Aussie Attorney General's War On Encrypted Web Services 151
Bismillah writes "If Attorney-General Brandis gets his way in the process of revising Australia's Telecommunications Interception Act, users and providers of VPNs and other encrypted services will by law be required to decrypt government intercepted data. Because, 'sophisticated criminals and terrorists.' New Zealand already has a similar law, the Telecommunications Interception and Computer Security Act. Apparently, large Internet service providers such as Microsoft and Facebook won't be exempt from the TICSA and must facilitate interception of traffic."
Perfect Forward Secrecy (Score:5, Informative)
So they would ban the use of Perfect Forward Secrecy. Using PFS it is impossible to decrypt the intercepted content even with the Certificate's private key.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Informative)
People in power trying to stay in power ?
Almost, but this guy doesn't have the brains to think that far.
George Brandis is s sneering scumbag and lying rodent who wants to be Dick Cheney when he grows up, but lacks the compassion, gun skills and wit.
He used taxpayer money to go to a friend's wedding, but has accepted the task of writing a ministerial code of conduct. He's also told the Australian arts community that they don't have the right to refuse funding from corporate sponsors whose ethical values conflict with those of the artists, and plans to punish them if they don't comply.
Re:Gravity (Score:5, Informative)
Thankfully the Attorney General only has the power to enforce laws, not to write laws (that's the job of the elected senators and ministers).
Yes. How fortunate that Senator George Brandis isn't you know, a member of the Senate.
But seriously, of all the inner circle of petrified, ideological nincompoops in the new government this guy is up with the best of them. He has no idea about law, how law should be made or enforced, the intent of law and the notion of correct legal practice and judicial ruling. Just the person you want, you know, for the attorney general.
He was an Q & A the other night, arguing for the removal of the racial villification clauses form the Racial Discrimination acts. Why? Because one of his cronies had been found guilty under this section. He said it out loud. Other more apparently learned members of the panel schooled him on the notion of "the rule of law".
No, George. It's not the role of the law to protect your racist buddies when they make false claims against named persons and then publish them, explcitly alleging that their alleged behaviour is typical of their race (or worse, racial mixture)