Getting a good dose of “don’t really give a ■■■■ what the rest of you have to deal with” from certain older, ‘wiser’ posters here. Beer is also nice and travel apparently. Has there ever been a more arrogant generation? When you could be using your wisdom and resources to make things better for your grandchildren, or, wow, other people.
Virus with legs thanks Bill Hicks.
Get ■■■■■■, some of us are nice people.
You and I are the only ones though, Boot.
Possibly, but we are exceptional people.
Broad strokes, don’t get me wrong
Some of the most selfish f*** you, got mine I’ve witnessed in a long while.
Terrorists will just double down on vpns and TOR. Successful ones anyway.
What a monumental mess.
The view from the US
(CNN Business)Facebook and other tech companies are warning about the privacy risks from a new Australian law that gives government agencies the power to demand access to encrypted messaging services such as iMessage and WhatsApp.
Lawmakers voted in favor of the Telecommunications Access and Assistance Bill late Thursday. The government argues the new measures will help police and security agencies combat serious offenses such as terrorist attacks and child sex crimes.
But tech companies and civil liberties groups say it’s a dangerous overreach that will affect a wide range of businesses and their customers.
Tim Cook wants stricter privacy laws
It will have “far-reaching consequences” for the privacy and security of encrypted platforms like WhatsApp and Google (GOOGL), and device manufacturers like Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT) and Samsung, Ben McConaghy, a Facebook spokesman, told CNN ahead of Thursday’s vote.
The Digital Industry Group (DIGI), a tech industry association, said the law raised “the prospect of introducing systemic weaknesses that could put Australians’ data security at risk.”
“It is also deeply concerning that the minimum safeguards Australians should expect under such unprecedented new powers — judicial oversight and a warrant-based system — are absent,” the group said in a statement.
Privacy advocates say it could bring risks for regular users of the apps and even make tech companies wary of doing business in Australia.
“I think it’s right for governments to be tackling the issue of how to do effective investigations in the digital environment,” Daniel Weitzner, director of the Internet Policy Research Initiative at MIT, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) earlier this week. “What is risky is when government puts the interest of investigators over the safety of everyone who uses the internet and mobile phones.”
He said that the planned encryption rules could deter top tech firms from operating in Australia, given the costs and compromises they would demand.
“If a company that does business globally is suddenly told by the Australian government that it has to weaken its security, then it may think twice about whether it’s worth being in the Australian market,” Weitzner said.
Apple released a seven-page letter in October criticizing the proposed legislation, arguing that it is “precisely because of [criminal] threats that we support strong encryption.”
The letter warned that the planned measures could weaken cybersecurity in Australia and beyond, and be abused through a lack of oversight.
Calling the bill “broad and vague,” Apple argued that future governments could use it to weaken encryption.
Apple didn’t respond to a request for further comment.
The Australian government’s national security adviser, Alastair MacGibbon, said Wednesday that the legislation was meant to restore the investigative powers that authorities had for decades through legal wiretaps.
“In the last several years they’ve been … going blind or going deaf because of encryption, the use of modern technologies,” he said in an interview with the ABC.
But Weitzner said people who really wanted to keep their online communication hidden from authorities would still be able to do so.
“A determined criminal, or a determined terrorist, is certainly going to be able to go out onto the internet today, and get for free, services that will evade the capabilities that this law is designed to help the police work around,” he said.
Law enforcement agencies in the United States have also been pushing for tougher laws to compel tech companies to share encrypted information with investigators.
The issue came into focus in early 2016 after Apple refused help the FBI break into a terrorist’s iPhone, citing privacy and security concerns.
The new Australian law was passed after the opposition Labor party agreed to support it earlier this week and then dropped amendments it had promised to make ahead of the vote.
Labor leader Bill Shorten said he backed the bill at the eleventh hour on the condition that the governing coalition agreed to make future changes to the bill in the new year.
I’d like the phones hacked of both parties.
I am truly staggered.
remove the silver spoon from your arses you geriatric boomers in parliament.
…which is why you never let systems engineers talk to customers.
I know.
In my IT days it took a cryptolocker attack before business owners finally went “…huh, maybe I should have decent backups.”
Insurance is useless right up until you need it, hey
ahahahahhahahahahaha!
I can’t wait for WikiLeaks and other organisations to hack the personal info of all our pollies and dish the dirt on everyone who voted in favor of these laws.
WikiLeaks don’t hack. Some of their sources who supply them with confidential/classified data though, most likely.
Community
8-10 minutes
Australia has passed a bill designed to give intelligence agencies more power to access your encrypted conversations.
Labor has agreed to pass the Morrison Government’s legislation without amendments, meaning they will be locked-in before Christmas.
But what do these laws actually mean, and why are they so controversial?
WHAT ARE THE LAWS?
The Australian government has passed new security laws giving authorities the power to intercept encrypted communications.
Known as the Access and Assistance Bill, this effectively gives intelligence officials the power to force you to open your smartphone in front of them.
It’s the old “right to privacy versus national security” debate - the government says these additional powers will protect you from potential terror attacks.
Attorney-General Christian Porter and other proponents of the law say it will “keep Australians safe” by helping to thwart terrorists, organised crime and child predators.
WhatsApp messages.
Signal, WhatsApp and Wickr are examples of encrypted apps - their encryption prevents law enforcement agencies from reading messages intercepted under warrant while looking into crimes.
Until now.
This law will allow law enforcement agencies to obtain evidently directly from a device, with the appropriate approval.
Where a warrant has been issued to intercept telecommunications, the head of an interception agency can issue a “technical assistance notice” for a company to help decrypt said device.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN CONCERNS?
Tech groups, experts and Australian senators have expressed concerns over the new law, including giants like Apple, Google and Facebook.
Opponents of the new law argue it will weaken Australians’ privacy and online security, potentially leaving them vulnerable to cyberhacking, and is a step on the way to a Big Brother-style police state.
Australian Greens’ party Senator Jordon Steele-John has been vocal in his opposition of the Bill, condemning the Opposition for helping the Morrison government pass it and describing it as “an affront to privacy and democracy”.
“Far from being a ‘national security measure’ this bill will have the unintended consequence of diminishing the online safety, security and privacy of every single Australian,” Senator Steele-John wrote earlier this week.
He likened it to “President Donald Trump reading your mail over your shoulder as you opened it”, and said the blow to encryption will make us “the laughing stock of the tech world”.
A spokesperson for Digital Industry Group Inc similarly said the legislation was out of touch compared to similar laws around the world.
“This legislation is out of step with surveillance and privacy legislation in Europe and other countries that have strong national security concerns,” they said. "Several critical issues remain unaddressed in this legislation, most significantly the prospect of introducing systemic weaknesses that could put Australians’ data security at risk.
“It is also deeply concerning that the minimum safeguards Australians should expect under such unprecedented new powers - judicial oversight and a warrant-based system - are absent in relation to the new Technical Capability Notice.”
The Law Council of Australia says serious concerns remain about the laws, which it believes have been rushed and politicised.
“We now have a situation where unprecedented powers to access encrypted communications are now law, even though parliament knows serious problems exist,” president Morry Bailes said.
Several tech groups have serious privacy concerns about the laws, saying they will leave us more vulnerable to hackers.
Laura Tyrell, a spokesperson for NordVPN, told news.com.au there were concerns the encryption bill was a rushed job, saying the rise in Australians using VPNs was proof the nation’s concerns about online privacy are increasing.
“Concerns over the rushed Bill are high. Today’s amendments have done little to clarify specifics around the potential power that the Bill could give government and law enforcement over digital privacy and security,” she said.
"Despite the pro-encryption passions in the government, Australians are showing their concerns about losing their online privacy by turning to VPNs.
“Even though the government is trying to make it sound that decryption will help police and government agencies, in fact, it will just open the door to new crime,” said Ruby Gonzalez, Communications Director at NordVPN. “The biggest concern is backdoor access into private messages. That could create real potential problems, such as hacking, data misuse, and leaks.”
Human Rights Commissioner Edward Santow has called for independent oversight and better safeguards.
“This new law will dramatically increase the access of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to the private communications of ordinary Australians, with implications for our right to privacy and freedom of expression,” he said.
“The commission, and the public, have not been given a sufficient opportunity to review and comment on yesterday’s amendments prior to them becoming law.”
Even Labor leader Bill Shorten, who helped vote the controversial laws in, has admitted he still has concerns.
Tech giants have also slammed the new law. In a letter to the Australian government last month, Apple argued the measure would “allow the government to order the makers of smart home speakers to install persistent eavesdropping capabilities into a person’s home, require a provider to monitor the health data of its customers for indications of drug use, or require the development of a tool that can unlock a particular user’s device”.
Even Labor leader Bill Shorten, who helped vote the controversial laws in, has admitted he still has concerns.
Mr Shorten concedes the Bill was rushed, but is confident the amendments will go through when parliament resumes in February.
“There are legitimate concerns about the encryption legislation,” the opposition leader told reporters on Friday.
“But I wasn’t prepared to walk away from my job and leave matters in a stand-off and expose Australians to increased risk in terms of national security.”
QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN OVER HOW BILL WORKS
Nigel Phair, director of the NSW Canberra Cyber, stressed that - while a lot of questions remain unanswered about the law in its current state - “encryption” in itself is a good thing.
“What the bill needs is a lot more definition around what it is that they’re creating,” Mr Phair told news.com.au. “What is the vulnerability? What is the weakening encryption? What they haven’t done is brought us into their confidence of how we’re going to get access (to encrypted data) - are they going to build a vulnerability in at the front door? Are they going to put a keystroke on the device? If there’s a channel between two people, are they going to mysteriously put a third person in?”
The government will have three levels of requests. The first stage is voluntary while the second stage is compulsory and includes fines up to $10 million and $50,000 for an individual. The third stage is also compulsory and demands companies proactively work to build mechanisms to help authorities collect information.
“How well this plays out in terms of the three stages of compliance will be another factor altogether,” Mr Phair said. He believed demanding co-operation was easier said than done and expected the government would encounter “jurisdictional and procedural” problems with the implementation of the laws.
Mr Phair also said we “can’t get caught up in the romance of the legislation” - it’s not like ASIO will be intercepting encrypted data and thwarting terror plots the day after it’s enacted.
"I really think it shouldn’t have gotten rushed through. Bad legislation doesn’t help anyone, particularly the agencies, and I think they rushed it through. A lot of the fearmongering still hasn’t been explained. This is quite novel yet far-reaching legislation. When we talk about how ‘What ifs’ about how criminals hide their tracks, we still need to remember that encryption is a good thing.
“There are lots of people, businesses and governments that haven’t been susceptible to cybercrime because of encryption. It is a good thing.”
- with Nick Whigham
Kaye Lee
When the crossbench moved to end the shameful practice of holding innocent people hostage in the pretence that this is a valid way to keep our borders secure, Scott Morrison went ballistic.
“I will do everything in my power to ensure that these suggested changes … never see the light of day,” Mr Morrison said. “I will do whatever I can. I will fight them using whatever tool or tactic I have available to me to ensure that we do not undermine our border protection laws.”
And what were these dreadful changes being proposed? That refugees that we have incarcerated get the medical treatment they need.
We can’t have that now can we. Because if we actually looked after the people who came to us seeking our help, it would render our navy and border patrol forces impotent to stop the fleet of fishing boats just waiting to set out from Indonesia.
Which raises a few questions.
If our defence and customs security can be foiled by a few fishermen, then why are we spending hundreds of billions giving them state of the art equipment? And why didn’t the armada set out in response to the hundreds of people who have already been brought here for medical treatment? Or after hundreds were resettled in the US? And if the government knows the number of asylum seekers sitting in Indonesia ready to board a vessel, why aren’t they setting up a processing centre there and shutting down the smugglers?
How about those pesky kids, missing school to express their anger and despair at the older generation’s inaction on climate change. They must have been put up to it by radical lefty socialist teachers. They should be in school doing some rote learning about how wonderful Western civilisation is rather than emulating the dole bludgers by protesting.
That young lady who wrote to the PM about her disappointment at the standard of behaviour in parliament should stop worrying her little head about grownup tactics that she couldn’t possibly understand.
And then there are those uppity women who are objecting to being objectified. If Sarah Hanson-Young wears a dress that shows a portion of her upper chest she should expect to be ridiculed. How can we take anyone with breasts seriously? She was obviously asking for people to focus on her ■■■■. What was she talking about again?
If women can’t stand the heat of men bullying and ■■■■-shaming them, they shouldn’t be in parliament. And if they happen to be there, any idea that a conscience vote means you can vote with your conscience about things like a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy will be viewed as a mark against you come preselection time. Understand?
And what about those Indigenous people who think they should have some say in policies that affect them? They have no right to interfere in whatever Tony Abbott has planned for them because he obviously knows best. More truancy officers, more gaols, mandatory sentencing, tougher penalties for dole infringements, income control with pocket money dribbled out, pay the people that are forced to deal with them a bit more, and make them move to where services are.
Then there is the “gay agenda”. They weren’t happy with just being allowed to marry the person they love – they are trying to stop all discrimination against people based on their sexuality or gender identity. Surely they understand that Christians must be allowed to vilify people on the basis of their interpretation of an ancient book that has been rewritten over centuries by men with their own agenda. Homosexuality is unnatural. Praying to mythical beings whilst engaging in mock cannibalistic rituals is, on the other hand, the rock on which society is built.
The Coalition cannot understand why people are not satisfied with the fact that some people are getting much richer. Company profits are at record highs after all. Women and children should be happy that the men are taking care of things. Indigenous folk should recognise how much better off they are since the white man took control. And gays should be thankful we no longer lock them up.
After 27 years of continuous growth in GDP, and a surplus budget sometime soon, surely people appreciate that the government is doing its bit. If you are not well off, it’s your own fault for being born to the wrong parents.
Oh, the sacked tourism manager that Steven Bradbury’d his way into prime ministership over the Joseph Goebels of Australian politics is annoyed we aren’t doing how he thinks we should be thinking? Ok. Hey. Eat a bag of dicks. You’re on borrowed time. The lot of you.
This is an extremely weak and disappointing stance by the ALP and Shorten. What a load of ■■■■. It’s clear they’re spooked by being labelled as soft on Nat security but this is at the expense of liberties (privacy) and ironically enough, Nat security.
Question is - why has the Government rushed this legislation in with literally ZERO consultation? Why has the opposition just let this fly basically unopposed?
There’s something going on behind the scenes that needs to be exposed.
