Jump to content

Apple urges Australian government not to weaken encryption with backdoors

Speed Weed
52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If different people have different definitions of rape then it is the word of the law which goes first (in this case it is left undefined on purpose), then it is the definition of the judge or arbitrator (in this case, someone who most likely don't have much experience with designing secure systems or IT risk analysis). The one on trial's definition (in this case, tech companies) don't matter.

 

You are actually highlighting one of the major issues I have with this bill. It is not up to the developers to define if something weakens the system. It is up to someone else like an Australian judge. Remember when I asked you if you would be OK with this bill if it said it was Putin or Kim Jong-Un? The reason why I asked you that is because the current Australian bill gives all that power to some arbitrator (like a judge), so the security of the platforms are entirely dependent on their judgement of an issuer I don't think they are educated enough to understand.

 

 

You keep on pushing this narrative that defining things is easy and totally black and white, but it isn't. In fact, the bill itself acknowledges that it does not want to define the terms because it wants to leave that up to be interpreted on a case by case basis. Extract from the bill:

Some major problems with this piece of text are:

1) It leaves the definition of systemic weakness to the judge/arbitrator, not someone educated in the field of cyber security.

 

2) Like I explained earlier, anything which can be used for a targeted attack can also be used on a mass-scale, thus making it applicable to innocent people too. The Australian politicians (and possibly legal system) does not seem to understand this, which is once again a situation where the views of the rather technologically illiterate lawmakers differs from professionals in the field.

The idea that you can make a change which only exposes a targeted individual is fundamentally incorrect and flawed, yet the entire bill is founded on that belief. And before you say it isn't impossible, I would once again like to ask you to come with an example. I have done that repeatedly all throughout the thread and you refuse to answer it. Probably because you can't come up with a situation where I am wrong.

 

3) It does not state that things like privacy fall under the same terms as security. That means it is up to the arbitrator to decide if it does or doesn't. As it stands right now, this bill can force a company to make changes to their systems which reduces the privacy of the users, as long as it doesn't also introduces a systemic weakness. An example of this would be for example automatic upload of all messages to an Australian government owned and controlled server. If the upload happens after the messages has been decrypted on the device, the change doesn't alter anything regarding the security of the system. It does however mean that the Australian government gains access to all messages sent through the service, and they don't have to touch anything encryption related.

 

The only difference in definition and legal meaning is the one you created. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Every time I see this thread it annoys me. I strongly dislike this title. It's worded in a way that suggests the Australian government has a goal of weakening encryption. The title gently nudges you to which side you're supposed to root for. My views on the actual subject aside, I feel it's manipulative.

Don't you think that is the ultimate goal though? With all the stupid stuff that Australian politicians have been saying about encryption, and the fact that they seem to be emulating the UK Snoopers Charter. 

 

Sounds like the next country theyll emulate is Russia or China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×