Support NeoGAF

[dragonelite]

Uhh what't the point of mandating weak encryption instead of just mandating a backdoor to everything instead. Probably an additional failsafe.

If they can force them change their encryption they can force them to backdoor as well.

End to end encryption should mean there is no backdoor or keys the suppliers like whatsapp can deliver to the government.

Those chat apps don't even use their own protocol and encryption code they make use of an open source library called the Signal protocol. The signal protocol from a quick glance at its wikipedia page uses 256 bit encryption keys.

This video explains how much it takes to brute force a 256 bit encryption primitive.
brute force 256 bit encryption

 

[Henchmen21]

Dear World Leaders, this is not a race to see who can be stupider than Trump

 

[NewGame]

Have you ever seen a kangaroo do math? Checkmate atheists.

 

[CmdrShepard]

What is even far more hilarious is that when Turnbull was minister for communications and data privacy laws were being proposed two years ago under his then rival Abbott, he told the public explicitly how to circumvent these laws by using the same services (Wickr, Whatsapp) he is rallying against now:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...on-laws-out-today-2015-10#ebkcO2gvFyRjeSr4.99

While telcos and law enforcement agencies will have access to your metadata, and the ability to access it without a warrant, there are ways to hide your personal information from prying eyes. Just ask prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

During his time as communications minister, when the data legislation was being proposed, Turnbull talked about ways the public could circumvent the system.

”I use Wickr as an application. I use a number of others. I use WhatsApp... because they're superior over-the-top messaging platforms," he said.

”When I say over the top, what I mean is they're travelling over the internet."

Encrypted peer-to-peer messaging apps, such as Wickr, Whatsapp and Snapchat, let users transfer data, text and files through a secure exchange server.

Secret messages, pictures, videos, audios files and documents can be sent and received through the app, which does not collect personal information, and can be made to expire after a nominal period of time. Users can connect without uploading contact lists, chat with groups of up to 10 people and ”shred" their device of any deleted materials.

And Turnbull's not the only politician using these apps. Treasurer Scott Morrison used one while he was minister for social services, along with other MPs like Alex Hawke.

The hypocrisy levels of the Turnbull government would almost be world class if Trump was not leagues ahead already.

 

[FyreWulff]

encryption isn't like putting something in a safe and giving yourself a key and the government another key that works


encrpytion is wanting people to not know you own a car so you mathematically transform it into a chair, two bananas, a 3 year old labrador retriever and the declaration of independence so that nobody can tell there was a car there.

 

[FUME5]

What is even far more hilarious is that when Turnbull was minister for communications and data privacy laws were being proposed two years ago under his then rival Abbott, he told the public explicitly how to circumvent these laws by using the same services (Wickr, Whatsapp) he is rallying against now:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...on-laws-out-today-2015-10#ebkcO2gvFyRjeSr4.99



The hypocrisy levels of the Turnbull government would almost be world class if Trump was not leagues ahead already.

Australian politics ladies and gentlemen!

 

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/cashbonez/status/885661667480051712

Woah, way to assume you shouldn't be in jail for showing me those first two numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#Legal_response

 

[Kthulhu]

I don't see the problem with breaking encryption under certain circumstances, like a valid search warrant.

Is the controversy here that the tech companies claim they can't provide for decryption so the AUS government essentially wants them to use weaker encryption that will?

Encryption isn't that simple.

 

[Bernbaum]

Turnbull you old goose!

 

[Yoshi]

Shouldn't Whats App be able to do the following: Upon agreeing on a key to comunicate with a partner, the program must encrypt that key with a public key for each law enforcement for Whats App and send it to them, so that (as long as their asymmetric encryption procedure is safe, and if it is not, then Whats App encryption is not safe either) they could get all required keys without breaking the security to any outside source? So in principle, Whats App could save all relevant information for each law enforcement without getting any information themselves and making it less secure for the users - outside of the insecurity whether law enforcers may read the messages.

I see no mathematical or technical reason this would be impossible.

 

[Suikoguy]

Putting in backdoors will result in those who are using such tech for nefarious reasons, to move to open source options that don't.

I'm more torn on the degree of which courts can detain or otherwise punish those who refused to decrypt something when presented with a court order.

 

[zeemumu]

You can see and touch Australia. Have you ever seen a naturally occurring 2? HAVE YOU?!

 

[Pikelet]

Two things will happen if the AU government forces these communication companies to give up their encryption:

- Real criminals will move onto other platforms
- Regular users will be more exposed to cyber crime

This is an idiotic idea that will not work.

 

[jellies_two]

Shouldn't Whats App be able to do the following: Upon agreeing on a key to comunicate with a partner, the program must encrypt that key with a public key for each law enforcement for Whats App and send it to them, so that (as long as their asymmetric encryption procedure is safe, and if it is not, then Whats App encryption is not safe either) they could get all required keys without breaking the security to any outside source? So in principle, Whats App could save all relevant information for each law enforcement without getting any information themselves and making it less secure for the users - outside of the insecurity whether law enforcers may read the messages.

I see no mathematical or technical reason this would be impossible.

that is a really bad idea right now the safest encryption is end-to-end so the tech company isn't privy to anything either even if they want to be.
To build in back doors for one or more agencies involves an exponential increase in possible flaws and of course one has to trust that the agencies keep their secrets safe and know when they are hacked as well.

The "three+ party" encryption becomes entirely untrusted and so even honest people switch to apps they download that don't have the backdoors, so they know third parties aren't listening. Presumably this then becomes a crime so now you're criminalising possession of software and checking phones at airports or in traffic stops and we're then living in a police state. All because the cops want to easily see who a jihadi was talking to over the last 12 months by asking snapchat.

 

[Dead Man]

Fuck off Malc.

 

[benjipwns]

Two things will happen if the AU government forces these communication companies to give up their encryption:

- Real criminals will move onto other platforms
- Regular users will be more exposed to cyber crime

This is an idiotic idea that will not work.

sounds perfect for legislation

 

[CebollaDeAbbott]

We have some problems in Australia.

 

[Shandy]

20 21 18 14 02 21 12 12 09 19 01 03 21 14 20

Decrypt this, Liberals.

 

[Yoshi]

that is a really bad idea right now the safest encryption is end-to-end so the tech company isn't privy to anything either even if they want to be.
To build in back doors for one or more agencies involves an exponential increase in possible flaws and of course one has to trust that the agencies keep their secrets safe and know when they are hacked as well.

The "three+ party" encryption becomes entirely untrusted and so even honest people switch to apps they download that don't have the backdoors, so they know third parties aren't listening. Presumably this then becomes a crime so now you're criminalising possession of software and checking phones at airports or in traffic stops and we're then living in a police state. All because the cops want to easily see who a jihadi was talking to over the last 12 months by asking snapchat.

I doubt that this makes it less safe outside of law enforcement, I see no technical reason for this, as long as the encrpytion used to send the key to Whats App is at least as safe as the one to exchange keys in the first place. And of course they would have to pair it with a law completely forbidding any other kind of encryption. Would I like this? No. But it is nothing that speaks against the laws of mathematics.

 

[jellies_two]

I doubt that this makes it less safe outside of law enforcement, I see no technical reason for this, as long as the encrpytion used to send the key to Whats App is at least as safe as the one to exchange keys in the first place. And of course they would have to pair it with a law completely forbidding any other kind of encryption. Would I like this? No. But it is nothing that speaks against the laws of mathematics.

it makes it much less safe because now there are master keys outside the conversation, and also an archive, and there are plenty of examples showing the government is unable to keep its own stuff secure.
Plus whatever system they would use paints a big 'hack me' target on government databases.
Also the government is not a neat little black box they have different departments and feature creep, so sooner or later access is given for this purpose or that purpose and every step dilutes the security.

Australia has already been outed for buying phone hacking malware for the purpose of digging for welfare cheats. You wouldn't want to trust anything they say about security or limited use.

 

[curi0usBystander]

I don't see the problem with breaking encryption under certain circumstances, like a valid search warrant.

Is the controversy here that the tech companies claim they can't provide for decryption so the AUS government essentially wants them to use weaker encryption that will?

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Vee_One]

it makes it much less safe because now there are master keys outside the conversation, and also an archive, and there are plenty of examples showing the government is unable to keep its own stuff secure.
Plus whatever system they would use paints a big 'hack me' target on government databases.
Also the government is not a neat little black box they have different departments and feature creep, so sooner or later access is given for this purpose or that purpose and every step dilutes the security.

Australia has already been outed for buying phone hacking malware for the purpose of digging for welfare cheats. You wouldn't want to trust anything they say about security or limited use.

You got a source for this? Not doubting - just hadn't seen and interested to read

 

[Aarglefarg]

You got a source for this? Not doubting - just hadn't seen and interested to read

I have a source.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/centrelink-hacking-into-fraudsters-phones-20170627-gwzgqc.html

Centrelink hacking into fraudsters' phones
"Centrelink is using controversial high-tech phone-breaking devices to reveal secrets hidden by suspected fraudsters in their smart phones.

The agency says it uses the technology in strict accordance with the law and only when it has obtained a warrant when investigating cases of serious fraud.

But experts have warned the use of the 'Universal Forensic Extraction Devices' is jeopardising the communications security of Australians.

The welfare agency has joined other government outfits including the Australian Taxation Office and the Employment Department in using the extraction devices, which allow users to bypass security features on smart phones and extract data, including messages and call logs."

"Australian Privacy Foundation chair David Vaile said the use of this technology, originally justified to fight terrorism or child pornographers, was becoming more routine and broader."

"Mr Molnar said Centrelink employees wanting to blow the whistle on misuse of Cellebrite technology faced jail time under the Crimes Act."

 

[Dead Man]

I have a source.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/centrelink-hacking-into-fraudsters-phones-20170627-gwzgqc.html

Typical bullshit:

"Mr Molnar said Centrelink employees wanting to blow the whistle on misuse of Cellebrite technology faced jail time under the Crimes Act."

We may not be as fucked as America, but we're getting more and more authoritarian by the day. Fuck Duttons wet dream, I mean, the new super security agency too.

 

[Moosichu]

I don't see the problem with breaking encryption under certain circumstances, like a valid search warrant.

Is the controversy here that the tech companies claim they can't provide for decryption so the AUS government essentially wants them to use weaker encryption that will?

Criminals will simply use different programs.

It's like trying to ban string because it can be used to strangle people.

A) Anyone can make their own easily
B) so many things depend on it in order to function.

Making companies use weaker encryption gives MORE power to criminals, not less. As they can start stealing people's private communications.

 

[GeoNeo]

We may not be as fucked as America, but we're getting more and more authoritarian by the day. Fuck Duttons wet dream, I mean, the new super security agency too.

We're fucked. :\

P.S: FUCK Turnbull for the damage he done to Australian infrastructure for generations with his FTTN NBN shit.

 

[danm999]

Woah, way to assume you shouldn't be in jail for showing me those first two numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#Legal_response

Fuck I gotta call my lawyer

 

[elfinke]

Between this moronic statement, the presser with masked agents, the new CDP, cuts to penalty rates, the fucked up NBN, the three new appointees to the Fairwork Commission and that fucking cunt who I wish to be hit by a bus Dutton being made head of the new super ministry:

Fuck this government harder than any other in my lifetime. Each and every one of them, from dumb fuck useless Cash to hypocrite Turnbull. Holy fuck, how on earth the useless fucks on the other side (and the implosion of the Greens this week) aren't singing from the rafters about all of this moronic shit is beyond me.

Fuck me.

 

[AdventureRacing]

We're fucked. :

P.S: FUCK Turnbull for the damage he done to Australian infrastructure for generations with his FTTN NBN shit.

Not to mention the billions of dollars it cost us. It's one of the biggest fuck ups in the history of Australian politics and it has been all but forgotten (and not even really associated with Turnbull). The magnitude of how badly they messed up the NBN is astounding. Then again we have to worry about more important issues like boat people, national security and saving the coal industry.

 

[Lonely1]

To be fair, most encryption is based on mathematical conjectures rather than outright proven statements.

 

[Irminsul]

I don't see the problem with breaking encryption under certain circumstances, like a valid search warrant.

Is the controversy here that the tech companies claim they can't provide for decryption so the AUS government essentially wants them to use weaker encryption that will?

Additionally to what others have already said, it's nearly effortless to just switch to another encryption service outside of Australian jurisdiction, especially if you have a vested interested in your secrets staying secret. Hell, if you really wanted to, you could just code your own encryption service.

That's why the statement is so funny: it's really just maths and the information is free to access. So the only people suffering from weaker encryption are citizens who don't know better. Congratulations.

 

[DJKhaled]

Nah, reasonably progressive for a liberal but held back (forced to toe the line?) by the conservative faction of the party.

Lmao. The guy isn't progressive. He just wanted power at all costs.

 

[Zushin]

Between this moronic statement, the presser with masked agents, the new CDP, cuts to penalty rates, the fucked up NBN, the three new appointees to the Fairwork Commission and that fucking cunt who I wish to be hit by a bus Dutton being made head of the new super ministry:

Fuck this government harder than any other in my lifetime. Each and every one of them, from dumb fuck useless Cash to hypocrite Turnbull. Holy fuck, how on earth the useless fucks on the other side (and the implosion of the Greens this week) aren't singing from the rafters about all of this moronic shit is beyond me.

Fuck me.

Don't forget the Centrelink robo debt!

 

[D4Danger]

Did everyone just skip the bit where GCHQ are like "dude, chill, we got this". That seems like the real story.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

So basically:

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

only the sender and the recipient can see the contents of the messages.

dreadful really, can't imagine something worse than private communications.

 

[elfinke]

Don't forget the Centrelink robo debt!

Good grief, it says a lot that that didn't even come into my mind while I was ordering the list of shit I am mad about.

Seriously. What a shit stain on our history this last few years of politics is turning out to be.