Australia Makes Itself A Global Weak Point For Encryption To Protect Aussies “In Time For Christmas”
Date: 7 Dec 2018 Category : Australia Makes Itself A Global Weak Point For Encryption To Protect Aussies "In Time For Christmas" | Author: Graham Penrose
Replacing No.1 in “Crypto & Privacy – The Rogues Gallery of Encryption Luddites a.k.a “did they really just say that?”” as a world first in the race to backdoor encryption in Western “democracies” and ending a stellar 36 months of unparalleled hubris in their appalling and often embarrasing debate on the merits of backdooring encryption by statute, the Australian government has passed controversial laws designed to compel technology companies to grant police and security agencies access to encrypted messages and the Labor opposition said it had reluctantly supported the laws to help “protect Australians during the Christmas period”.
Probably one of the most ridiculous and shallow justifications ever provided as an excuse for the removal of any civil liberty or erosion of privacy and freedom of speech. In the ongoing battle between the reality of maths and the laws of Australia the government declared “Australia’s law offers a safeguard which says decryptions won’t go ahead if they create a “systemic weakness””. This BS of course follows on from the legendary soundbite by Malcolm Turnbull a couple of years back that: “The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”
This entire debate in Australia though, in my considered opinion, has always been about the Australians acting as pace makers for the Five Eyes. Watch the same laws pass in due course across the spectrum and particularly swiftly in Canada, USA, Great Britain, and New Zealand
The Most Dubious “World First” Ever?
The government says the laws, a world first, are necessary to help combat terrorism and crime. However critics have listed wide-ranging concerns, including that the laws could undermine the overall security and privacy of users. The laws were rushed through parliament on its final day of the year. The Labor opposition said it had reluctantly supported the laws to help protect Australians during the Christmas period, but on Friday it said that “legitimate concerns” about them remained. Cyber-security experts have warned the laws could now create a “global weak point” for companies such as Facebook and Apple.
Why are encrypted messages an issue?
Australia already has laws which require providers to hand over a suspect’s communication to police. This may already be possible if a service provider uses a form of encryption that allows them to view a user’s message. But in recent years, services such as WhatsApp, Signal and others have added an additional layer of security known as end-to-end encryption.
End-to-end encryption allows only the sender and recipient to view a message, preventing it from being unscrambled by the service provider. Australia and other countries have said that terrorists and criminals exploit this technology to avoid surveillance.
How would this change work?
It differs from laws in China, Russia and Turkey, where services offering end-to-end encryption are banned. Under Australia’s legislation, police can force companies to create a technical function that would give them access to encrypted messages without the user’s knowledge.
“This ensures that our national security and law enforcement agencies have the modern tools they need, with appropriate authority and oversight, to access the encrypted conversations of those who seek to do us harm,” Attorney-General Christian Porter said.
However, cyber-security experts say it’s not possible to create a “back door” decryption that would safely target just one person.
“Any vulnerability would just weaken the existing encryption scheme, affecting security overall for innocent people,” said Dr Chris Culnane from the University of Melbourne. Such a “security hole” could then be abused or exploited by criminals, he said. In a bid to address these concerns, Australia’s law offers a safeguard which says decryptions won’t go ahead if they create a “systemic weakness”.
However critics say the definition of “systemic weakness” is vague, meaning it is unclear how it may be applied.
What are the other concerns?
Digital rights advocates are highly critical of Australia’s move, saying it lacks sufficient checks and balances. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said police could order individual IT developers to create technical functions without their company’s knowledge.
“This has the potential for Australian tech firms to have no clue whether they were even subject to an order,” the foundation’s Nate Cardozo told the BBC.
There is also criticism over how fast the laws were passed. A draft bill was presented only in August. A parliamentary committee examining the legislation did not release its report until late on Wednesday. The Labor opposition added 173 amendments to the bill on Thursday.
“It’s completely been rushed. There’s no way anyone could have formed a properly informed view on the changes to this very technical piece of legislation in that time,” Dr Culnane said.
What does it mean for tech firms?
If companies don’t comply with the laws, they risk being fined. That’s led to speculation that some global firms which have vocally opposed the laws could withdraw from the Australian market. However, Dr Culnane said that most companies are likely to comply – partly because users won’t be aware if their messages have been accessed. However, experts say the full implications are unclear and much uncertainty remains. Some firms have already suggested that they may not be subject to Australian law.
Experts add that, given the debate involves national security, many aspects may play out behind closed doors.
Content in Italics From “Australia data encryption laws explained”