Australian Government Continues To Push Encryption Backdoors It Refuses To Call Encryption Backdoors
from the 'we-like-to-call-them-little-miracles' dept
The Australian government has decided it can beat math at its own game. The laws of math will be defeated by the laws of Australia, the government declared last year. In an effort to tackle something this article calls "terror encryption," the Home Office says laws punching holes in encryption for government access are just around the corner.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull may not understand the laws of mathematics or how signing a bunch of words into law doesn't actually suspend them, but he does know tech companies are going to figure it out for him. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton agrees: the government just needs to mandate broken encryption and the tech companies will handle the rest. It's for the good of the country, if not the world.
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton says ubiquitous encryption - a tool used for secure personal banking platforms and some messaging services - has become a major obstacle to terror investigations.
"We know that more than 90 per cent of counter-terrorism targets are using it for communications, including for attack planning here," Mr Dutton told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.
"More than 90 per cent." That's seems high! I'm sure it's based on rigorous examination of facts and probably includes terrorists visiting bank websites or anything else with an HTTPS URL. Dutton wants platform providers and device makers to make it as easy as dropping a wiretap on a phone line, so it's clear the government isn't just seeking access to data at rest.
Whatever it is that the Australian government wants, it seems unable to articulate in words. The analogies used (phone wiretaps) suggest the stuff Dutton says he doesn't want is exactly what he wants.
Mr Dutton said he didn't want a "backdoor key" to encrypted devices or a licence to hack into services.
But he argued law enforcement access to encrypted communications should be on the same basis as telephone and other intercepts, in response to warrants issued by the court.
If Dutton wants access to ongoing communications on platforms secured with end-to-end encryption, than a backdoor or a golden key is really what he wants, even if he's unwilling to say so in public. Dutton also suggests companies will be punished for "allowing" terrorists to communicate using their encrypted platforms.
"Companies ought to be concerned with the reputational harm that comes from terrorists and criminals using their encryption and social media platforms for illicit ends," he said.
"As a society we should hold these companies responsible when their service is used to plan or facilitate unlawful activity."
I'm sure Dutton has more in mind than officious bad-mouthing of uncooperative tech companies by government officials. If holes are mandated, companies will be facing more than "reputational damage." But tut-tutting about scofflaw tech companies isn't going to budge the public opinion needle. Many people trust their communication platforms far more than their governments. And they value personal security and privacy far more than they value government access to communications, no matter how often the word "terrorism" is deployed as a justification.
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, backdoors, encryption, responsible encryption, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so
Ever met anyone that learned anything after being told, "I told you so?"
If they had the intellectual capacity to learn from "I told you so" then you would not ever be in a situation to have to tell them that "I told you so".
They only double down on the stupid or get angry at you for victim blaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And governments should be worried about the recreational harm of criminals and crooks using the public roads for illicit purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By this logic, we should hold politicians accountable when they pass laws that are later used to facilitate unconstitutional activity. After all, they knew or reasonably should have known that their laws would be used that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Resist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hMMM
How about HOW a combination lock works and why they are CRAP??
Almost everything I have heard about terrorism and Cellphones, has said they DONT use smart phones. FOR many reasons. Including being tracked. With the Old nes you could Guess which cell tower they were NEAR..
AND if you really want coverage, you get a SAT phone that costs ALLOT of money to even talk on.
Even using a SMART phone. having a Chat program that DOES the scrambling, ISNT much of a problem.. Even if it ONLY requires a password to open Chat.. A High security feature to Erase everything...isnt hard either..
Im not saying, that BASIC intelligence would say that this is a BAD thing, its just a VERY VERY HARD thing..
WHY DO WE ENCODE PHONES anyway?? hmm I wonder.. does it have anything to do with DIGITAL ENCODING each individual signal, so that More then 1 can send/receive on the same channel, and the phone can sort out which is ITS OWN data??
That sounds interesting..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, let's do this
Interesting. Should goverments also be punished by allowing terrorists to communicate using their encrypted platforms? Because any government that's deployed encryption on their web site or mail server or anything else is doing exactly that, because EVERYONE -- terrorists and non-terrorists -- are communicating via their encrypted platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure, let's do this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I get caught speeding, the following should be held responsible:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And even if I supported their illegitimate perpetual war, I would not support this, as the current Australian government is so corrupt and lawless that I have no real doubt that they are already abusing their surveillance tools to go after domestic political enemies.
Boycott anyone that supports these criminals in any way - especially corporate donors. If you don't then *you* are supporting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exodus
If passed and enforced, I think that Australia may end up being isolated. There is no way that Apple, Google and all the rest will compromise the rest of the Internet on Australia's say-so. I understand that many companies make a lot of money in Australia, but I can also foresee many (if not most) walking away from them entirely.
Or doing something truly awesome (from my warped point of view). Making sure that zero encryption is allowed to be used in Australia. And most importantly, for communications leaving/entering AU, refusing all communications that should be encrypted, but aren't.
delenda est carthago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coalition Dumbness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While you're at it...
Criminals use vehicles to commit crimes.
Automobile manufacturers and sellers know that criminals use vehicles to commit crimes.
Therefore if those manufacturers and sellers don't somehow make it so that criminals cannot use their products, they should clearly be held accountable as well.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to solve or anything, it's just that currently those two groups are too lazy and focused on profits to really care about the crimes committed by their products, and as such it's only right that a law be passed to 'encourage' them to solve the trivial issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice the word TARGETS? that means every single australian citizen since their government has been engaged in secret storage of basically every single transaction via HTTP and every voice call since 2009.
So technically "90% of targets" is correct, as thats 90% of the population has AT SOME TIME used some sort of encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything is upside down down under,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only
Sadly there are idiots trying to stab the public in the back and help criminals and terrorists by crippling encryption in many countries, not just that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does add up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd infer that the reputational harm that will come with the unavoidable breach of the golden key will be much, much worse than some half dozen terrorist posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]