2 years ago I never would have considered OneNation, thought they were a bunch of nutters.
But, with the housing and cost of living crisis, their low immigration policies seem appealing, and as far as I know they are the only party currently proposing to abolish the eSafety commission.
I'd settle for any party that actually had a raft of plebiscites on issues that ordinary folks are genuinely interested in.
We did gay marriage and the voice. Now lets do population policy and budget issues.
In an ideal world I would want voters to vote on how they want the population to change and then take those votes down to the electorate level and apply population growth targeted to local area based on voter results in each area.
As i wrote "In an ideal world", I fully expect this idea to be completely unreasonable. At best you could control housing density and maybe in the country you could expand zoning of where the housing for the town ends on top of that. But yeah probably impossible.
We have regional and job specific visas....so presumably it would be their visa that prevents them from moving after arriving, at least for some period of time.
It should exist but it really should be targeting actually important issues like data protection and preventing scams. There are actually big fishes to fry, it just looks like all of them are to hard so they are not touched.
Well I mean kids and the elderly can be vulnerable online and it's good to have someone that can work on way to keep people safe. But removing encryption is just silly.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kna3U29gTmE
Says it all.
e-Safety commissioner trying to make the internet less safe for us.
I can see why Twitter fired her.
You appear to be confused. In 2018 Adam was addressing the governments proposed back door requirements.
Remember Malcolm Turnbull and laws of maths vs rule of law? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
The government fundamentally doesn't understand the technology at play.
>Namely, it “improves” on the vague language by stating, “companies will not be required to break encryption and will not be required to undertake measures not technically feasible or reasonably practical,” reports say.
If this is the case, then we are already at this status quo. It is not technically feasible or reasonably practical to implement encryption with the kind of backdoors the government wants without making it vulnerable to attack. But I get the feeling that is not what they want to hear. Even if my backdoor is rock solid and *only* accessible to the government's keys, I have *zero* fucking trust that the government can keep hold of it's keys given how much trouble they have protecting against script kiddies.
We already have a *huge* brain drain of engineers from Aus to the states or the EU. We can already earn more money overseas. If I wanted to code deliberately vulnerable systems for an overreaching nanny state I'd move to China, at least Id be able to afford a house.
Say it's just for individuals. Is this both in transit and storage encryption?
If it's in transit, what are they going to do, force us to configure our browsers only to accept compromised ciphers? Then we try to access anything outside of Australia and get 'yeah, I don't know what the hell those ciphers are, ERR\_SSL\_VERSION\_OR\_CIPHER\_MISMATCH'. Any other application, the developers will probably just say "we're not implementing that crap"
If it's storage, what happens when we store something in the cloud overseas? Tell them "Hey, you need to use our Australian encryption", then they come back with "we've decided not to continue doing business with your country".
And say it's only for local storage. What will they do, block all information related to encryption so no one can ever learn how to implement it inside Australia? Have a generation of Software Engineers going into the defence industry not knowing the first thing about information security, or better yet, ones that do but they've learnt they have to "bend the rules" to figure things out.
Like with most problems in IT, I think what happend was someone with a humanities degree had a conversation with someone with a STEM degree and assumed they were making things overly complicated to scare them off. There are a number of things you could manadate such as client side md5 hashchecking for known illegal content but good luck trying to explain why you can implement that securely but can't implement a system where a human can verify those files to someone with, charitably, a low end highschool education and an emotional support degree.
The problem is that both faces want authoritarianism. The filthy poors can't be trusted, they need constant surveillance like comrade pooh has brought in. Maybe even a social credit scheme!
Part of the problem comes from the attitudes of middle class progressives to right wing politics.
They think because they don't support it nobody would ever genuinely hold right wing views. They think the poors are being mislead by right wing influencers, and that all they need to do to make the poors think and vote properly is police what people can view online.
These pricks would like to delegitimise anyone who publicly disagrees with them, so that when the average person questions how mainstream politics is working out for them the only voices they hear support it despite the evidence.
I've been winding back my online presence, closing social media and reducing overall surface area - especially with the breaches.
I assume that the government will get upset soon if you're not terminally online enough.
The People's eSafety Commissar is just looking out for us because as she says if you have strong encryption it just invites hackers to take your stuff.
https://reclaimthenet.org/australias-esafety-commissioner-strong-encryption-to-open-doors-for-intruders
Haha most of the people I know who heavily encrypt stuff do it as a bit of a hobby, maybe you could use a quantum computer to decrypt their banking passwords, or maybe you could find someone clueless who will tell them to you if you call and say you are the bank.
This is like trying to cure skin cancer by banning the sun.
'Great idea guys, you should definitely do it!' -Literally every foreign intelligence agency.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the eSafety Commissar was an unelected role and unelected person. Even if the government changes, that role and person will remain, or if the person doesn't remain the role and regulations will.
Do I trust Government with my data. No.
Do I trust Government to stop bad actors accessing my data. No
Before retiring I was a Public Servant. Australian Gov is usually not malicious, but regards security it is remarkably inept.
Takes a while to figure out exactly what this is about as the most important information is only mentioned in passing at the end.
So this is about some current legislation before federal parliament? And part of that was a decryption requirement for companies to insert into end-to-end encryption, a back door for security and surveillance purposes? But that's not part of it anymore?
So essentially it's all sorted?
This just reinforces how much of a complete effin idiot this women is to me. Another incredibly stupid brainfart she's going to have to pull back on when it's revealed as essentially impossible.
No big tech company will go along with it due to the reputational harm that it would bring them internationally, they will just pull up stumps in Australia.
This is a perfect opportunity to remind everyone that Labor are *albsolutely* pathetic when it comes to protecting our rights.
Do not give Labor a pass on this.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/26/mandatory-data-retention-becomes-law-as-coalition-and-labor-combine?CMP=share_btn_link
Labor **always** team up with the Liberals and **always** attack The Greens. What does that tell you for a start?
And before anyone tries to excuse Labor with the pathetic “*didn’t want to be wedged*” argument, I remember watching question time every day when this was going on:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/08/australias-war-on-encryption-the-sweeping-new-powers-rushed-into-law
> **Labor produced its own amendments** to improve judicial oversight and further clarify the definition of “systemic weakness” **but was forced to drop them** to pass the law in the last session of 2018 on Thursday.
What I have bolded is **the only part I flat-out reject**.
Scott Morrison was the one who was going to walk away from the bill before the Christmas break. He loudly and proudly declared that if Labor wanted to add amendments to the bill, the LNP would drop support for the bill.
**THAT** would have been the perfect opportunity for Labor to finally capitalise on “Liberals are weak on law enforcement. They didn’t want to pass the bill.”
So no, Labor were not forced to drop anything, but they did anyway.
My eyes were opened to the fact that even when presented with an opportunity to do the right thing, Labor won’t do it. They will **always** pass legislation that erodes our privacy and rights.
We need to stop voting for both major parties. They are not healthy for our democracy.
Are you retarded?
That is Adam complaining about **Labor wanting to weaken encryption**. Did you not notice the timing of the video coincides with the article I linked to about Labor rolling over on their own amendments?
Just setting herself up for another humiliation. It's fucking hilarious. You can't legislate against maths and it's futile to try.
And at the end of the day, what are they gonna do when people revert to the old ways - openly use unencrypted channels to set up face to face meetings that literally cannot be eavesdropped on?
Nobody that actually knows anything about encryption would ever support such an insane proposal. For those not knowledgeable on the topic, from a safety/security perspective it’s like giving the government the remote ability to disable the brakes on your car whilst you’re driving on the freeway.
Guys, the comment is being taken out of context, it is actually much worse as she is implying people who use e2e encryption are the intruders (criminals).
The eSafety's website for parents has some really weird information.
> Encryption prevents cyber criminals, online service providers and, in some cases, governments and law enforcement from reading sensitive data.
Apparently eSafety thinks governments can read encrypted data. Whether that means they believe in conspiracy theories or they know that government have backdoors or they ideologically belief governments must be able to read it.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/esafety-topics/encrypted
Also look at how hard they tried to sum up the downsides of encryption.
> As encrypted messaging services are harder to regulate, you could be exposed to inappropriate content including sexualised and violent content.
She reminds me of Jen Barber from IT Crowd. Just not funny, but the kind of people who somehow end up in ELT and above, for things & businesses they don’t understand nor have positive interest in 🙄
At what point do they realise this silly official is driving voters to fringe parties?
After her failure to whip Elons X into line she should have gone back to the important part of her job, investigating revenge porn.
Instead she is trying to usher in a new era of government internet control that only the completely ignorant and hardline authoritarians want.
Please observe reddit site rules:
- Don’t Spam
- No personal and/or confidential information
- No threatening, harassing or inciting violence
- No hate based on identity or vulnerability
- No calling out of other subreddits or users
As a reminder, here are the site rules:
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy
I'm torn on this. On one hand, organised crime groups are using these apps to organise murders and extortion. On the other hand, people should be able to communicate without the government monitoring their every conversation. With open source software, there's no way to stop all forms of encrypted communication either.
Considering that most criminals who use these apps are mobile first internet users who wouldn't even know how to even turn on a PC, I think the solution is to backdoor all the commercial apps and make the more sophisticated operators roll their own infrastructure.
Nobody should be trusting their freedom to some rando that promises privacy anyway (see Shadowcrew vpn, Anom, Encrochat etc) and technically skilled people might finally be able to earn a decent wage in this country.
This is a ridiculous take. Cyber crime is on the rise and you want to give people de facto access to your data. Back doors don't just compromise your app/communication, they compromise your entire system.
What data would I be giving these scary cyber criminals access to, exactly? 😂
I would never trust any closed source software that promises privacy and neither should you. Government does what it wants regardless of what I think anyway. Let them get the sense that they're making a difference just like with their pathetic attempt at a web filter. Dumb fucks can't be trusted with anonymity anyway.
Closed source vs open means nothing when the changes means man in the middling is completely easy so you can't trust any data which gets to your computer to be the same as the source of truth.
I run a matrix server at home and when I connect with a new device, I have to confirm the key. How could the government get around that? If they tried to mitm me, the keys wouldn't match and I'd know if someone imaged my server.
Reading it now, that's true. The Act primarily targets entities providing communication services to the public, but it doesn't strictly exclude small-scale private networks.
Still, if the government were able to get a warrant to access my personal server, they would just raid me instead of asking me for access, surely? You can already be jailed for not handing over encryption keys in my state afaik.
EDIT: The Act doesn't make encryption illegal but if contacted, and the request is technically feasible, I could be punished for not complying. It really doesn't seem to affect individuals but the fuckers did write it to be as broad as possible.
The back-door policy would effectively require there to be a master key that would grant access to any device with that master key. The idea that the government could keep such a master key secure is laughable, when they don't even understand that mathematically, the master key doesn't exist (by design).
If something on your device is compromised, then anything used on that device may also be compromised. For example, if there is back-door access to an app which has poor management of device memory (memory leaks), then it may be possible for those leaks to be accessed through the ap-back door. Clipboards are a common example (why you shouldn't copy-paste passwords and client numbers).
Encryption is designed to protect data between two points. If you compromise encryption, you can compromise all three points: the data source, the data in transit, and the data destination.
For example, if you are using an encrypted tunnel (like SSL), and I access that tunnel through a back door, I can now request from either data endpoint any data I want as if I was the other entity. This is common in man-in-the-middle attacks, but would apply to any back-door encryption access.
> On one hand, organised crime groups are using these apps to organise murders and extortion
They'll just keep using other tools outside of government control with just a bit more inconvenience. Encryption protocols like PGP are public domain, you can't put backdoor in them. I can exchange a key on a flash drive with me cooker mate, and we can just send text files encrypted with PGP on a airgapped machine to each other via any open channel. Incovenient? Hella. Unbreakable? Yes it fucking is, because there's just no backdoor you can put in at the point of where the encryption happens, you'd need physical access to the machine.
I agree, open source means that the genie is out of the bottle and unless we get quantum computers, there's no putting it back in. But these people are stupid and they're using phones for all their business. It can't hurt to make things harder for stupid people as they're the most dangerous.
Bad man use phone for bad stuff. Smart man use big box computer for privacy. Bad man too stupid to be like smart man so me no care if government screw bad man.
Hahaha oh man…. Dude I just don’t give a fuck enough to do it, find sources and show you were your thinking isn’t accurate. I just can’t be fucked cos I don’t care. A lot of your original comment was simply inaccurate, sorry. You’re clearly not part of LE or from a world of crime.
So I’m gonna scurry away “like a cockroach” and carry on with my day… doing… cockroach things I guess.
Don’t get so upset at people disagreeing with you on reddit, it really doesn’t matter.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Yeah, I was saying that during covid when anti-mandate protesters were getting bashed and having their rights taken away by a corrupted court system. Nobody cared then.
Have you heard of Tommy Robinson? Do you care about what the UK and Canadian governments have been doing to him? The same thing that was done to Nick Patterson in Melbourne?
Free speech and "rights" are all bullshit. The entire system is corrupt and there are no good guys in the establishment. The only hope of any change is if more common people see the system for what it is.
> Considering that most criminals who use these apps are mobile first internet users who wouldn't even know how to even turn on a PC
That is classic survivorship bias. It is only the unsophisticated criminals who would get caught through such means and backdooring commercial apps won't stop that because sophisticated criminals don't use such apps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Bikies aren't sophisticated criminals though. They're bold and they have numbers, that's it. But bikies are like 95% of the problem I'm worried about. Dum dums with access to hundreds of millions of dollars are dangerous for everyone.
I actually like it when the clever guys get away, for example avunit and guccifer 2.0.
> Bikies aren't sophisticated criminals though
Survivorship bias means the unsophisticated criminals will be weeded out and the next generation will be more sophisticated.
Bikies aren't the only form of organised crime in Australia.
They're the only ones I care about, really. I mean, the middle eastern and Asian gangs, even the south american cartels all work with bikies so it's a nice catch all term. Watch the Grid Sparta YouTube channel to see just how clever these vain show ponys are.
Yes and I know who pushed the VPN on Shadowcrew and who turned the owner of Encrochat. It was the government. It's dumb to trust these apps. That was my point.
A person in a role which shouldn’t exist…earns big money to make stupid decisions and say stupid things. Just make her Governor-General already.
She appears to have no actual understanding of tech, which makes her rather well suited to such a ridiculous role.
She wouldn't be able to do it if she knew the ramifications.
2 years ago I never would have considered OneNation, thought they were a bunch of nutters. But, with the housing and cost of living crisis, their low immigration policies seem appealing, and as far as I know they are the only party currently proposing to abolish the eSafety commission.
I'd settle for any party that actually had a raft of plebiscites on issues that ordinary folks are genuinely interested in. We did gay marriage and the voice. Now lets do population policy and budget issues.
In an ideal world I would want voters to vote on how they want the population to change and then take those votes down to the electorate level and apply population growth targeted to local area based on voter results in each area.
What's to stop people moving after arriving?
As i wrote "In an ideal world", I fully expect this idea to be completely unreasonable. At best you could control housing density and maybe in the country you could expand zoning of where the housing for the town ends on top of that. But yeah probably impossible.
We have regional and job specific visas....so presumably it would be their visa that prevents them from moving after arriving, at least for some period of time.
What does she have to hide? These sort of people who double down in positions of power usually have something to hide.... so what is it?
Esaftey should be managed by someone that has tech experience and understands what they are doing. You know like a normal job.
I'm not convinced it needs to exist at all.
It should exist but it really should be targeting actually important issues like data protection and preventing scams. There are actually big fishes to fry, it just looks like all of them are to hard so they are not touched.
Is the eSafety commission even responsible for those areas? For example, I'm pretty sure data protection is part of the OAIC's remit.
Well I mean kids and the elderly can be vulnerable online and it's good to have someone that can work on way to keep people safe. But removing encryption is just silly.
Are they doing anything meaningful to protect kids and the elderly that isn't reaching into authoritarianism (e.g. censorship)?
Doubtful I was just saying it's good in theory haha
Of course not. Their job is just making sure we never laugh at Albo.
Just like her boss
Underrated comment! Combined arms on the battlefield of political criticism.
Yeah but Julie is hot, im happy to trade my efreedom to feel esafe with that cute babe in charge
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kna3U29gTmE Says it all. e-Safety commissioner trying to make the internet less safe for us. I can see why Twitter fired her.
Twitter made the right decision!
dont forget this muppet [https://youtu.be/TVyH8DLUMSM?si=JNC9i9Zd9B5kWVfS](https://youtu.be/TVyH8DLUMSM?si=JNC9i9Zd9B5kWVfS)
You appear to be confused. In 2018 Adam was addressing the governments proposed back door requirements. Remember Malcolm Turnbull and laws of maths vs rule of law? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
The government fundamentally doesn't understand the technology at play. >Namely, it “improves” on the vague language by stating, “companies will not be required to break encryption and will not be required to undertake measures not technically feasible or reasonably practical,” reports say. If this is the case, then we are already at this status quo. It is not technically feasible or reasonably practical to implement encryption with the kind of backdoors the government wants without making it vulnerable to attack. But I get the feeling that is not what they want to hear. Even if my backdoor is rock solid and *only* accessible to the government's keys, I have *zero* fucking trust that the government can keep hold of it's keys given how much trouble they have protecting against script kiddies. We already have a *huge* brain drain of engineers from Aus to the states or the EU. We can already earn more money overseas. If I wanted to code deliberately vulnerable systems for an overreaching nanny state I'd move to China, at least Id be able to afford a house.
[удалено]
I set mine up at my previous house, which I left in 2017. So it was at least 7 years ago, maybe 8?
Say it's just for individuals. Is this both in transit and storage encryption? If it's in transit, what are they going to do, force us to configure our browsers only to accept compromised ciphers? Then we try to access anything outside of Australia and get 'yeah, I don't know what the hell those ciphers are, ERR\_SSL\_VERSION\_OR\_CIPHER\_MISMATCH'. Any other application, the developers will probably just say "we're not implementing that crap" If it's storage, what happens when we store something in the cloud overseas? Tell them "Hey, you need to use our Australian encryption", then they come back with "we've decided not to continue doing business with your country". And say it's only for local storage. What will they do, block all information related to encryption so no one can ever learn how to implement it inside Australia? Have a generation of Software Engineers going into the defence industry not knowing the first thing about information security, or better yet, ones that do but they've learnt they have to "bend the rules" to figure things out.
Like with most problems in IT, I think what happend was someone with a humanities degree had a conversation with someone with a STEM degree and assumed they were making things overly complicated to scare them off. There are a number of things you could manadate such as client side md5 hashchecking for known illegal content but good luck trying to explain why you can implement that securely but can't implement a system where a human can verify those files to someone with, charitably, a low end highschool education and an emotional support degree.
She's out of control
[удалено]
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech Changing the word doesn't change the insult. Do better next time.
She can decrypt these nuts The government is just scared they can't spy on people
The problem is that both faces want authoritarianism. The filthy poors can't be trusted, they need constant surveillance like comrade pooh has brought in. Maybe even a social credit scheme!
Part of the problem comes from the attitudes of middle class progressives to right wing politics. They think because they don't support it nobody would ever genuinely hold right wing views. They think the poors are being mislead by right wing influencers, and that all they need to do to make the poors think and vote properly is police what people can view online. These pricks would like to delegitimise anyone who publicly disagrees with them, so that when the average person questions how mainstream politics is working out for them the only voices they hear support it despite the evidence.
I've been winding back my online presence, closing social media and reducing overall surface area - especially with the breaches. I assume that the government will get upset soon if you're not terminally online enough.
The People's eSafety Commissar is just looking out for us because as she says if you have strong encryption it just invites hackers to take your stuff. https://reclaimthenet.org/australias-esafety-commissioner-strong-encryption-to-open-doors-for-intruders
"If you make it much harder to steal your stuff, people will feel more inclined to steal your stuff" Lmao what the fuck??
She's implying people who use encryption are the intruders who are going to walk in and cause trouble.
"That person has really strong locks on their doors. I bet they're going to rob people" Insane that this person is being paid out of our tax dollars.
As opposed to building a door in ready for them…
That’s the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard
I wonder if she leaves her front door unlocked at night.
It's locked, but the government are the future doctors and lawyers who do home invasions
Haha most of the people I know who heavily encrypt stuff do it as a bit of a hobby, maybe you could use a quantum computer to decrypt their banking passwords, or maybe you could find someone clueless who will tell them to you if you call and say you are the bank.
Were you this outraged when the LNP passed the anti encryption law. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46463029
This is like trying to cure skin cancer by banning the sun. 'Great idea guys, you should definitely do it!' -Literally every foreign intelligence agency.
It’s banning skin cancer by banning skin!
Don't worry, the way the government is going nobody will be able to afford kids so the problem will be solved.
The keeping kids safe thing was just a back door for this eKaren to start regulating adult behaviour in accordance with her Stalinist belief system
eKaren 😂
>Stalinist belief system doubt it Since she tried to take down that Vid of the stabbing
Stalin and censorship go together like peas and carrots
Oh Sorry Stalinist I thought you were talking religous My bad i was being an Idiot
All good. The way the government is going they’re gonna get tossed out in 12 months
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the eSafety Commissar was an unelected role and unelected person. Even if the government changes, that role and person will remain, or if the person doesn't remain the role and regulations will.
The government created it. The government can take it away just as easily
Lol. Since when does the government willingly take away power or control from government?
Hasn’t happened that I’m aware of, but we can maintain ever diminishing hope that common sense will prevail at some point in the future
But the other mob will be even harder on this subject.
Not if they learn from the incumbants. If they don't, well then we'll just plat swapsies.
Or the new iPhone. We might have to live in caves and actually talk to people. She better watch out, she might be out of a job soon!
Do I trust Government with my data. No. Do I trust Government to stop bad actors accessing my data. No Before retiring I was a Public Servant. Australian Gov is usually not malicious, but regards security it is remarkably inept.
Has Australia EVER had someone competant in a tech political role? Like even for a minute? JFC
Takes a while to figure out exactly what this is about as the most important information is only mentioned in passing at the end. So this is about some current legislation before federal parliament? And part of that was a decryption requirement for companies to insert into end-to-end encryption, a back door for security and surveillance purposes? But that's not part of it anymore? So essentially it's all sorted?
This just reinforces how much of a complete effin idiot this women is to me. Another incredibly stupid brainfart she's going to have to pull back on when it's revealed as essentially impossible.
She is justifying her well paying job.
No big tech company will go along with it due to the reputational harm that it would bring them internationally, they will just pull up stumps in Australia.
They're Just going to leave meaning a worse QOL for the Avrege Aussie
If Stephen Conroy and Ita Buttrose had a child...
This is a perfect opportunity to remind everyone that Labor are *albsolutely* pathetic when it comes to protecting our rights. Do not give Labor a pass on this. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/26/mandatory-data-retention-becomes-law-as-coalition-and-labor-combine?CMP=share_btn_link Labor **always** team up with the Liberals and **always** attack The Greens. What does that tell you for a start? And before anyone tries to excuse Labor with the pathetic “*didn’t want to be wedged*” argument, I remember watching question time every day when this was going on: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/08/australias-war-on-encryption-the-sweeping-new-powers-rushed-into-law > **Labor produced its own amendments** to improve judicial oversight and further clarify the definition of “systemic weakness” **but was forced to drop them** to pass the law in the last session of 2018 on Thursday. What I have bolded is **the only part I flat-out reject**. Scott Morrison was the one who was going to walk away from the bill before the Christmas break. He loudly and proudly declared that if Labor wanted to add amendments to the bill, the LNP would drop support for the bill. **THAT** would have been the perfect opportunity for Labor to finally capitalise on “Liberals are weak on law enforcement. They didn’t want to pass the bill.” So no, Labor were not forced to drop anything, but they did anyway. My eyes were opened to the fact that even when presented with an opportunity to do the right thing, Labor won’t do it. They will **always** pass legislation that erodes our privacy and rights. We need to stop voting for both major parties. They are not healthy for our democracy.
Lmfao keeping the greens in check is absolutely a good thing.
Losing your rights to own the greens! Winning 😎 Edit: Why do these softcocks always block? Pussies need not reply.
Where did I agree to the other shit? Nice logic twerp lol
[удалено]
Are you retarded? That is Adam complaining about **Labor wanting to weaken encryption**. Did you not notice the timing of the video coincides with the article I linked to about Labor rolling over on their own amendments?
This is what happens when emotion and personal opinions drive decision making. This person is unfit for that role.
Yep, this just confirms that the employees of Twitter pre-Elon were nutcases.
Tbh Anyone Involved with Twitter are Nutcases
Just setting herself up for another humiliation. It's fucking hilarious. You can't legislate against maths and it's futile to try. And at the end of the day, what are they gonna do when people revert to the old ways - openly use unencrypted channels to set up face to face meetings that literally cannot be eavesdropped on?
Let her crap on all she wants - it’ll never stop anyone.
Tell us all your plans, so we have lots of time to simply go around them. She's a joke.
Lol, yep
"Will someone think of the children?" if it has a face to it.
Would be interesting to know if more children have been harmed by religious institutions than the internet?
Nobody that actually knows anything about encryption would ever support such an insane proposal. For those not knowledgeable on the topic, from a safety/security perspective it’s like giving the government the remote ability to disable the brakes on your car whilst you’re driving on the freeway.
Guys, the comment is being taken out of context, it is actually much worse as she is implying people who use e2e encryption are the intruders (criminals).
A government that still sees itself running a prison colony
The eSafety's website for parents has some really weird information. > Encryption prevents cyber criminals, online service providers and, in some cases, governments and law enforcement from reading sensitive data. Apparently eSafety thinks governments can read encrypted data. Whether that means they believe in conspiracy theories or they know that government have backdoors or they ideologically belief governments must be able to read it. https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-topics/esafety-topics/encrypted Also look at how hard they tried to sum up the downsides of encryption. > As encrypted messaging services are harder to regulate, you could be exposed to inappropriate content including sexualised and violent content.
She reminds me of Jen Barber from IT Crowd. Just not funny, but the kind of people who somehow end up in ELT and above, for things & businesses they don’t understand nor have positive interest in 🙄
Imbecile
The E safety Karen is a total waste of money and space, sack her and close down the agency
This woman is the emdodiment of that "just listeeeen" tiktok... Cop: "Pull over!" Tiktoker: "i'm not even in a car!" Cop: "just listeeeen!"
Is this bitch retarded? What even goes through her head lol.
Glad to see this topic being brought up more! I’m sure Meta would be taking it down for some misinformation bullshit.
Who is this cunt lol
At what point do they realise this silly official is driving voters to fringe parties? After her failure to whip Elons X into line she should have gone back to the important part of her job, investigating revenge porn. Instead she is trying to usher in a new era of government internet control that only the completely ignorant and hardline authoritarians want.
An older person that knows nothing about encryption or technology to the level required to voice an opinion from such a large pedestal.
As usual useless bureaucrat money being pissed away to these useless loser who are always 10 to 20 years behind the times in tech
Christ, why can't people just admit they're wrong?
I hate this woman, she's the new Ajit Pai.
She clearly doesn't even understand what encryption is.
about 5 years too late - the vpn has already left the stable - currently around 25% of Aussie internet users have a vpn.
Idiot has to be removed she’s a communist
So no more SSL over http?
Can we just send E-Karen back to the US?
[удалено]
Please observe reddit site rules: - Don’t Spam - No personal and/or confidential information - No threatening, harassing or inciting violence - No hate based on identity or vulnerability - No calling out of other subreddits or users As a reminder, here are the site rules: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy
Wonder if her email is online.. might send a dik pic /s
They already have full access.
Bullshit.
I'm torn on this. On one hand, organised crime groups are using these apps to organise murders and extortion. On the other hand, people should be able to communicate without the government monitoring their every conversation. With open source software, there's no way to stop all forms of encrypted communication either. Considering that most criminals who use these apps are mobile first internet users who wouldn't even know how to even turn on a PC, I think the solution is to backdoor all the commercial apps and make the more sophisticated operators roll their own infrastructure. Nobody should be trusting their freedom to some rando that promises privacy anyway (see Shadowcrew vpn, Anom, Encrochat etc) and technically skilled people might finally be able to earn a decent wage in this country.
This is a ridiculous take. Cyber crime is on the rise and you want to give people de facto access to your data. Back doors don't just compromise your app/communication, they compromise your entire system.
What data would I be giving these scary cyber criminals access to, exactly? 😂 I would never trust any closed source software that promises privacy and neither should you. Government does what it wants regardless of what I think anyway. Let them get the sense that they're making a difference just like with their pathetic attempt at a web filter. Dumb fucks can't be trusted with anonymity anyway.
Closed source vs open means nothing when the changes means man in the middling is completely easy so you can't trust any data which gets to your computer to be the same as the source of truth.
I run a matrix server at home and when I connect with a new device, I have to confirm the key. How could the government get around that? If they tried to mitm me, the keys wouldn't match and I'd know if someone imaged my server.
That key is encryption which means your matrix server will be illigal
Everything I've read says it applies to companies that provide a service. Companies like Telegram and Wickr, not individuals.
They actually specify operator/provider of which you are one of you run a matrix server
Reading it now, that's true. The Act primarily targets entities providing communication services to the public, but it doesn't strictly exclude small-scale private networks. Still, if the government were able to get a warrant to access my personal server, they would just raid me instead of asking me for access, surely? You can already be jailed for not handing over encryption keys in my state afaik. EDIT: The Act doesn't make encryption illegal but if contacted, and the request is technically feasible, I could be punished for not complying. It really doesn't seem to affect individuals but the fuckers did write it to be as broad as possible.
The back-door policy would effectively require there to be a master key that would grant access to any device with that master key. The idea that the government could keep such a master key secure is laughable, when they don't even understand that mathematically, the master key doesn't exist (by design).
If something on your device is compromised, then anything used on that device may also be compromised. For example, if there is back-door access to an app which has poor management of device memory (memory leaks), then it may be possible for those leaks to be accessed through the ap-back door. Clipboards are a common example (why you shouldn't copy-paste passwords and client numbers). Encryption is designed to protect data between two points. If you compromise encryption, you can compromise all three points: the data source, the data in transit, and the data destination. For example, if you are using an encrypted tunnel (like SSL), and I access that tunnel through a back door, I can now request from either data endpoint any data I want as if I was the other entity. This is common in man-in-the-middle attacks, but would apply to any back-door encryption access.
> On one hand, organised crime groups are using these apps to organise murders and extortion They'll just keep using other tools outside of government control with just a bit more inconvenience. Encryption protocols like PGP are public domain, you can't put backdoor in them. I can exchange a key on a flash drive with me cooker mate, and we can just send text files encrypted with PGP on a airgapped machine to each other via any open channel. Incovenient? Hella. Unbreakable? Yes it fucking is, because there's just no backdoor you can put in at the point of where the encryption happens, you'd need physical access to the machine.
I agree, open source means that the genie is out of the bottle and unless we get quantum computers, there's no putting it back in. But these people are stupid and they're using phones for all their business. It can't hurt to make things harder for stupid people as they're the most dangerous.
Nothing you said makes any sense
Bad man use phone for bad stuff. Smart man use big box computer for privacy. Bad man too stupid to be like smart man so me no care if government screw bad man.
No I mean you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Can’t be fucked getting into it through. Too tired atm. Later
When will you be re-energised enough to dazzle me your brilliance, oh wise one? I'm looking forward to it. 
lol
I'll be waiting. To be honest, I think that you'll scurry away like a cockroach but who knows, you just might prove me wrong.
Hahaha oh man…. Dude I just don’t give a fuck enough to do it, find sources and show you were your thinking isn’t accurate. I just can’t be fucked cos I don’t care. A lot of your original comment was simply inaccurate, sorry. You’re clearly not part of LE or from a world of crime. So I’m gonna scurry away “like a cockroach” and carry on with my day… doing… cockroach things I guess. Don’t get so upset at people disagreeing with you on reddit, it really doesn’t matter.
So you're not going to tell me how I'm wrong? It's just a vibe that you're unable to put into words? lol 🤡🤡🤡
You literally have no idea about what you're on about. Just stop it.
Don't worry, dude. You'll still be able to access your CSAM via tor.
They're not that smart, they'll use Facebook messenger to arrange crime
Look Organised Crime groups would Just start using Carrier Pidgeons this Hurts the avrege Aussie More then it does the Crims
What are average Aussies doing that needs encyption so badly? Nobody cares about your drug purchases.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Yeah, I was saying that during covid when anti-mandate protesters were getting bashed and having their rights taken away by a corrupted court system. Nobody cared then. Have you heard of Tommy Robinson? Do you care about what the UK and Canadian governments have been doing to him? The same thing that was done to Nick Patterson in Melbourne? Free speech and "rights" are all bullshit. The entire system is corrupt and there are no good guys in the establishment. The only hope of any change is if more common people see the system for what it is.
I can tell you are the type of person who would ban books, because someone threw one at someone once.
> Considering that most criminals who use these apps are mobile first internet users who wouldn't even know how to even turn on a PC That is classic survivorship bias. It is only the unsophisticated criminals who would get caught through such means and backdooring commercial apps won't stop that because sophisticated criminals don't use such apps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Bikies aren't sophisticated criminals though. They're bold and they have numbers, that's it. But bikies are like 95% of the problem I'm worried about. Dum dums with access to hundreds of millions of dollars are dangerous for everyone. I actually like it when the clever guys get away, for example avunit and guccifer 2.0.
> Bikies aren't sophisticated criminals though Survivorship bias means the unsophisticated criminals will be weeded out and the next generation will be more sophisticated. Bikies aren't the only form of organised crime in Australia.
And despite appearances, they're very, very sophisticated in some regards.
They're the only ones I care about, really. I mean, the middle eastern and Asian gangs, even the south american cartels all work with bikies so it's a nice catch all term. Watch the Grid Sparta YouTube channel to see just how clever these vain show ponys are.
I mean you do know who made the anom app right?
Yes and I know who pushed the VPN on Shadowcrew and who turned the owner of Encrochat. It was the government. It's dumb to trust these apps. That was my point.