Especially since ASIO (who really wanted this bill to pass) has stated that even if the bill passed today, they wouldn't have the necessary powers before Christmas.
In terms of Australia I'm not sure what we could actually do about this. Given that it's ASIO and other government departments that want these powers and that they have tried to introduce this sort of law over the course of the last decade. Both major parties have introduced legislation such as this and both voted for it. Maybe it is time for civil disobedience, and have everyone create and distribute encryption applications for all devices, because they couldn't possibly jail everyone right? I just wonder who will be the first person jailed or the first company fined for refusing these orders.
In terms of the world at large, which country should we trust now? A lot of the Western Democracies are becoming rapidly "security" focused authoritarian, and the other countries powerful enough to stand up to them are not much better. Should we trust applications with code written in Russia? What about hardware products manufactured in China? Should we trust services running in the USA? Now we also have to be wary of any company that runs a service in the Five Eyes countries.
Sometimes I wonder if we really have it better than people in the middle ages or other earlier periods, in some ways it clearly is, but in others it's just the same smell coming from different shit.
:sigh:
Chilling effect? More like dipped-in-liquid-nitrogen effect.
I hope Australia will have its own Edward Snowden, but the immediate repercussions would be far more severe in Australia.
You would be knowingly putting your name to a vulnerability, and if someone asks then you have to keep it a secret and feign incompetence. Then if they revert your change you'll have to re-implement it.
If you do tell your superiors (which would be most likely what would happen, even before writing the code) then you would be in violation and could be put in jail.
If you refuse you would be put in jail, or they would go to the next person in their list.
I think you could immediately resign. It's not a slavery bill... is it?
After the first few times they use these new powers, the people who're gonna come asking are 99.9% likely to know exactly who the person who will write, commit, and code review the backdoor they're demanding... And their direct manager, and the management chain all the way to the C suite...
I think I need to quit this entire industry, maybe take up boatbuilding or something...
It just seems like a hotter, drier America at this point.
New Zealand still looks lovely though. Maybe they could invade you?
And it isn't like other western countries aren't thinking of doing something similar. While this is a bad law, being smug about it is the wrong reaction.
I wish I knew more western countries who were defending privacy, and the environment for that matter. For a period it kind of looked like Germany _might_ but that hasn't stood up (Who knows, maybe the Pirate Party will get a chancellor someday). The Nordics don't seem amazing either.
What does that leave us with? Some rocky archipelago in the middle of the Pacific? Developing nations that simply don't care or lack the ability to have meaningful enforcement? I'm really struggling to think of something.
The answer from the intelligence agencies is that there must be a known specific threat in order for the threat level to be increased (from "Probable" to "Expected")[0]
So, they're saying that it's important for this legislation to be passed for the sake of the safety of Australian citizens despite the fact there's no specific threat that's worth raising Australia's threat level for.
Add this to the huge list of WTF's surrounding this situation.
[0] https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/securityandyourcommunity...
> OpenVPN
From small portion to none. And basically Australian software developers are unemployable now.
Make no mistake, with the rise of ML governments will be able to crush social movements in the nascent stage before they become too big to stop. People will be arrested for thought crimes because they posted the wrong thing on the wrong website. And currently a large number of people would cheer because the people getting arrested are on the "other" side of the political spectrum. Be careful what you wish for
The GDPR explicitly allows for government surveillance to be excluded from the directive's protection.
Privacy International and a bunch of other NGOs have filed complaints[2] against "Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K." for violating rulings by the European Court of Justice over illegal mass surveillance. Here's another article[3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive [2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/06/25/eu-na... [3]: https://medium.com/privacy-international/a-new-era-of-mass-s...
Or it can shoot up a pre-school.
Only one of these things actually happens outside of adolescent power fantasies.
There are counter examples to every case, but my point was the Australian government can do what it wants because it's populous let's them.
Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm.
But keep on living in the past. If events like Sandy Hooks can't change your collective opinion, I doubt that anything will. It's all on your hands, you proud all-american weekend warriors.
I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine, or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fundamental to the very existence of their nation, then you'll never be able to debate this topic productively.
> maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm.
Certainly, just as I have (gently) tried to convince people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving or alcoholism that criminalizing alcohol would not be a moral response to their loss. Would you disagree? Keep in mind that alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year, including thousands of children killed by alcohol-impaired drivers. Is this also a problem that needs to be solved by criminalizing all alcohol? If not, what's the difference in your opinion?
Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated.
Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public.
Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available.
[0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...
Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war).
> Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access.
No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.
We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. It has no bearing on the present, no matter how much your kind would like to obfuscate the matter with jingoist bombast.
> which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol
Not talking about drugs or alcohol, but sure, change the subject. "But what about...?"
> "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex
That's not a reflex. That's a shrug: there's simply no event terrible enough that will evoke change. Apparently this actually is what you want. It's sad for the children, because they never got the chance to vote, but for the rest of you: just stay afraid, wave that flag, and polish the caskets.
> "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap.
This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest.
> Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation.
I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment?
The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.
I don't support this legislation, but I have to ask, which country is doing a better job on human rights issues than Australia in your opinion? Surely not China or nearly any country in Asia, Africa, or South America? Surely not the US? Probably not much of Europe?
Australia's government blocked legislation that would help kids not die. Because they came on a boat. Which has never been the primary way illegal immigrants get into this country.
Nauru was declared a human rights travesty by the UN.
The medical board that decides whether or not it is a medical emergency that needs to be treated in Australia is staffed by lawyers and only occasionally features a doctor.
We're killing people from neglect, because they dared to take any avenue available to them to escape their homes.
If we put half the effort into assessing their case as we do into making sure they stay in a place reminiscent of WWII slave encampments, there would be no issues.
The most disturbing aspect is the strong bipartisan and public support for the ongoing abuse. Every Australian should wake up in the morning, take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if they're proud of what they've become.
[1] https://www.msf.org.au/article/statements-opinion/indefinite...
Is there really public support? Everyone I've talked to thinks it's a disgrace.
That being said being a "coastal elite" in a progressive area isn't necessarily a good litmus test
Other points I noticed: - Coming across as emotional about the harm and suffering on Nauru or escaping war, they will dismiss all arguments as immature and feel like they're being an adult to you. - Some are persuaded by increased economic activity and net welfare investment benefits but want more screening but wouldn't know how to do this effectively.
Source: Asking random people about policies. Some people you can try asking: mechanics, tradies, checkout people, business people, asking people who handout stuff for Liberal/Labor. To get a deep understanding, read their sources, any of the Murdoch rags or right wing morning shows (ie Alan Jones).
Meanwhile we're letting every man and his dog waltz in through the front door, as long as they have money.
But we don't want those dirty refugees! Lock them up in our own Aussie Guantanamo and throw away the key. It's sickening.
See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Index_of_Moral_Freedom#W...
But yeah, “cryptonomicon” utopias are hard to get by, these days.
Too bad, it's almost 2020 and we still can't get "treat people well" right. What hope do animals or the environment have?
This bill does nothing to prevent the kinds of things it is intended to prevent. The apps this law targets were engineered specifically to prevent this kind of interference. The idea that passing legislation will suddenly change that, magically allowing decryption of messages is beyond idiotic.
The legal and technical barriers to getting anything useful from this legislation are huge. Not to mention the ease with which this can be bypassed (run OpenVPN and IRC on an overseas server, done).
The justification for rushing this was so that Australia could be kept 'safe' over Christmas. It's beyond difficult to describe how ridiculous that is.
Edit: Sorry, I also have to add that in the same sitting of Parliament the government also filibustered legislation that would have enabled medical evacuation of refugee children from child detention on Nauru. It's been a bad day for Human rights in Australia.