Aussie government proposes "not-a-backdoor" bill on...

Online now: Bing (sucks), Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]
Post Reply
...cryptography that elliptically tells tech companies to break their crypto.

As the commenter noted: there appears to be some level of "magical" thinking where politicians believe that tech companies are holding back on their ability to break crypto when, of course, the math is simply not there. They could put in backdoors (which is basically what the bill asks for despite the denial), but that just means that when discovered by others then that crypto becomes completely compromised.
That bill has been formally introduced to the Australian legislature and it proposes up-to-10 year sentences for anyone who refuses to unlock phones.

The bill also proposes penalties upon tech companies which do not assist legal authorities to decrypt communications though specifically says no back doors, i.e., still magical thinking. Conceivably this would force companies which provide encryption at their end for communication software to provide the Aussie government with copies before they get encrypted, but I have to ask: are there any such situations? Who would send UNencrypted but sensitive info via the Internet?
macnuke Afar
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
...snip... Who would send UNencrypted but sensitive info via the Internet?


err Trump?
maurvir Outlier
User avatar
It's Australia, they don't believe in civil rights anymore.

That said, there are only two kinds of encryption. Broken and as yet unbroken. Any backdoors at all immediately put a scheme in the broken category, which is why everyone has tried to tell these brain damaged apes that it isn't mathematically possible to do what they want and still maintain the efficacy.

What's worse is that once someone spills the beans on this "government mandated" crypto system, it is going to be damn near apocalyptic. It may even be necessary, since that's what it will take to get these morons to understand the problem. Note, it will be bad because people won't immediately understand that their encryption is worthless, and thus they will think they have secure communications when they don't.
macnuke Afar
User avatar
two things true..

for enough money anything can be bought...
persistance is the key...
iDaemon infinitely loopy
User avatar
Aren't you folks glad Apple stands by user privacy as a strong, solid, not-open-to-compromise part of how they operate?

Edit

AplleInsider reports (US)
Quote:
Vice President of Software Technology Bud Tribble is set to appear Sept. 26 before a Senate panel to talk about user privacy, along with execs from Google, Amazon and other companies.

iDaemon infinitely loopy
User avatar
Ars
Quote:
"This is no time to weaken encryption," the company wrote. "There is profound risk of making criminals’ jobs easier, not harder. Increasingly stronger—not weaker—encryption is the best way to protect against these threats.”

Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Aussie government proposes "not-a-backdoor" bill on...