[nl]

It's a huge, huge mistake to laugh at this.

Turnbull understands perfectly well he can't outlaw Math. What he can do is build and international alliance to outlaw end-to-end encryption.

That's the goal here, and laughing at 'stupid' comments instead of looking at how it might actually be accomplished is what got us metadata retention laws.

"First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" doesn't just apply to good things.

[robbiep]

The obscene thing is, any organisation large enough to willingly plot the downfall of western civilisation is going to have a guy, or be able to outsource the production of to a guy, who can develop an end to end encrypted communications channel on an open platform.

Unfortunately our prime minister whoshiuld know a lot better as a result of being an IT pioneer in this country, is being fucking rediculous when it comes to his current political reality, because he doesn't have any balls.

[fantispug]

If it's illegal to send encrypted communications it will still have an impact. If the source of any unapproved encrypted transmissions could be identified there is a good chance the sender could be apprehended.

[Retric]

You assume it's obvious when something is encrypted. Steganography is generally easier with encrypted messages as it looks random.

[astrobe_]

Indeed, unless the traffic/file is explicitly labeled as encrypted (protocol, file header etc.) I think there's no way to tell if a particular piece of data is encrypted or not.

More generally, the incredible stupidity in those calls for encryption bans is that the "bad guys" will abide to the law. There's a dark market for botnets etc., so why not for custom stealth encryption tools? I wouldn't be surprised if it already exists.

[fantispug]

That's a very good point; even if it's possible to detect steganography of encrypted messages it's probably expensive to do so, especially in the torrent of digital traffic online.

I guess it will only impact law abiding citizens then.

[gottlos]

We just have to mercilessly FOI his private communications via encrypted channels, which he used to reclaim party leadership. a number of folks have put forward that private encrypted apps would be subject to FOI.

This means he can't have it both ways

[privong]

> This means he can't have it both ways

I suspect the power asymmetry of the gov't being able to decide which of its own data is subject to FOI means he can have it both ways.

[gottlos]

They have to respond by law; even if it takes 18 months and dragging then through the AAT - and the response will be fuel for ridicule if it (predictably) refuses in the grounds of being too hard

[privong]

> the response will be fuel for ridicule if it (predictably) refuses in the grounds of being too hard

If ridicule worked, this madness would have already stopped at the point where the Australian PM implied the laws of mathematics are secondary to the laws of Australia.

[phyalow]

Assange has written about the chilling implications in Cypherpunks:

JACOB: The force of nearly all modern authority is derived from violence or the threat of violence. One must acknowledge with cryptography no amount of violence will ever solve a math problem.

JULIAN: Exactly.

JACOB: This is the important key. It doesn’t mean you can’t be tortured, it doesn’t mean that they can’t try to bug your house or subvert it in some way, but it means that if they find an encrypted message it doesn’t matter if they have the force of the authority behind everything that they do, they cannot solve that math problem. This, though, is the thing that is totally non-obvious to people that are non-technical, and it has to be driven home. If we could solve all of those math problems, it would be a different story and, of course, the government would be able to solve those math problems if anyone could.

[hellbanner]

Yes, but people could still be ordered to give up their encryption keys.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140116/09195525902/uk-ma...

[vacri]

Yeah, the thing that's missing in the commentary is that Turnbull used it as a throwaway line. He doesn't actually think you can break mathematical laws. He's not a stupid man, and was just answering a comment comparing natural laws against national laws, which are clearly not the same thing.

One thing I miss from yesteryear is how people used to be able to understand what a politician was saying between the lines, and when a politician was going for a bit of dry humour. Now they just analyse the surface content. It's pretty sad.

[nl]

It's pretty sad.

It's not just sad - it's embarrassing, and shows how ineffective the tech industry is at politics.

[ycombinete]

I remember everyone having a good chuckle when Trump said that he was going to run for president.

[nl]

Exactly. That was when I started using the "first they laugh at you" thing. It is pretty much the perfect example.

[threeseed]

Also don't forget that Australia is part of the "five eyes". Which means you can get bet the other countries: UK, US, NZ and Canada have been consulted and are likely to be supportive.

[cylinder]

He's probably being pressured by the US to test this out in Australia, in the same way that McDonalds uses Australia as a test market.

[_kyran]

Australia is one of the primary test markets for Tinder and Facebook.

[tyingq]

Assuming he wants to address the most common devices, he's right. Since smartphones run walled gardens, he can legislate around math. Doesn't close all loopholes, but he gets the majority.

[daxfohl]

Though when you look at FBI or whatever vs Apple last year ... what does it even matter? All this proclamation does is claim that OZ gov't entities are incompetent compared to their US counterparts.

[nl]

It matters because some people think that the laughing means it can't possibly work.

This law can work, but it can be stopped. But laughing means some are treating a genuine threat as a joke.

[Fr0styMatt88]

So, how do we stop it?

Serious question - how do we go about making our voices heard in a way that will make a difference?

[nl]

There are multiple ways to attack this.

Firstly, understand the politics. The Labor party might tweak some corners on the legislation but will basically support it. Their policy is to support the government position on anything related to national security.

So any argument needs to be made understanding this.

At the moment the argument that "deliberate vulnerabilities makes us all vulnerable" has some traction, especially every time news comes out about a major hack. This is especially the case if it is linked to a state-actor, especially China or Russia. This is a good argument because it attacks the national-security justification.

Another good argument is one that was made to Turnbull on ABC Radio: Given your use of Wickr, what is to stop a foreign power from obtaining a warrant for an Australian politician or business person's communications? We already now of cases where the Australian security apparatus was used to benefit Australia's trade interest (in the Timor sea). Won't this make us more vulnerable?

Then there's the "Australia will be left behind" argument. If the US doesn't do this as well, then at least some US companies will refuse to comply and withdraw from Australia. That puts us at a competitive disadvantage, and if the same companies operate in the US it is hard to argue they are "bad".

[type0]

Well if they do ban encryption they probably would still use it themselves (government, politicians). That would literally mean different laws for different people. Fight it on the basis of that. Remember how France tried to outlaw the encryption in the 90s and it didn't work because government servers were also using it.

[nl]

Well if they do ban encryption they probably would still use it themselves (government, politicians).

That's not being proposed here.

Fight it on the basis of that.

So, again, a mistake. Understand the fight you are in.

[Strom]

That's not being proposed here.

It may not be explicitly proposed, but I'd wager it's still implicitly there. Definitely for army/police, but probably for ruling class as well.

So, again, a mistake. Understand the fight you are in.

Understanding the fight you're in is definitely key. I don't know enough about the Australian people, but I know that reframing the situation in a way where another privilege is taken away from the common folk, but will still be there for the ruling class -- this would motivate a lot of people to rally against the proposal where I live.

In addition, in the age of Trump & co, it should be clear to everyone that facts don't matter. I mean we have the PM himself saying here that math doesn't work in Australia. It's completely possible to reframe the whole discussion in a myriad of ways that aren't based in reality. Use fake news & propaganda to move the needle in favor of encryption. One could argue that this undermines the greater goal of having a fact respecting society, but it's irrational to claim that such tactics won't work for achieving narrower goals like saving encryption.

[kabdib]

If it's not in there now, it almost certainly will be.

[As a model, firearms restrictions in the US nearly always lift restrictions for current or retired law enforcement officers and military]