that math problem. This, though, is the thing that is totally non-obvious to people that are non-technical, and it has to be driven home. If we could solve all of those math problems, it would be a different story and, of course, the government would be able to solve those math problems if anyone could.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140116/09195525902/uk-ma...

One thing I miss from yesteryear is how people used to be able to understand what a politician was saying between the lines, and when a politician was going for a bit of dry humour. Now they just analyse the surface content. It's pretty sad.

It's not just sad - it's embarrassing, and shows how ineffective the tech industry is at politics.

This law can work, but it can be stopped. But laughing means some are treating a genuine threat as a joke.

Serious question - how do we go about making our voices heard in a way that will make a difference?

Firstly, understand the politics. The Labor party might tweak some corners on the legislation but will basically support it. Their policy is to support the government position on anything related to national security.

So any argument needs to be made understanding this.

At the moment the argument that "deliberate vulnerabilities makes us all vulnerable" has some traction, especially every time news comes out about a major hack. This is especially the case if it is linked to a state-actor, especially China or Russia. This is a good argument because it attacks the national-security justification.

Another good argument is one that was made to Turnbull on ABC Radio: Given your use of Wickr, what is to stop a foreign power from obtaining a warrant for an Australian politician or business person's communications? We already now of cases where the Australian security apparatus was used to benefit Australia's trade interest (in the Timor sea). Won't this make us more vulnerable?

Then there's the "Australia will be left behind" argument. If the US doesn't do this as well, then at least some US companies will refuse to comply and withdraw from Australia. That puts us at a competitive disadvantage, and if the same companies operate in the US it is hard to argue they are "bad".

That's not being proposed here.

Fight it on the basis of that.

So, again, a mistake. Understand the fight you are in.

It may not be explicitly proposed, but I'd wager it's still implicitly there. Definitely for army/police, but probably for ruling class as well.

So, again, a mistake. Understand the fight you are in.

Understanding the fight you're in is definitely key. I don't know enough about the Australian people, but I know that reframing the situation in a way where another privilege is taken away from the common folk, but will still be there for the ruling class -- this would motivate a lot of people to rally against the proposal where I live.

In addition, in the age of Trump & co, it should be clear to everyone that facts don't matter. I mean we have the PM himself saying here that math doesn't work in Australia. It's completely possible to reframe the whole discussion in a myriad of ways that aren't based in reality. Use fake news & propaganda to move the needle in favor of encryption. One could argue that this undermines the greater goal of having a fact respecting society, but it's irrational to claim that such tactics won't work for achieving narrower goals like saving encryption.

He didn't say that.

He said math can't prevent you from being charged with an offence; math can't bestow upon you protection from the law; math can't grant you a legal privilege.

It wouldn't grant you anything you would become a criminal if you use the certain math regardless of the motives. Why don't we prohibit certain kind of music as well (let's say hard rock since terrorists might listen to it), and french baguettes and humus because they might eat those, etc.

What certain math usage would cause criminality?

You would become a criminal if you used certain kinds of music and baguettes regardless of motives?

I don't get the connection.

I really, really don't know what to say to this. Read the thread.

[As a model, firearms restrictions in the US nearly always lift restrictions for current or retired law enforcement officers and military]

Explains their broadband policy too.

In fact, I'd make the case that it is horrifying that anyone reading that statement doesn't understand exactly what it means.

Don't underestimate your opponents here. They are smart, well educated and know what is possible and what isn't.

Illegal or not, it actually still happens, this is a fact that can not be argued. Pretending that making it illegal automatically stops all bad things from happening is also bad.

All that said, I'm pretty glad that hurling bullets is not legal because shooting someone is rarely ever good (argue self-defence, etc) but the whole privacy debate is a different monster.

Do you think the journalist who asked the question thought that mathematical law and national laws were the same kind of thing? Shouldn't you be mocking the journo just as much for asking such a silly question? People wonder why politicians hedge everything they say these days, and refuse to say much of substance. This is why: they get crucified on any single comment which sounds funny when taken out of context.

Disclaimer: not a conservative voter, and indeed generally vote on the far opposite side to Turnbull.

I see it differently. The standard operating procedure for a career politician is to "pivot" and "stay on message". You cannot ignore the enemy. You shouldn't underestimate them.

Look at this stupid war on drugs. This isn't funny. We have no option than to assume that this is the message and we must oppose it.

Have a read of the comment in context. He's primarily saying that the G20 is going to lean on the providers as the method of action. The journalist throws out a quip and he quips back. The journalist raises the point of 'what about outside the jurisdiction of the G20' and he responds that we've gotta start somewhere.

I think it's a misguided push missing some fundamentals and am totally opposed to it, but in context it's clear that they're not trying to legislate maths to behave differently.

Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)