Apparently, this was overseen by the Department of Home Affairs. The recently appointed PM of Australia (Scott Morrison) used to be the Minister for Home Affairs. His new appointment to the role (Peter Dutton) was one of the primary instigators in the recent power exchange (he actually wanted the top job for himself, but lost the party vote).
Considering the history of both of these men, I predict a grim history for Australia's privacy related laws. They're both staunchly pro-surveillance, anti-immigration (to the point of racism) and, I suspect, highly corrupt. I know that last statement is accusative, but Peter Dutton is currently embroiled in a situation where he released a French au pair and her partner from immigration detention because (allegedly) her prospective employer's second cousin lobbied the government to do so, and that family has donated large amounts of funds to the party. Meanwhile, others are held in sub-human conditions purely for trying to arrive in Australia as refugees, by boat. This situation is unfolding right now, but I doubt there will be any fallout.
Australia's current leadership was not voted in by the population of the country (as seems to be the trend for the last few years, no matter who you voted for), and seems to be set on an anti-privacy, liberty-destroying, nationalist agenda.
As an Australian, I'm incredibly embarrassed by all involved.
Small correction: Morrison was not Minister for Home Affairs, he was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Dutton was appointed Minister for Home Affairs upon establishment of DHA at the end of 2017. Before the establishment of DHA, which merged Immigration with other "national security" matters, responsibility for general law enforcement matters, including the telecommunications interception laws, the metadata retention scheme, and so on, lay with the Attorney-General's Department, not the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
DHA is a portfolio that's more or less specifically designed to deliver policy like this and frame everything in terms of "national security". Even the DHA staff I personally know aren't fans of how the structure of the national security bureaucracy has changed over the last year.
My bigger problem here is lack of pushback from the Opposition. The "bipartisan consensus" on national security matters need not mean uncritical acceptance of badly-designed laws and inhumane policies.
The one positive is that the leadership mess has made it all but impossible for them to win the next election. Unfortunately a lot of damage can be done in that time but it should be less than a year away. The sooner the better...
I plan to write to a bunch of Labor MPs/Senators about this, hopefully they can be nudged towards sanity (as Stephen Conroy eventually was on his terrible idea of the internet filter years ago).
Even if this is only used to detect after-the-fact that an attack has happened, that will still help us to assess the scale of the risks that software users face, and maybe allow citizens to hold governments accountable for how they use the dangerous powers they are seeking.
Well that's dark. Unfortunately, I suspect Canada is not far from proposing a similar bill. Currently the federal liberals are working on an Anti-Foreign Interference bill that plans on clamping down on free speech in social media in a very serious way. Scary times, authoritarianism sneaks in.
Free speech in Australia is weak. The constitution is excited about voting as protected speech. But not for private individuals. It takes acts of state governments to provide the necessary framework.
If only there was some theory of government that limited the government's power.
Something that specifically granted powers to the government, and no other powers, so we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff in the future when an ill-informed majority wants to make decisions for the rest of us.
That’s an excellent point. I may not renew with them, and it has nothing to do with FastMail themselves.
Australia seems like precisely the right-sized society to be affected by pushback against this sort of behavior without being large enough to overwhelm outside opposition.
1. This feels like the beginnings of the inevitable and on-going battles for power between technology-based multinationals and governments as foretold in various dystopian sci-fi novels.
2. Whilst all the issues in the article are cause for concern, what are the practical, technical and legal limitations to these requests? As I stated in a comment to a previous article, warrants are required for pursuing end-users (don't know about companies), so that means it's not a willy-nilly application of new powers.
It wouldn't be practical to pursue trivial crimes through forcing a company to release an intentionally insecure app update that targets one person.
Having said that, however, the Australian Government has authorised warrants to raid the homes of whistleblowers and their lawyers (see below), so I'm probably underestimating the pettiness of the powerful.
3. Further articles illustrating Australia's recent and worrying lurch towards authoritarianism and nationalism:
First they helped to liberate East Timor and I said "good onya, mate", then they tried to screw billions of dollars from East Timor by illegally planting listening devices in the offices of the East Timorese government and I said "whoa, hang on a sec, that's Unaustralian! That's not why we helped them achieve independence in the first place is it? You sly c*nts!", then they came for my private messages...
Always find it amazing how strong the urge to authoritarianism is in Australia. You'd think we'd all be larrikins and chilled out on the beach inviting newcomers to the barbie.
But no, we're apparently terrified of immigrants and love nothing more than the smack of firm leadership.
I've been hearing more and more recently from ex-journos etc. on Twitter and other platforms suggesting that there is a huge echo chamber in Canberra between the press gallery and the politicians, and in general they regard the population to be a lot more right-wing and a lot more biased towards authoritarianism than they actually are... I think everything from this massive overreach of surveillance, to the same-sex marriage stuff, to the recent leadership spill (and the resulting dive in polls) seems to indicate this might be the case.
We really need to get more people sending letters or contacting their MPs to give them more data points of how normal people actually feel about these issues! I fear political apathy is a bit of a self-fulfilling cycle - the more people think talking to their MPs won't change anything (and don't bother), the less their views will be represented.
I suppose it's not that you can't disagree it's just that apathy means many won't and walk heard first into a Soviet/east german stasi society. This is even the stuff of fiction we have recent history to look upon. But it's all for the greater good, right? Born of compassion and a desire to protect surely?
The P is capitalised. What more security do you need?
These are the same people that want all Australians to move their health records online and made it manual opt-out. Amongst every other system uses old methods. The tax system doesn’t use 2FA.
At least the credit cards use a chip and PIN... oh wait, now on contactless payment.
[+] [-] Intermernet|7 years ago|reply
Considering the history of both of these men, I predict a grim history for Australia's privacy related laws. They're both staunchly pro-surveillance, anti-immigration (to the point of racism) and, I suspect, highly corrupt. I know that last statement is accusative, but Peter Dutton is currently embroiled in a situation where he released a French au pair and her partner from immigration detention because (allegedly) her prospective employer's second cousin lobbied the government to do so, and that family has donated large amounts of funds to the party. Meanwhile, others are held in sub-human conditions purely for trying to arrive in Australia as refugees, by boat. This situation is unfolding right now, but I doubt there will be any fallout.
Australia's current leadership was not voted in by the population of the country (as seems to be the trend for the last few years, no matter who you voted for), and seems to be set on an anti-privacy, liberty-destroying, nationalist agenda.
As an Australian, I'm incredibly embarrassed by all involved.
[+] [-] ajdlinux|7 years ago|reply
DHA is a portfolio that's more or less specifically designed to deliver policy like this and frame everything in terms of "national security". Even the DHA staff I personally know aren't fans of how the structure of the national security bureaucracy has changed over the last year.
My bigger problem here is lack of pushback from the Opposition. The "bipartisan consensus" on national security matters need not mean uncritical acceptance of badly-designed laws and inhumane policies.
[+] [-] stephen_g|7 years ago|reply
I plan to write to a bunch of Labor MPs/Senators about this, hopefully they can be nudged towards sanity (as Stephen Conroy eventually was on his terrible idea of the internet filter years ago).
[+] [-] dane-pgp|7 years ago|reply
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency
Even if this is only used to detect after-the-fact that an attack has happened, that will still help us to assess the scale of the risks that software users face, and maybe allow citizens to hold governments accountable for how they use the dangerous powers they are seeking.
[+] [-] aldoushuxley001|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emptybits|7 years ago|reply
Is there a good critical analysis (WRT free speech) of this bill you can recommend?
Text of bill is here: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-76/first-re...
[+] [-] adiusmus|7 years ago|reply
For those playing along for the thrill of reading long text: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-a...
[+] [-] linuxftw|7 years ago|reply
Something that specifically granted powers to the government, and no other powers, so we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff in the future when an ill-informed majority wants to make decisions for the rest of us.
[+] [-] lozenge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cascom|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arubis|7 years ago|reply
Australia seems like precisely the right-sized society to be affected by pushback against this sort of behavior without being large enough to overwhelm outside opposition.
[+] [-] BLKNSLVR|7 years ago|reply
2. Whilst all the issues in the article are cause for concern, what are the practical, technical and legal limitations to these requests? As I stated in a comment to a previous article, warrants are required for pursuing end-users (don't know about companies), so that means it's not a willy-nilly application of new powers.
It wouldn't be practical to pursue trivial crimes through forcing a company to release an intentionally insecure app update that targets one person.
Having said that, however, the Australian Government has authorised warrants to raid the homes of whistleblowers and their lawyers (see below), so I'm probably underestimating the pettiness of the powerful.
3. Further articles illustrating Australia's recent and worrying lurch towards authoritarianism and nationalism:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard-...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-29/chelsea-manning-austra...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-23/huawei-banned-from-pro...
First they helped to liberate East Timor and I said "good onya, mate", then they tried to screw billions of dollars from East Timor by illegally planting listening devices in the offices of the East Timorese government and I said "whoa, hang on a sec, that's Unaustralian! That's not why we helped them achieve independence in the first place is it? You sly c*nts!", then they came for my private messages...
[+] [-] marcus_holmes|7 years ago|reply
But no, we're apparently terrified of immigrants and love nothing more than the smack of firm leadership.
[+] [-] taneq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|7 years ago|reply
Mind you they were helped by England passing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 to cut down on libel tourism. But it still isn't a crown that you particularly want to have.
[+] [-] dfsegoat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephen_g|7 years ago|reply
We really need to get more people sending letters or contacting their MPs to give them more data points of how normal people actually feel about these issues! I fear political apathy is a bit of a self-fulfilling cycle - the more people think talking to their MPs won't change anything (and don't bother), the less their views will be represented.
[+] [-] amckinlay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osmanthus|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elitistphoenix|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Guthur|7 years ago|reply
I suppose it's not that you can't disagree it's just that apathy means many won't and walk heard first into a Soviet/east german stasi society. This is even the stuff of fiction we have recent history to look upon. But it's all for the greater good, right? Born of compassion and a desire to protect surely?
[+] [-] dbg31415|7 years ago|reply
* 1,464 Western Australian government officials used ‘Password123’ as their password. Cool, cool. - The Washington Post || https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/22/western...
[+] [-] adiusmus|7 years ago|reply
These are the same people that want all Australians to move their health records online and made it manual opt-out. Amongst every other system uses old methods. The tax system doesn’t use 2FA.
At least the credit cards use a chip and PIN... oh wait, now on contactless payment.
[+] [-] OnlyRepliesToBS|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tobyhinloopen|7 years ago|reply