On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 06:26:21PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > Which is it… > > It’s being reported on NPR as “Australia required Apple and others to > remove encryption protections from their devices.” > > That’s a massively different (and arguably even worse) outcome than > “Australia is requiring Apple and others to provide decryption technology > to law enforcement.”
Part of the problem is... nobody really knows. There's very little meaningful oversight or judicial review of the whole system, and the law is *very* badly written, vague and without any clear guidance as to what is *actually* required. It doesn't even define things like "systemic weakness", which is the standard by which a required change is judged when determining whether it is within the scope of the law: anything which doesn't introduce a "systemic weakness" is a-OK. I'd say lawyers are going to make a fortune out of arguing this, except as I said, there's very little judicial oversight. Someone who is asked to do something which they think introduces a systemic weakness is basically SOL if the Attorney General and Communications Minister disagree. - Matt
