<div dir="auto"><div>A limited scope is nearly as bad as a carte-blanche licence to spy on law-abiding citizens.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A major part of the opposition to this bill is the fact that despite what Malcolm Turnbull tried to claim, the laws of Australia do not override the laws of mathematics.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Aside from the fact that we know damned well that as soon as the capability exists, it will be misused - not only will the AFP and ASIO use it elsewhere, other agencies WILL get hold of the capability. There's also those pesky rules of mathematics to consider here - there is no way to break the encryption of just terrorists and child abusers - the mathematics of encryption just don't work that way.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And of course, once the vulnerabilities in systems are created, they don't check for warrants, agency appropriateness and legal approvals before allowing access. "Let me see your credentials and warrant" said no back-door ever.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am naturally wary of slippery slope arguments - but our law enforcement agencies (as a whole, and as a collection of individuals) have a proven track record of being given an inch and taking a mile. Or two.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The very notion that encryption systems can be selectively broken in only legally appropriate instances is ludicrous - once the cat is out of the bag, it is out of the bag for all.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The only thing more ludicrous is the belief that Australia's legal reach is significant enough for this to matter a single iota. If if this bill becomes law, that terrorists and child abusers would simply use encryption tools that are not subject to Australian law. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The over-inflated opinion of self's almost as bad as the Internet filter arguments (in some ways, it's worse, due to the consequences) - the thought that stopping the Australian online population interested in accessing child abuse material over HTTP/HTTPS channels that the filter could see would have any positive impact at all on child abuse victims was ludicrous</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Conroy and friends also argued that if you were against his filter, you were pro child abuse - which was patently ridiculous.We will see similar arguments from Dutton et al on this (if we haven't seen them already) and they'll be just as invalid here was they were before.</div><div dir="auto"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 30 Nov. 2018, 3:52 pm Paul Wilkins <<a href="mailto:paulwilkins369@gmail.com">paulwilkins369@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Apparently PJCIS may be considering limiting the Bill to exercise by ASIO and the AFP only, and limiting scope of crimes to only terrorism and child abuse related. That would be of huge assistance in allaying public concerns its a stalking horse for mass surveillance. Further, such limited purview would mean there simply isn't the industrial scale of activity as anticipated in the current Bill's scope. Such a light touch approach would greatly mitigate the security and economic impacts.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Now before people start complaining that such a move would still enable invasions of privacy, consider, "first they came for the terrorists and child abusers" said no one ever.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards</div><div><br></div><div>Paul Wilkins<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 15:10, Paul Wilkins <<a href="mailto:paulwilkins369@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">paulwilkins369@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hastie, Senator Bushby, Julian Leeser, Jim Molan, some pretty disappointing stuff from them all this morning. For shits and giggles, you can read the proceedings and where PJCIS members ask questions, try to guess their political alignment from the questions asked.<br><br>Kind regards<br><br>Paul Wilkins<br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 10:11, I <<a href="mailto:beatthebastards@inbox.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">beatthebastards@inbox.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div><br></div><div>Watch live </div><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen</a></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>