Perhaps have a listen to the head of ASIO at senate estimates. Or ate you also into the gov bureaucracy conspiracy ripe on here that thst all we are after is YOUR personal data.
Do you also queston the judiciary? You need a warrant to access telecommunications. An officer sitting at their desk can’t just access someone’s teleco data for ■■■■■ and giggles.
You had never really struck me as a conspiracy theorist before, but I guess you do have form with your views on EFC non-selection of indigenous kids.
Don’t try and tell me that Apple and the rest do not already have these backdoors, and in any case Apple and HP have refused to comply with similar laws in the USA and have always won in court.
My business computers were hacked and held to ransom. I told them to Fark off and lost some data, but rebuilt most. Now we actually do proper backups, and the Hacker did me a favour.
I didn’t care about the Australia Card, no concern about My Health and in fact, as my Bank has promised to always refund anything hacked out by Crooks, don’t care too much about that either.
I know how our Governments work and while they do screw up, I do not subscribe that they are out to get me. Our Law Enforcement boys and girls also sometimes screw up, but they work under close scrutiny and generally are there to look after my safety and my rights.
So you and the other yuppy IT experts can spread your panic and doom and gloom, and I will go back to drinking my beer and reading the training reports
Whoa, ease up on the conspiracy accusations. And read some ■■■■■■ history, the more recent the better. HM and Benfti can more than defend themselves but it’s starting to read like the Bolt forums in here.
Raw prawn mate
FWIW, Apple do plan to fight it in court
There were 343000 metadata accesses in the last 12 months. If the judge(s) considering these cases takes only 5 minutes to review each access request, that still would take 3572 full-time working days, which is what, 16 judges all working full-time? None of this is happening.
There’s no meaningful review on these. The surveillance applications are going before the judges in bulk and being rubber stamped. And of course the judges that these cases go before have to have to be vetted for security before they can do, and it’s the intelligence agencies that do the vetting, and they can and do deny vetting for whatever reason they like and never have to justify it (my old man went on a vietnam moratorium march in the late 60s and spent the rest of his career being knocked back on security grounds for anything close to defence work, for example). So they can very confidently rely on surveillance cases going before likeminded judges. And it’s not like the target gets any sort of representation here, either.
As for examples of police using surveillance and personal info powers immproperly, how about this?
(Note that in this case, the police force is arguing they’re not liable because it was an individual who did it, but the individual is sayinng there’s only a law against the police FORCE doing it, not him)
Or there’s this
And that’s only the cops, and only the cases which have been made public.
The metadata requests don’t go to a judge.
Only the requests for telephone intercepts or surveillance devices go to a judge (or tribunal member). But those ones are pretty rigorously examined, including by a third party.
I agree with you on the abuse of the metadata provisions though. It’s why I have a VPN on my computer and phone, which I purchased the day after they passed the laws.
I can’t let this bit go. You do realise that every measure that was put in place post you getting hacked just got significantly weakened thanks to this new law? And that hacker was able to hack you in much tougher conditions than what they will have now?
If your ok with that, well that’s up to you, but just know, from my elitist, yuppy IT Tower, I’m looking down on a guy being a d!ckhead.
Rubbish. It’s encrypted from anyone who doesn’t have back door access,… and when that’s gained through Court Order/warrant, then it can be accessed and de encrypted.
I don’t use whatsapp or whatever, as I don’t need to encrypt anything, so I imagine I’ll be no more vulnerable than I am now.
And what makes you think any hacker will be able to access this backdoor? How will they do that?
How will it allow any access to anything other than your encrypted msg’s if they do?
And why would they do that to hack your phone or whatever, when it’s surely a lot harder to do than ways and means they have at their disposal already?
Also,… who really needs to encrypt their messages outside of whistle blowers and journos? I can’t off the top of my head think of another legal instance where it would be actually needed? Not for John Q Public at least.
So many statements in here today, without much meat to back up the claims, many of which just don’t seem to make any logical sense,… leaves me with a million questions.
Also, Apple is an unethical turd of an organisation, couldn’t bring myself to work there, and I’m surprised you can with your long displayed viewpoints Ben just quietly.
You are absolutely wrong. Once you create a backdoor it can, and will, be explored by hackers.
This legislation, which is being cynically supported by your party, puts every Australian at risk. If you want to use some mental gymnastics to justify that then knock yourself out. But that’s the reality.
Decent question, HM is right, there is no such thing as a little bit of decryption. Programmers in order to create this “back door” or decryptor for the government to use, have to write this into the code. The problem is, anyone with half decent programming skills can hack/access the back door if one is put in.
I know that’s what the government plan with this, and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, I’m hoping they are just incredibly ignorant on how cyber terrorism works. But they have basically just handed your car keys to a car theif.
Data is the most valuable resource on earth, more profitable than oil. Remember that.
I’m listening to actual experts in the area, who are all screaming that it’s not only possible, but extremely likely. Around 70%-80% of the digital tools that the NSA has created for instance, have made their way to hackers and are currently used to target everyday people, companies and governments.
Do you realise there were 15,000 submissions to the senate inquiry on this legislation, including from the most senior encryption and cyber security experts in the country - all of whom oppose the legislation? I’m listening to THEM. You’re listening to Bill’s political spin.
You believe whoever you want. I believe the experts.
Getting close to merging this with the “old farts don’t understand the internet” thread…
I was literally just about to type that lol
See. I don’t believe that. I imagine it would be done in a way where a new code algorithm key or whatever would be generated each day if not more. I can’t see how anyone but an authorised Applle tech, or a corrupt one would with the current randomly generated decrypt code will be able to easily gain access.
It’s not an actual backdoor, it’s a decryption tool suited to only that days algorythm in use, which also keeps changing regularly.
This is how I’ve had it explained to me, … and it seems only someone with that court order could approach that Apple tech with accounts authorised, check the warrants are legit, and give Law enforcement access to those accounts only.
That’s up to you.
But it is how it is, it’s coding 101.
I’ll give you a practical Apple example, one can try at home.
Go do an iTunes back up of your mobile and click encrypted back up.
Now I can tell you once that backup is encrypted, take it into an Apple store and tell them you forgot the password to the encryption.
They won’t be able to unlock it, its essentially dead packets now.
Apple don’t change this because once they put in a back door for even only Apple techs to access, then anyone can.
The sky is blue, if it rains you get wet, it gets dark at night, and if you write a deencryptor cypher into software anyone can access it.
It’s an abolsute comrade
It’s where I sit at present, and no one here is providing any evidence to the contrary, … rather they are just being contrary, and just making unvalidated or unevidenced statements that THIS is the case.
Also, no ones addressed any of the many other points I raised either.