[AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill

[Chris Ford]

Paul,


I agree with you in general as to the point that if we are happy with the premise of the current TIA Act that LEAs should be able to intercept communications with a duly authorised warrant, then extending that to encrypted services seems a reasonable extension to keep up with technology.


However, the current intercept regime is very difficult if not impossible for a bad actor to exploit. The intercept points are within the Carrier and CSP networks, out of reach of most people. When we move to intercept end-to-end encrypted services you either need to break the encryption (which thankfully does not seem to be the path anybody is proposing), OR, you need to access the clear text at the end point itself. The problem I have with this is that the end point is out in user land, often accessible to anyone on the internet, and now exposed to exploit by bad actors.


--

Chris Ford | CTO

Inabox Group Limited


Ph: + 61 2 8275 6871

Mb: +61 401 988 844

Em: chris.ford at inaboxgroup.com.au

________________________________
From: AusNOG <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> on behalf of Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2018 11:31:14 AM
To: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill

Bradley,
The Common Law has always allowed judicial scrutiny of our privacy. There's always been the right for judicial search warrants to override what's considered one's private domain. I'm supportive of this bill where it extends judicial oversite to the cyber domain, which is a gap that exists only because legislation/common law has lagged behind technology. While at the same time realising that conversations conducted over the internet, even if encrypted, are more properly regarded as public conversations, than say one you might have in your living room. Whether government is going to regulate the internet, the boat has sailed on this long ago. The hard line privacy advocates are simply going to be left out of a conversation democracy needs to have over not whether the internet should be regulated, but how.

What's interesting in this bill is that it goes beyond extending judicial writ, allowing law enforcement emergency powers the right to surveil suspects. This will be authorised by law enforcement, without judicial or governmental oversite. I think this probably goes too far. The best outcome for everyone, to protect privacy, and to empower law enforcement to enforce laws and to protect citizens rights, would be to limit the scope of these new powers to judicial writ.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20180903/3de1eb86/attachment.html>