The laws of mathematics can be overruled in Australia.

[MarkS]

http://mashable.com/2017/07/14/australian-government-encrypted-apps.amp

"Well, the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia," he said.

 

[Ampera]

[Halcyon]

Turnbull should stay as far away from commenting about anything technical as possible. His second-rate National Broadband Network is a good example of what happens when you don't listen to experts.

In any case, law enforcement agencies around the world can and do have the capabilities of breaking some encryption and accessing the content they desire. The case of the FBI of that iPhone in which Apple refused to assist is a prime example; The FBI went and found a way without Apple's help.

[MarkS]

The FBI went and found a way without Apple's help.

Except they didn't decrypt the phone. They found a way past the lock.

[Halcyon]

The FBI went and found a way without Apple's help.

Except they didn't decrypt the phone. They found a way past the lock.

Correct, whatever achieves the purpose. It doesn't matter how they got the data from the phone, what matters is they got it. You could have all the encryption in the world but it won't do you any good if there are other ways around it.

[xrunner]

http://mashable.com/2017/07/14/australian-government-encrypted-apps.amp

"Well, the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia," he said.

 

It's comforting to know that the U.S. isn't the only place to find goofy politicians. 

[Cyberdragon]

This is why all politicians should require a personal slapping assistant.

[jeroen79]

He is of course not really claiming that he will overrule the laws of math but that he intends to legally hurt techcompanies if they do not apply said laws in a manner that allows law enforcement to tap into private conversations.

[MarkS]

He is of course not really claiming that he will overrule the laws of math but that he intends to legally hurt techcompanies if they do not apply said laws in a manner that allows law enforcement to tap into private conversations.

Replace "mathematics" in his statement with "gravity" or "physics". I get the clear understanding that he had no clue what he was talking about.

[vodka]

The goverments have the balls by tie, they are frustated due to not able to avoid the attacks of lone wolfs. And as deseperate measure , the  goverments want that the great corporation IT make the dirty jobs by them.

Now after that  the FBI paid to israelian corporation for decrypting the iphone, what did they discover from the crazies ****** of San Benardino? I think that NOTHING.

Now my reflexion, on many  west countries there are many  "zones no-go" where the police have almost 80% of the population that have been arrested more two times, but they are free.
So why do the goverments  want to control all the world, if they know all the criminals besides they haven't been to able to imposse the law on the zones  "no-go"?

[Halcyon]

Now after that  the FBI paid to israelian corporation for decrypting the iphone

It was speculated that Cellebrite had a hand in unlocking the phone, but it was never confirmed (nor would it ever have been). That kind of information is highly protected and is most likely subject to immunity from released to the public, even in a court.

It's no secret that Cellebrite is one of the big players in mobile forensics and their products/services are used all around the world. What is kept secret is how they achieve what they achieve and there isn't a Police or intelligence organisation in this world who would give up that kind of information.

Digital forensics, whilst it's a growing field, it's one that is very secretive and limited to a relatively small group of people. They don't like their methodology getting out.

[Halcyon]

Then how can authorities know if the forensic data has not been tampered with? The absolute trust can be built within the system, but between governments and a private company? How?

You hit the nail on the head: FORENSIC. For it to be forensic, it needs to be verifiable and repeatable. If it's tampered with or cannot be verified, it's not a forensic process.

There are some excellent papers out there if you're keen for a read, such as Reproducibility of Digital Evidence in Forensic Investigations.

[nugglix]

And one of the most free and hyper-democratic countries where everyone wants to be just passed a law
which allows to place trojans on devices even for minor offenses.
This is done to gather the data before it is encrypted.

This breaks some fundamental laws, but these are only man-made.
So nothing to see, move on...

[MarkS]

And one of the most free and hyper-democratic countries where everyone wants to be just passed a law
which allows to place trojans on devices even for minor offenses.
This is done to gather the data before it is encrypted.

This breaks some fundamental laws, but these are only man-made.
So nothing to see, move on...

Where?

[Bicurico]

Germany.

[MarkS]

Anyone smart enough to encrypt their data will have no problem removing a trojan.

[MarkS]

The problem with that is it would be safe to assume that the device had that functionality prior to the installation of the trojan. If this is installed due to a criminal offense, no matter how minor, it should be possible to revert to a prior state.

[SeanB]

They will all come with it preinstalled, simply as that is easier for the network operators, and the key will be the same for all devices as well.

[RGB255_0_0]

Anyone smart enough to encrypt their data will have no problem removing a trojan.

What if the trojan is needed to gain access to Internet? For instance, a program that muct be installed in order to gain authentication to access point.
Or what if the trojan is built into Kernel or Rootkit as a preinstalled software? Google Greendam project, and thank god that it has failed.

With Android the Kernel Source must be public. Some companies do not publish it though so make of that what you will.

[cdev]

According to Edward Snowden the WTO treaty on telecommunications requires equal back doors be given to other WTO members if one has one. So all of this may be an elaborate scheme to create the false impression to some wto members that back doors dont exist so they countries that have the back door keys  dont get forced to give up their back door key advantage to every other country thats in power simply because they are in power and are in the WTO. Because trade treaties are completely amoral and care not one whit about "right" or "wrong" - there is no right or wrong, or legitimate versus illegitimate government, right is the entity that gets to make the local domestic regulations that the WTO gets to discipline, period..

In other words, government is just whoever is in power, because they are in power, period, and everybody else doesnt exist.

You can see why corporations have successfully shifted the whole world away from democracy, its because people would vote differently than what they want, and it would cost them money, so they have defined "right" as things that make them more money and "illegal" as things that make them less.

period.

Did you guys and gals follow that?  While you were sleeping, the ownership of our planet has been taken.

Australia's declaration is a symptom of a deeper problem, the total capture of the planet's countries and futures by a corporate superstate.

Just try to elect somebody who disagrees with their agenda, even symbolically.

[cdev]

The elder Mr. Torvalds. EU Parliamentarian in the Finnish delegation has something to not say about that.

[VinzC]

http://mashable.com/2017/07/14/australian-government-encrypted-apps.amp

"Well, the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia," he said.

 

Well, he can't be totally wrong. He could always pass a law mandating 1+1=3, everybody would *have* to comply, what's the problem? 

[Zero999]

According to Edward Snowden the WTO treaty on telecommunications requires equal back doors be given to other WTO members if one has one. So all of this may be an elaborate scheme to create the false impression to some wto members that back doors dont exist so they countries that have the back door keys  dont get forced to give up their back door key advantage to every other country thats in power simply because they are in power and are in the WTO. Because trade treaties are completely amoral and care not one whit about "right" or "wrong" - there is no right or wrong, or legitimate versus illegitimate government, right is the entity that gets to make the local domestic regulations that the WTO gets to discipline, period..

In other words, government is just whoever is in power, because they are in power, period, and everybody else doesnt exist.

You can see why corporations have successfully shifted the whole world away from democracy, its because people would vote differently than what they want, and it would cost them money, so they have defined "right" as things that make them more money and "illegal" as things that make them less.

period.

Did you guys and gals follow that?  While you were sleeping, the ownership of our planet has been taken.

Australia's declaration is a symptom of a deeper problem, the total capture of the planet's countries and futures by a corporate superstate.

Just try to elect somebody who disagrees with their agenda, even symbolically.

Another problem with backdoors is the criminals can exploit them to steal secrets from the government and commit other crimes such as fraud.

Depending on laws, but I remember some countries doesn't allow HTTPS or whatever kind of encryption. Some countries requires their citizen to provide the key to decrypt anything the government is interested with a warranty, while in some countries encrypted communication is outlawed.
For most of the times, most people don't give it a shit though, but with a warranty and threat to imprisonment, I see no reason this can't be enforced.
For instance, unauthorized use of encryption in China is illegal, which means technically the use of FireFox or Chrome are illegal. Only IE, Edge and Safari are approved by Chinese government, but apparently nobody gives it a shit. This also applies for other encryptions such as EFS, which Microsoft has its products approved, but the use of encrypted Linux OS is illegal, though the same systems are widely deployed by Chinese government and its affiliates by a lot. But to be exact, if the Chinese government wants to get someone in trouble, the use of FireFox along will suffice.

That kind of shit is common with authoritarian governments: make lots of things illegal with tough punishments but don't enforce it, so everyone is routinely breaking the law. Now if they want to get rid of someone, for whatever reason, they have an excuse to because they've broken some obscure law.

[cdev]

To corporations, everything, ESPECIALLY major disasters for human beings, are a PROFIT OPPORTUNITY.

Thats the magic of the marketplace. There is no right to anything.

Game over.

[Cerebus]

That kind of shit is common with authoritarian governments: make lots of things illegal with tough punishments but don't enforce it, so everyone is routinely breaking the law. Now if they want to get rid of someone, for whatever reason, they have an excuse to because they've broken some obscure law.

And that includes governments that one would not automatically think of as "authoritarian governments", such as the UK. There's a case making its way through the system at the moment based on "possessing information useful to a terrorist organization" under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and it's clear from the way the law was drafted that it was intended to be one of those kind of laws.

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 creates the offence, liable to a prison term of up to ten years, to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

If you're a journalist who has a list of MPs addresses (a quite reasonable and legitimate thing to possess) you have "information of a kind likely to be useful ... terrorism", or a student with a chemistry textbook that includes information that could be used to make explosives you have "information of a kind likely to be useful ... terrorism", and so on.

There is nothing in the law itself that requires intent, mere possession of "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is sufficient. The government can choose, on a quite arbitrary basis, who will and who will not be prosecuted for this offence. Most people possess some information that could conceivably be used by a terrorists, such as a map, and could quite legally be arrested and swept off the street at any time.

If you ask awkward questions about the existence of laws like this you're likely to get a reply like "Well of course we wouldn't use it like that", but the very existence of a law that could be lawfully used like that is a direct insult to the idea of democracy. Parliament failed on this one to ask the question that should always be asked about laws like this - "What could this law do if put into the hands of my worst enemies?".