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".
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.
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.
I mean we have the PM himself saying here that math doesn't work in Australia.
He didn't say that.
He said math can't prevent you from being charged with an offence; math can't bestow upon you protection from the law; math can't grant you a legal privilege.
It wouldn't grant you anything you would become a criminal if you use the certain math regardless of the motives. Why don't we prohibit certain kind of music as well (let's say hard rock since terrorists might listen to it), and french baguettes and humus because they might eat those, etc.
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".