<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div>On Nov 23, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Robert Hudson <<a href="mailto:hudrob@gmail.com" class="">hudrob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 14:47, Paul Brooks <<a href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au" class="">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In theory no - this bill doesn't weaken encryption, and explicitly doesn't allow any<br class="">
changes that would weaken encryption.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">They say that - but I don't believe them. I don't think they even understand what they're suggesting (or if they do understand, they're relying on others not understanding, or not caring). </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div><div class="">I think it’s dangerous to assume they don’t know what they’re asking for.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">MPs probably don’t know, that’s true. But they aren’t the source of these Bills: No has ever climbed out of bed in the morning and thought, “Y’know what ASD needs? Unencrypted access to SnapChat. Let’s make it happen.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">MPs also aren’t in charge. PJCIS reliably decides whatever the bloody-hell ASIO and ASD want them to decide. The belief that there are a bunch of level-headed independent-minded politicians <i class="">making decisions</i> is crazy, there’s never been any evidence that that’s true.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">These Bills are drafted by the intelligence agencies themselves, and they know precisely what they’re demanding, they know precisely what the flow-on effects will be, and they’ve judged that for their own purposes, the cost/benefit analysis works in their favor.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The possibility that the cost/benefit analysis works against other people is also well understood, but they choose to not distract the argument by engaging on that point. Bring it up as much as you like, they just ignore it and talk past it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For the last decade, there have been arguments about this stuff that have been based on the belief that the Government is too dumb to know what it’s asking for, and that reason will prevail if we just explain it to them with the facts.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In case nobody’s noticed, that approach hasn’t worked, and there’s no indication that it will ever work.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This community has spent years wasting its time by communicating facts to them that they already know, and don’t care about.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">They also don’t care about compromises: If you give them 50% of what they want, they’ll come back 18 months later and demand the other 50%. That’s how they’ve always worked (cf: data retention: The AA Bill is the grab bag of stuff the A-G couldn’t ask for last time. And if they don’t get it all this time, they’ll be back in 2021 for the next tranche)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Victory on these matters will never be won by having an argument based on the assumption that they need experts to explain facts and technology to them. The only way victory will be achieved is politically: There needs to be blowback, asking for more will need to cause them pain before they’ll stop.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - mark</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>