[AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill

Bradley Silverman bsilverman at staff.ventraip.com
Mon Sep 3 11:02:32 EST 2018

So for the sake of catching someone doing something illegal online, we
should allow police the right to see everything we do online?
Well for the sake of the road toll, they should low jack all of our cars
and know what they are doing at all times.
For the sake of muggings, we should all have GPS chips in-planted in us.
We should have drug detectors installed in all toilets so they know when
people are using something illicit that they shouldn't be.

There can be 'reasonable' arguments for all those things, with the exact
same justification as this encryption bill. And the same rational of,
'don't do anything wrong and you'll have nothing to worry about' will crop

The government shouldn't be breaching our rights to privacy. You give them
an inch, and they'll take a yard.

[image: VentraIP Australia logo]

*Bradley Silverman*Technical Operations \\ VentraIP Australia
*M: *+61 418 641 103 | *P:* +61 3 9013 8464 | ventraip.com.au

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>

> "Sure they will be able to enforce it against others, but their whole
> argument for these laws is to go after those actors when it is manifestly
> ineffective for that."
> Yes, and no. There's actors, and then there's their actions. There's 2
> different sorts of traffic on the internet that law enforcement & security
> services want to go after - broadcast (eg: social media), and point to
> point. When it comes to identifying users of social media using it for
> illegal ends, this is something that should have been done ages ago, should
> have been a priority before Data Retention. When it comes to isolating
> actors with a serious agenda to use end to end to encryption for nefarious
> means, I figure most everybody realises this is like looking for a needle
> in a haystack.
> Kind regards
> Paul Wilkins
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 01:07, <trs80 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Sep 2018, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>> > The government is going to be able to enforce the Assistance and Access
>> Bill, because to operate a business in Australia,
>> > requires a local presence. Your trade marks and intellectual property
>> need recognition, and you require a registered company to
>> > conduct business and to hold bank accounts. If you won't comply with
>> assistance/capability notices, you won't be able to conduct
>> > business in Australia.
>> Telegram and Signal have none of those and work fine here. Arguably
>> neither is a business, certainly in the traditional sense of the word.
>> And
>> yet they offer precisely what the "worst of the worst" desire -
>> end-to-end
>> encryption that, as you so clearly point out, the Australian government
>> has no power to prevent.
>> Sure they will be able to enforce it against others, but their whole
>> argument for these laws is to go after those actors when it is manifestly
>> ineffective for that.
>> --
>> # TRS-80              trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here
>> will do \
>> # UCC Wheel Member     http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #|  what squirrels do
>> best     |
>> [ "There's nobody getting rich writing          ]|  -- Collect and hide
>> your   |
>> [  software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\  nuts." -- Acid Reflux
>> #231 /
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20180903/fa01cd0e/attachment.html>

More information about the AusNOG mailing list