Re:Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous ne...
by briandear on Saturday December 08, 2018 @02:03PM
(#18636868)
The problem is that if a back door exists for government, it necessarily exists for anyone.
Here’s Tim Cook making that point: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQebmygKq7A
Re:Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous ne...
by cyphar on Saturday December 08, 2018 @11:12PM
(#18639242)
I'm aware of that, but in the case of email service providers there is no need for a backdoor. They have access to your emails on-disk since emails are plaintext (in general).
Re:Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous ne...
by bad_user on Saturday December 08, 2018 @02:18PM
(#18636963)
We aren't talking of back doors here.
With an email provider you don't need a back door to get somebody's emails.
Re:Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous ne...
by cyphar on Saturday December 08, 2018 @01:20PM
(#18636606)
I didn't say it was the same thing, and I agree that the lack of judicial oversight makes it incredibly rife for abuse as well as much easier to get.
I said that to you (a user who wouldn't be the target of a warrant) there isn't a practical difference if you're targeted. You wouldn't be able to mount a defence in court anyway.
But of course, it being easier is a very serious problem from a societal perspective.
Re:Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous ne...
by bad_user on Saturday December 08, 2018 @01:52PM
(#18636798)
It depends. Australia is part of the 5 eyes countries. So now via cooperation between security agencies and due to no judicial oversight, I think more people are affected, whereas before this you would have to convince an Australian judge to give you a warrant.
IANAL.
Don’t know Australian law, but for a warrant you need to demonstrate probable cause in front of a judge. And that’s a pretty high bar.