LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Complete CCNA, CCNP & Red Hat Certification Training Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-16-2018, 04:40 PM   #1
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,085

Rep: Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854
Exclamation Australians who won’t unlock their phones could face 10 years in jail


"The Australian government wants to force companies to help it get at suspected criminals’ data. If they can’t, it would jail people for up to a decade if they refuse to unlock their phones....

The government’s explanatory note says that the Bill could force a manufacturer to hand over detailed specs of a device, install government software on it, help agencies develop their own “systems and capabilities”, and notify agencies of major changes to their systems. In short, it would force communications providers to work extensively with the government to gain access to a target’s data where it was in their power to do so, and it would also compel them to keep all of this secret.

What if the communications provider doesn’t want to help? Then they could face penalties from the government, or “injunctions or enforceable undertakings”...."

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/201...years-in-jail/
 
Old 08-16-2018, 06:58 PM   #2
fido_dogstoyevsky
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Victoria, Australia
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 260
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 228Reputation: 228Reputation: 228
Political opinion which may offend follows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
...The government’s explanatory note says that the Bill could force a manufacturer to hand over detailed specs of a device...
Not trying to defend the government, but most governments around the world regard acting on warrants as justifiable.

However, that sort of crap legislation is only to be expected from incompetent* right wing nutjob** governments (don't be fooled by the "Liberal" label, they're the conservatives). Although handing over the detailed specs may or may not be a bad thing.

And it may or may not be passed - the current government isn't having too easy a time in the senate at the moment.

*Not just the current government, incompetence seems to be ubiquitous in Australian politics.

**My opinion after seeing them in action over the decades.
 
Old 08-17-2018, 02:46 AM   #3
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,200
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522
post #1 indicates that communications providers can be forced to hand over user data, and be punished if they don't - not individuals.
or did i get that wrong?

anyhow, while this is definitely newsworthy, the "could" indicates that this hasn't happened, and isn't a done deal either.

Last edited by ondoho; 08-17-2018 at 02:59 AM. Reason: highlighting
 
Old 08-17-2018, 02:54 AM   #4
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,112

Rep: Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
post #1 indicates that communications providers can be forced to hand over user data, and be punished if they don't - not individuals.
or did i get that wrong?
...
No, it's a new law coming in here.
 
Old 08-17-2018, 03:01 AM   #5
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,200
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
No, it's a new law coming in here.
this reply is ambiguous.
i tried to highlight the relevant bit in my previous post.

when you say "here", do you mean australia? or earth? or a figment of my imagination???
 
Old 08-17-2018, 03:10 AM   #6
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,112

Rep: Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
this reply is ambiguous.
i tried to highlight the relevant bit in my previous post.

when you say "here", do you mean australia? or earth? or a figment of my imagination???
Sorry, I did not notice that you had highlighted that part of your post. Yes you are correct both for "not individuals" (providers/companies get into trouble with the law if they don't hand over information) and no, you did *not* get it "wrong".

"here" means I live Australia myself, so yes, I mean Australia.

I didn't deliberately try to mislead you. I was simply trying to say you are right in your thinking - I'll shut up next time.

Last edited by jsbjsb001; 08-17-2018 at 03:25 AM. Reason: made this reply less ambiguous, to try and avoid further conflict - if that's allowed...
 
Old 08-17-2018, 03:53 AM   #7
fatmac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Posts: 2,691

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Security services need all the help they can get to catch terrorists before they can strike - it could be seen as a breach of human rights, but I'd sooner they (Government security agents) did that, than get caught up in a bombing.
 
Old 08-17-2018, 03:48 PM   #8
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,085

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin, 1755.
 
Old 08-17-2018, 06:26 PM   #9
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,125

Rep: Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709Reputation: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin, 1755.
Totally irrelevant. If a court issues a search warrant, would the householder be defending "essential liberty" if he barricaded the door? If they say, "I'll let you in but I won't unlock my safe", would that be justified? In 1755, they had neither organised crime nor terrorists. But they still had the power to search: see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which allows searches of "effects" (which surely includes computers) with a warrant issued for probably cause.

I don't know why you call yourself ChuangTzu: you sound more like Ayn Rand!
 
Old 08-17-2018, 07:08 PM   #10
fido_dogstoyevsky
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Victoria, Australia
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 260
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 228Reputation: 228Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
...If a court issues a search warrant, would the householder be defending "essential liberty" if he barricaded the door?...
The court issuing the warrant is the essential bit - it must never be streamlined out of the process "because we're in a hurry right now".

People have a right to private conversations, like they have a right to quiet enjoyment of their home. If there is a sufficiently credible reason for the court to properly issue the warrant then it is society's right for that warrant to be issued and acted on. The people whose conversation or home are investigated have to accept it as the price of living in the society.

But the warrant has to be properly issued, which includes a sworn statement by the requesting officer (making lying to get a warrant perjury). Society also has a right to be confident that any warrant is justified and not misused for one (or more) police officer's malice.

Edit: grammar correction.

Last edited by fido_dogstoyevsky; 08-18-2018 at 07:47 AM.
 
Old 08-17-2018, 07:17 PM   #11
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,085

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Totally irrelevant. If a court issues a search warrant, would the householder be defending "essential liberty" if he barricaded the door? If they say, "I'll let you in but I won't unlock my safe", would that be justified? In 1755, they had neither organised crime nor terrorists. But they still had the power to search: see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which allows searches of "effects" (which surely includes computers) with a warrant issued for probably cause.

I don't know why you call yourself ChuangTzu: you sound more like Ayn Rand!
Wisdom and truth are timeless.

Tyranny looks the same no matter what age you live in, tools/toys may be different, but the fundamentals/tactics/techniques are the same. Hitler and the Nazis had detailed information on every citizen in Germany including where you went grocery shopping, who you lived with, where you worked, who you spoke to, who sent you mail, how much money you had in the bank, Who your friends were etc..., stored on index cards, and other devices created by IBM. The only difference is today, that information can be gathered more quickly and people are more willing to volunteer this information.

They (Nazis) also had courts that issued warrants for raiding homes, arresting Gypsies, Jewish people, political opposition etc...And all was in the name of security, peace, improving the State.

Regarding ChuangTzu, its time for you to review his books again. He was very wary of the Government and institutions of power. Ayn Rand, merely stole many of her concepts from him and others.

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/3
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...black-ibm.html

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 08-17-2018 at 07:29 PM.
 
Old 08-17-2018, 07:22 PM   #12
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,085

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854Reputation: 854
Its also important to remember that "smart phones" were designed as spy devices from the beginning (camera/microphone), GPS etc... The apps were merely the hook so we would overlook privacy for convenience.
https://www.networkworld.com/article...t-founder.html
 
Old 08-17-2018, 09:39 PM   #13
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 14,274
Blog Entries: 24

Rep: Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Its also important to remember that "smart phones" were designed as spy devices from the beginning (camera/microphone), GPS etc.
I think it's perhaps a bit shaky to say that they were designed "from the beginning" as spy devices, but they have certainly become such. Now, when it comes to Facebook, I think the "from the beginning" might be quite appropriate.

Last edited by frankbell; 08-17-2018 at 09:49 PM. Reason: word choice
 
Old 08-18-2018, 06:55 AM   #14
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,200
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
In 1755, they had neither organised crime nor terrorists.
false.
both are as old as society itself.

also please keep in mind that the new law is would be against providers, not individuals, as jsbjsb001 assures me.
i'm not saying that makes it ok, but the comparison with a search warrant against an individual does not work so well.
 
Old 08-18-2018, 08:00 AM   #15
fido_dogstoyevsky
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Victoria, Australia
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 260
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 228Reputation: 228Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
...also please keep in mind that the new law is would be against providers, not individuals, as jsbjsb001 assures me.
i'm not saying that makes it ok, but the comparison with a search warrant against an individual does not work so well.
The proposed legislation may well be rejected by the senate (although both major parties are in favour of this sort of oversite). My concerns are that if it is passed, then firstly mission creep will extend it to cover individuals and secondly the requirement for a warrant will be removed ("because we're dealing with terrorists/paedophiles/people who don't like my football team").
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: OnePlus 5T Keeps the Headphone Jack, Introduces Face Unlock and Parallel Apps LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-16-2017 02:12 PM
Registered 5 years ago. First post to unlock account to vote for LQ podcast award amp3030 LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 3 01-31-2017 07:20 AM
LXer: British LulzSec hackers hear jail doors slam shut for years LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-18-2013 02:33 AM
Fedora 18 won't unlock Blinker_Fluid Fedora 5 02-25-2013 11:52 PM
Screen Savor won't unlock mijohnst Linux - Enterprise 0 07-24-2008 03:38 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration