Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
from the good-luck-with-that,-mate dept
Oh boy. It's no secret that the Australian government -- led by George Brandis (who has made it abundantly clear he has no clue what a VPN is or what metadata is) -- is pushing strongly for mandated backdoors to encryption. At this point, it's beating a dead horse, but this is a very, very bad idea for a whole host of reasons -- mainly having to do with making absolutely everyone significantly less safe.
And it appears that Brandis' ignorance has moved up the chain of command. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has now put out what may be the single dumbest statement on encryption yet (and that's a pretty high bar). After being told yet again that safe encryption backdoors violate basic mathematics, Turnbull became super patriotic about the ability of Australian law to trump mathematics:
"The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that," he said on Friday. "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
And, then he pulled out the "nerd harder, nerds" argument:
"I'm not a cryptographer, but what we are seeking to do is to secure their assistance," Turnbull said. "They have to face up to their responsibility. They can't just, you know, wash their hands of it and say it's got nothing to do with them."
"I am sure they know morally they should. Morally they should."
So after admitting that he doesn't understand how this works, he's saying that the "moral" responsibility of cryptographers -- who have basically all told him his plan will make people less safe -- is to make people less safe.
Turnbull seems to think he can get around the whole problem by... semantics. You see, if we just redefine things and say we're not asking for "backdoors" then it's fine:
"A back door is typically a flaw in a software program that perhaps the -- you know, the developer of the software program is not aware of and that somebody who knows about it can exploit," he said. "And, you know, if there are flaws in software programs, obviously, that's why you get updates on your phone and your computer all the time."
"So we're not talking about that. We're talking about lawful access."
That bit of word salad suggests that at least a tiny smidgen of actual knowledge made it into his brain. A backdoor is an exploit. But "lawful access" is a backdoor. Pretending they are different suggests a fairly staggering level of ignorance.
Not to be outdone, but Brandis then took his own turn at the podium to spew more ignorance:
Asked how Australia's proposed regime would allow local authorities to read messages sent with either WhatsApp or Signal, Brandis said “Last Wednesday I met with the chief cryptographer at GCHQ ... And he assured me that this was feasible.”
Right. It's pretty well known that intelligence communities can frequently hack into things to get messages, but not because of backdoors to encryption but through other flaws. This includes things like keyloggers or other spyware that effective route around the encryption. But that's entirely different than demanding backdoors. And, of course, this all comes about a week after GCHQ's own former boss argued that attacking the end points was a better strategy than backdoors. It's almost certain that what GCHQ told Brandis is that they can be pretty successful in attacking those endpoints, without undermining encryption -- and that message got twisted in Brandis' mind to believe that it meant that there were already backdoors in Whatsapp and Signal (there are not).
This whole thing is a somewhat tragic comedy of errors with completely clueless politicians making policy badly, potentially putting everyone at risk... while astoundingly claiming that laws can trump basic mathematics. What a joke.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, encryption, gchq, george brandis, going dark, malcolm turnbull, math, nerd harder
Companies: signal, whatsapp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"you know"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Thats not a backdoor ..."
(pulls out an actual backdoor)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Thats not a backdoor ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Thats not a backdoor ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws are so ... flexible
> The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that,
And then: "The laws of nature are commendable, but here in Australia we just passed a law that all mammals must, henceforth, follow the Kangaroo's lead and include pouches on all newborn animals. Marsupials drive Australia's tourist economy, and this new measure will promote tourism and lead to rising social welfare across all walks of Australian life, human or otherwise."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems he skipped elementary school. Mathematic laws aren't optional, you can't decide not to follow them. Even in Soviet Russia mathematics rule you. Of course being a country that tries to kill you at every corner mathematics can be somewhat deadlier there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that why 6 is afraid of 7?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am not a number!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Country that Tries to Kill You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Country that Tries to Kill You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't even....
what?!?
so apparently the laws of physics don't apply either... no wonder they are upside down and ass backwards. Also must have gone to the US republican school, ie. Trump University.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hellow Australia!
Don't feel bad though, there are lots of Trumps in the American political system. You can have a few more of our dumb-asses if you like as well... we have them on tap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hellow Australia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary Clinton Again, Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary Clinton Again, Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary Clinton Again, Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary Clinton Again, Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hillary Clinton Again, Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hellow Australia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hellow Australia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hellow Australia!
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hellow Australia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think he knows that the outcome he wants is available only through policy (ie laws). The fight is going to be about what the form and content of the policies are. Thinking that we can just plug our ears and pretend to not understand him will make things worse.
If I were advising the government, I would tell them that rather than asking for somebody else to fix their "problem", they should float their own proposal.
Probably the least invasive step would be to order Apple and Google to cease operating any secure communication apps unless they are able to provide a plain text copy of the message to the courts when given a lawful order. Let Apple and Google decide if they want to create a master key for everything or generate new keys on the fly or something in between. This would capture a significant percentage of all text messages. The law should expire after some time period so that the costs and effectiveness of any measures could be evaluated and adjustments made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Passed a certain point, they'll just remove the expiration language from the bill, fixes nor not.
This isn't about "lawful access" as you define it. (Subject to reasonable doubt / a warrant / whatever standard bar of proof of a crime you come up with.) This is "lawful access" as they define it. E.g. "Papers please!" and "If you have nothing to hide, ..." BS.
Long story short, governments want access to control their citizens lives like it's an iteration of "The Sims". Technology being so prevalent allows for this, and they want to get in before the public wises up and the idea becomes so toxic that it becomes political suicide to suggest it. I.e. They want Big Brother to become the new normal, and use it for everything that 1984 and others warned you about.
That may sound like fear mongering, but remember this: This technology threatens societal change in a big way, and that change threatens some of the biggest and most powerful incumbents currently in existence. (Copyright, Censorship, Ideology, Transactions (of any kind), Ability to work, etc.) Those incumbents will do everything in their power to subvert / mitigate / or avoid that change so that they can keep their power, or worse (as is here) increase their power. That's basic human nature of both fear, and greed. So keep that in mind when you suggest giving them what they want. You might give them a centimeter, but they will take a kilometer given the chance. Their power depends on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sitting back and saying "no" to every proposal isn't going to be seen as a reasonable stance to the general public (ie voters). IMHO, we're better off getting involved in the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sitting back and saying "no" to every proposal isn't going to be seen as a reasonable stance to the general public (ie voters). IMHO, we're better off getting involved in the conversation.
When the 'proposals' are asking for something that is literally impossible and ignoring the experts who repeatedly explain this 'No' is an entirely reasonable response.
When the proposals are asking for something that will make everyone less safe and secure, 'No' is the only sane response.
If the ones making the proposals were actually interested in an honest conversation this wouldn't be such a big deal, the problem is that they've made it very clear that they have no interest in any sort of 'conversation' that doesn't follow a scrip along the lines of "You're absolutely right, us experts were just being lazy and what you've been asking for is entirely feasible."
To the extent that the public needs to be involved it's to explain, repeatedly and as clearly as possible that those demanding 'totally-not-backdoors-promise' are asking for something that is not only impossible it's outright dangerous to the public's safety and security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hard to explain mathematics to someone who doesn't believe in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that is all irrelevant, as there should be no back door (including no extra key), full stop.
And yes, i think most people would love it if law enforcement had its powers at all limited from rampant abuse in some way. That idea is a winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. Just no.
Probably the least invasive step would be to order Apple and Google to cease operating any secure communication apps unless they are able to provide a plain text copy of the message to the courts when given a lawful order.
You need to get a refund ASAP from whoever sold you the dictionary you're using, because 'no encryption or broken encryption' is not even remotely close to 'least invasive'.
Police and government agencies have always had to deal with not being able to have access to all communications, and somehow they managed to do their jobs regardless. Just because they might want total access does not mean they should get it, and they don't get to put everyone at risk just to make their jobs easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No. Just no.
FWIW, I don't think all communications should be captured, just that when presented with a legal court order, messaging operators would start collecting data for a limited time on that account. That's what I meant by least invasive - it wouldn't be a dragnet or Al Gore lockbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No. Just no.
So long as the collection doesn't involve breaking encryption I don't have a problem with that.
By all means collect the particular communications relevant to an investigation after having said collection okay'd by a judge, but if the communications are encrypted such that even if they can be collected they cannot be read that should be the end of it as far as the company's responsibilities.
If the ones making the request/demand want to try to crack the encryption on their own then have at it, requiring that companies be able to crack their own encryption, which would require intentionally broken encryption is a cost far too high and should be completely off the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No. Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like a master key to every lock doesn't 'break' the security they provide...
No, it's a feature that only the sender and recipient are able to decrypt the communications, with no-one besides those two parties able to do so. That's the entire point of encryption.
Deliberately making it so the encryption can be broken without the correct authentication, which are things only the sender and recipient have when the encryption is working most certainly is breaking it, because it means whoever gets their hands on the 'extra key' can decrypt at will, undermining the entire purpose of encryption in the first place.
It's also introduces a deliberate failure point in the encryption such that it can be broken on demand by parties other than the sender/receiver, one which can and will be exploited by others. If 'select' third parties can decrypt then it's not a matter of 'will' that vulnerability be discovered and used by others but 'when' and 'by how many'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No. Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No. Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No. Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No. Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No. Just no.
_"FWIW, I don't think all communications should be captured, just that when presented with a legal court order, messaging operators would start collecting data for a limited time on that account."_
This is already done. Asking parties to set up systems they don't have, with broken encryption and storage for whatever, is an entirely different thing.
Look, the thing is, you catch criminals by _behavior_. If you don't have the manpower to actually investigate anything, you either need more manpower, or more likely, stop wasting time on completely idiotic things and focus your sills on what is important. Never mind that bad actors still, with all this encryption "debate" going on for years, use completely unencrypted means of communication. The whole encryption thing is a bogeyman to begin with.
I admire that you want warrants and completely targeted surveillance, but the fact is, this is how it actually works, encryption or no. And if one already knows their target, surveil them one of the ten million other ways. Or, you know, crack the encryption on the device or captured communications yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No. Just no.
And now the military are being allowed to enter the domestic scene to "help out" the poor untrained police tackle those nasty terrorists. Apart from some 'lone wolves' who have proclaimed their standoffs with the police were done in the name of ISIS so as to big note themselves, Australia hasn't had any attacks to date. One so-called terrorist was kicked out of the Hells Angels MC & had his bike confiscated by them so had to do something to be the big tough man. The MSM were happy to oblige him too as fear sells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No. Just no.
There have always been communications that the government didn't have access to, warrant or not, even over the phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No. Just no.
Good luck with that -- Trump University is out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is, nobody's doing that. We understand him perfectly. We also understand the many problems with what he's asking for, including the fact that it's literally impossible to achieve it without reducing security for everyone.
The only people plugging their ears and pretending not to understand are the politicians who keep demanding a backdoor that's only available to the "good guys". Maybe not pretending, but that's the issue.
"Probably the least invasive step would be to order Apple and Google to cease operating any secure communication apps unless they are able to provide a plain text copy of the message to the courts when given a lawful order"
...so that the people interested in having communications that are actually secure go to their many competitors who currently offer such apps? Here's a hint: if your solution is so simplistic that it depends that there's only 2 or 3 tech companies in existence, you might need to rethink it, or at least listen to the people who understand the complexities that exist in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The comprehension gap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything's easy when you don't have to do it
Idiot politician calls for 'totally-not-backdoors', uses it to get PR for being 'tough on crime'.
Tech minded individuals tell them it's impossible.
Idiot politician tells them to 'nerd harder', uses it for another PR moment.
Tech minded individuals clarify that they didn't mean it was difficult, or even really difficult, it's literally impossible.
Idiot politician goes full nuclear, creates bill to make it mandatory. Uses this for PR purposes.
Tech companies are forced to comply, create broken encryption. Encryption is broken, large amounts of damage result.
Idiot politician blames tech companies for not trying hard enough to create real 'totally-not-backdoors'. Uses this for PR purposes.
Politicians are so stupid because the effects of their actions rarely impact them. They can can go on and on about how it's totally possible, and then blame someone else when it turns out that the people who told them it was impossible are proven right by simply claiming they 'didn't try hard enough', or 'did it wrong'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then perhaps he is the one Brandis should be asking to "face up to" his "responsibility".
Of course I notice he didn't provide a name to go with his claim, leading me to wonder if maybe Brandis is another lying sack of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a similar story in The Salmon of Doubt, the posthumously-published collection of Douglas Adams essays. It's been years since I read it, but IIRC a policeman pulled him over and had his car sitting in the center lane on a curve, and Adams repeatedly tried to explain to him that this was very dangerous while the officer explained that no it wasn't because he was a policeman.
It ended something like this:
Adams: It may be safe according to the laws of England, but it's unsafe according to the laws of the universe. Policeman: Well, we're not in the universe, we're in England.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws of the universe
Don't forget that in Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy, man proves black is white...but is killed crossing the street a little later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laws of the universe
This whole time I've assumed "zebra crossing" referred to actual zebras. We call them crosswalks here.
I think I like my version better. It comes with the visual of a man being trampled by zebras he can't see because he can't tell black from white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... because he can't tell black from white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Laws of the universe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he doesn't like one study, he lets commission another one that says the opposite. Hey, it seems to work for medicine or the environment.
And I think this is a very bad sign of the general scientific prowess of politicians. They obviously do not understand science, at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think there's also some general confusion between what we think is impossible and what we know is impossible. Politicians like to say things like, "Well, we used to think [x, y, and z] were impossible, but now we have them!" That's where the "nerd harder" ethos comes from -- on some level, it's an optimism about human ingenuity and the ability to overcome any obstacle if you just try hard enough. "If we can put a man on the moon..."
Of course, my favorite rejoinder to that is, "Encryption that only the good guys can break isn't like putting a man on the moon, it's like putting a man on the sun."
It's not "impossible" in the sense that we haven't figured out how to do it yet, it's impossible because it doesn't actually make any sense according to the physical laws of the universe.
I think a good big part of it is that a lot of people -- even otherwise intelligent people -- shut off their brains as soon as you sit them in front of a computer, and don't exercise even the barest form of rational thought as to how the thing actually works.
Computers are not magic. They do not know who is using them or for what purpose. They cannot tell the difference between a legal search and an illegal one, or between the government and the Russian mafia.
All of these things should be extremely obvious.
So should the fact that when there is a way of breaking into a computer, somebody is going to find it, and exploit it for money. Computers have enough vulnerabilities that are there by accident; creating more on purpose is madness. We're already looking at the worst malware epidemic in 13 years because the NSA stockpiled vulnerabilities instead of reporting them; imagine how much worse it would be if governments mandated adding vulnerabilities to software on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Free access is what they are working towards so no matter what proposal they come up with and how many assurances they give, the only choice is to not give them a single thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Computers have enough vulnerabilities that are there by accident; creating more on purpose is madness.
With that argument, politicians will just say that if it's true that no matter how hard we try to create a perfectly invulnerable system we always wind up with flaws that can be exploited, then adding exploitable vulnerabilities/backdoors on purpose can only result in a perfect system.
(This is valid logic, since symbolic logicians can just 'add more symbols until it's true.')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That reminds me of an old joke I once heard. A mathematician, and engineer and an accountant were applying for government job. Each was asked what 2 + 2 equals. The mathematician says "4". The engineer says "4, within measurement error". The account gets up, goes over to the window, pulls down the shade, and asks "what do you want it to equal?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The gymnast tried to climb the tree to get to the coconuts, but the trunk was too smooth and slick to get a grip.
The quarterback slammed into the tree trying to shake the coconuts loose, but that didn't work either.
The economist looked thoughtful and said, "Assume that we have a ladder...".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attn Mike!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attn Mike!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not pass GO. Do not collect your next paycheck. Go straight to 'Get the hell out of the court'
One of the few times I was in traffic court the judge actually announced that no one was getting off that day due to budget deficiencies.
So guilt or innocence didn't matter because innocent people don't need to pay fines and they had to make up for budget problems. The freakin' mob would struggle to be as openly corrupt as that judge was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
any relatives in Indiana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of backdoor
That's not true. "Backdoor" normally refers to something that was known to the developer, and intentionally coded. What he's describing is a bug (and an "exploit" would be a program that takes advantage of that bug). One could say that's a de-facto backdoor but it would be at least a little unusual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of backdoor
So Brandis is liar. And a politician. But, I'm repeating myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what?
To me this sounds that he was used to his father paying his math teacher to let him pass his exams, and he confuses this with the math getting changed on his behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what? Prohibition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let he who is with a working brain make the first comment...
Pretty sure someone arguing for the undermining of public safety and security has no business trying to play the 'moral' card.
Delusions of grandeur are one thing, that's almost expected in politics, but the idea that the laws of a country trump the laws of math is not just absurd, it's insane. You might as well pass a law stating that things must fall up when dropped and then throw a tantrum when that blasted gravity refuses to comply, it's that ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral responsibility
We live in a democracy, but this isn't even a question about "might turn out bad" or "lets try it and then we can just change it later if it doesn't turn out like we wanted" but instead more like if a law was made that police had to hand anyone who asked, their loaded sidearm, or placing a nuclear powerplant in every major city, open to the public and with minimal safety.
The difference is that people know that guns kill (or people with guns) and nuclear meltdowns are bad for your health, but too few people know just how dangerous it would be to expose all data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i was feeling pretty bad about having the only truly stupid 'elected' leader, but that comment takes home the fruitcake today.
how does he feel about evening out the days so that they all have the same amount of sunlight? i'd appreciate his looking into that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
World peace requires that politicians change their spots, and start to cooperate, rather than play dominance games,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another nail in the coffin of "democratic" Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abbot was probably the most unpopular Australian PM ever. He is a hard-line, ultraconservative religious fundamentalist, obsessed with "national security" and contemptuous of liberal democracy.
Turnbull won the election with a one seat majority. Abbot's "delcon" (delusional conservative) faction still dominates the party room and mostly hates Turnbull, but they have tolerated him so far because it would be electoral suicide to put another delcon back in the chair.
But Turnbull has now lost 15 polls in a row and they are in an election-losing position again. And Abbot is continually undermining and trying to destablise Turnbull from the backbench.
This move is probably about Turnbull trying to placate Abbot and Dutton and the delcons so that he can cling to power for a few more weeks, and maybe transfer a few billion more from the public to his bankster mates.
Remember, Australia was ground zero for the Murdoch plague. Imagine if 70% of news coverage was Fox News. That is Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Backbencher Tony Abbott wouldn't still be on the scene causing untold damage to the Liberals with his toxic termiting of the NSW branch of the party if Rupert Murdoch wasn't backing him to the hilt. Murdoch is the kingmaker & he didn't install Turnbull to the top job, Abbott is still his man.
This weekend at the North Sydney Rosehill racing club the party meets to discuss Abbott's plan to 'take back control' of the party & if it fails then a split is most likely with the Ex Liberal Senator Cori Bernadi (foreign delegate of ALEC) giving a speech to the Liberal Party members to come over to his far right Australian Conservative party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Don’t The NSA Do It?
Maybe President Trump can issue an Executive Order to that effect—could that be the missing sprinkling of magic pixie dust that is needed to kick-start the process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Don’t The NSA Do It?
And if they can't do it, he can give them his famous "you're fired!" line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slow clap
I propose that we suspend the "Funniest Comment" competition for this week. We can't top this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: slow clap
It would be funny if it were some random idiot on the streets. That it's coming from the Australian Prime Minster rather takes the humor out of it because that level of stupid is dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy to top.
The laws of mathematics, its axioms, are actually made up so as to match convenience.
The laws of physics are tied into reality.
So if he had talked about the laws of physics as being merely commendable, that would have been more egregious.
Of course, I rather suspect that this distinction would be lost on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The laws of mathematics, its axioms, are actually made up so as to match convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The laws of mathematics, its axioms, are actually made up so as to match convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, Yeah, It's Wishful Thinking on my Part
Perhaps it's time to make these politicians come up with encryption themselves (including the programming). It'll keep them away from ruining the world for the rest of us for a while. Also, they cannot program and they cannot do math, so they will not get to anything working they can force on the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's get historical and REAL
Indiana + pi + 1897.
The last time I know of that morons tried to legislate math.
Had they been successful, it would not have ended well.
Certainly not for bicycle or ball bearing manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get historical and REAL
Although us politicians are all irrational, we still have difficulty recognizing similar items in other fields, like math.
Math is hard ... me no like. Think I'll go into politics where I don't have to know anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rupert Murdoch controls the Liberal Party & is their propaganda machine which ensures that they keep getting reelected. Nobbling the Fibre to the Home National Broadband Network was one of the first jobs his party set about doing when back in power in 2013 to ensure there isn't a level playing field for the likes of Netflix, etc to compete against his cable/satellite pay TV company Foxtel.
It's full steam ahead back to the 1800's with copper & coal now that Murdoch's Liberal Party are in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not All Laws Are Created Equal
"...laws can trump basic mathematics..."
This is what we get when we fail properly to educate people about the distinctions between the breakable laws erected within political frameworks and the unbreakable laws of Mathematics. Calling both "laws" introduces the potential for confusion 'mongst the ignorant or foolish. It worsens significantly when we move far beyond the ideas of "basic mathematics" into the truly arcane, advanced landscapes of contemporary cryptography through which only a relatively few humans in any generation will ever tread surely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decrypt this
Tue 33/18/2019, 11:79
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Counter-terrorism Division and Cyber Crime Division
J. Edgar. Hoover Building Washington DC
JAMES B. COMEY
Attention Beneficiary,
Records show that you are among one of the individuals and organizations who are yet to receive their overdue payment from overseas which includes those of Lottery/Gambling,Contract and Inheritance. Through our Fraud Monitory Unit we have noticed that you have been transacting with some impostors and fraudsters who have been impersonating the likes of Prof. Soludo/Mr.Lamido Sanusi of the Central Bank Of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Bode Williams, Frank, Anderson, none officials of Oceanic Bank, Zenith Banks, Kelvin Young of HSBC, Ben of FedEx, Ibrahim Sule, Dr. Usman Shamsuddeen and some impostors claiming to be The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Cyber Crime Division of the FBI gathered information from the Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC) on how some people have lost outrageous sums of money to these impostors. As a result of this, we hereby advise you to stop communication with any one not referred to you by us. We have negotiated with the Federal Ministry of Finance that your payment totaling $5,900,000.00(Five Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars). will be released to you via a custom pin based ATM card with a maximum withdrawal limit of $15,000 a day which is powered by Visa Card and can be used anywhere in the world where you see a Visa Card Logo on the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM).
We guarantee receipt of your payment. This is as a result of the mandate from US Government to make sure all debts owed to citizens of American and also Asia and Europe which includes Inheritance, Contract, Gambling/Lottery etc are been cleared.
To redeem your funds, you are hereby advised to contact the ATM Card Center via email for their requirement to proceed and procure your Approval of Payment Warrant and Endorsement of your ATM Release Order on your behalf which will cost you $250 Usd only and nothing more as everything else has been taken care of by the Federal Government including taxes, custom paper and clearance duty so all you will ever need to pay is $250.00 only.
Lord Ruben (ATM Card Center Director)
Central Bank of Nigeria
Central Business District,
Cad astral Zone, federal
Capital Territory,Nigeria.
ATM Card Center Director Lord Ruben
Email: ( bar-lord-ruben@secretarias.com )
Phone: +234-810-109-8678
Do contact Lord Ruben of the ATM Card Center via his contact details above and furnish him with your details as listed below:
FULL NAMES: __________________________________
DELIVERY ADDRESS FOR ATM CARD: __________________
SEX: _______________
DATE OF BIRTH: __________________
OCCUPATION: __________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER: _____________________
EMAIL ADDRESS: _____________________
On contacting him with your details your file would be updated and he will be sending you the payment information in which you will use in making payment of $250.00 via MoneyGram or Western Union Money Transfer for the procurement of your Approval of Payment Warrant and Endorsement of your ATM Release Order, after which the delivery of your ATM card will be effected to your designated home address without any further delay, extra fee.
JAMES B. COMEY
DIRECTOR
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535
Phone Number: +1 (206) 259-9114
Note: Disregard any email you get from any impostors or offices claiming to be in possession of your ATM card, you are hereby advice only to be in contact with Lord Ruben of the ATM card center who is the rightful person to deal with in regards to your payment and forward any emails you get from impostors to this office so we could act upon it immediately. Help stop cyber crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No-one's in the Southern Hemisphere, anyway
Trouble is, everyone and everything in the Southern Hemisphere is ALSO being pulled down -- away from the dirt/water/etc. We've just not been very talkative about it, especially since it makes for some very awkward moments around the dinner table.
So, for example, when a Northern-Hemisphere Prime Minister voids his colon, the material tends to fall away from the body.
However, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's a real danger that attempting to void the colon may make the contents go up -- into the body. Working from anecdotal evidence only, plus observation, this may be happening in some cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No-one's in the Southern Hemisphere, anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No-one's in the Southern Hemisphere, anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not stupid
Please never assume idiocy where evil selfishness is a possible explanation where a politician is concerned. Turnbull is smart, but right now he is losing his party. The NeoCons are being fractured by the Religious Right Conservatives and he is desperate for anything to stop the split.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not helping
'He's not an idiot, he's just acting like one by pushing an incredibly stupid and outright dangerous idea' isn't exactly any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What counts as 'too harsh'?
I'd be all for calling someone pushing for an impossible and dangerous idea not-very-nice things if they were just your average person, the fact that he's someone in a position where his ideas can easily cause much more damage makes it all the more important to call him out on his stupid and dangerous ideas/claims when he makes them so that they are less likely to be taken at face value by people who don't know just how wrong he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Considering he is now setting things in play to bring in the armed forces when terror attacks occur with shoot to kill orders for suspected terrorists, with essentially no verification that the suspects are in point of fact terrorists. We have just degenerated into bizarro world of the military state, we have gone beyond police state. We have become the Aussie version of NK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or a corrupt cop steals it to pay gambling debts.
Or a hacker finds it.
Or an unknowing programmer fixes it, thinking it's just another oversight.
We have enough issues with unintentional backdoors, much less intentional ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nyet - we give Aussies Game of Thrones - free.
They not stop Aussie brat's watching Game of Thrones, Russky hackers give to them free - we have encryption not even Crowdstrike crack, Mr Rupert Murdoch and Foxtel can yebat himself.
Sloboda, Guys. 🕴🕴🕴
[ link to this | view in chronology ]