Researchers crack Oz Govt medical data in 'easy' attack with PCs Australian researchers have laid waste to the Federal Government's plan to criminalise the decryption of anonymised state data sets, just a day after it was announced, by 'easily' cracking government-held medical data. Federal attorney-general George Brandis yesterday announced that it would accept recommendations from the …
Hell, I always thought that the DMCA was merely step 0.1 to outlawing security research in the US. Wassenaar arrangement simply confirms that and I'll belive that's dead when they put a stake through its heart. Such research is an economic and political threat (to power) and obviously must be tightly controlled, in their view.
Proper, effective security, anonymisation and encryption is hard and expensive .
Making it a criminal offense to point out how shit a government's data protection measures are, is cheap and easy.
This seems all about doing a crap job, saving a few bucks, and preventing embarrassment by force.
It will only impact legitimate research and lead to ever-weakening security. It will have zero impact on criminal activities. Criminals don't give two shits about breaking laws, because duh... criminals.
There is a basic mis-understanding of law as it applies to society in terms of behaviour, which is ironically applied by both politicians and certain newspapers, and subsequently inherited by some of the population.
There is behvioural change, which by its very nature still requires the person whose behaviour you trying to change to conform to the society they are currently in. You you introduce a law that states 'You must wear a seatbelt' then over time, and penalties, you end up cultivating this change in behaviour.
This does NOT stop the ability to not wear a seatbelt when driving.
So, as it applies to criminal behaviour, making things 'against the law' does not stop people who don't comform to some, or all, of your societarial rules and regulations.
So by banning research into online security in a specific country has effectively ruled out legal research. So those that conform to the laws you want, can't perform services that by their very nature you WANT people who conform to your laws to do.
So this is basically having a car, and leaving it unlocked, with the key in. If I did that, and the car was stolen, the local plod would look at me in disbelief and ultimately blame me, not the actual thieving idiot who took it.
So don't be surprised, politicians, if your management of the country is called into question when you make idiotic rules so you can make your official manifesto look good and create twitter fodder.
'Kin Idiots.
"So this is basically having a car, and leaving it unlocked, with the key in.'
In Australia (NSW) you don't even need to leave the key in! Leaving a car unlocked and unattended is already a crime in NSW and Victoria. There have been reports of police ticketing commuters at some station car parks because they don't want their windows broken so leave the car unlocked.
The mandarins just don't get it that those who are intent on doing naughty things will continue to do so irrespective of the presence of a law.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/has-the-world-gone-mad-man-fined-in-nsw-for-leaving-his-car-unlocked-20151128-glaenr.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east/possible-144-fine-for-leaving-car-unlocked-at-westfield-knox/news-story/9f98b8b7f4e5ea4b96b65cda12f1c3f4
I'm sure every time Brandis opens his mouth on technology or privacy he destroys more of my brain cells than a swift smack in the head with a hammer would do, I think its a conspiracy to beat us into some form of mental submission by idiocy or maybe his advisors are as stupid as I think they are, is Brandis someones sockpuppet pretending to be a real person?
The is a misrepresentation evident in the originally published article and the consequential commentary on the proposed amendment to the Australian Privacy Act. In fact the need for robust and independent assessment of the strength and effectiveness of the encryptions used has been anticipated and is supported by an exemption proposed in this amendment to the Privacy Act.
This is to support 3rd Parties (eg Security Specialists and Researchers) when interogating and testing the potential inadequacies or vulnerabilities of the encrytion and de-identification algorithms used in preparing and posting 'Open Data'.
I view the amendment that Brandis is proposing as the typical response of a second-rate government lawyer when confronted with evidence of government incompetence: make it illegal to expose government exposing incompetence. Job done, amirite?
This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about Brandis 'QC' - a third-rate Brisbane barrister whose conniving to get 'silk' says more about him than pretty much anything else he has done.
And like all halfwits, Brandis thought that he could extend his control-freakery by fiat, enabling him to keep eyes on all requests for advice from the Soli-General: he took on someone several orders of magnitude smarter than him, and several more orders of magnitude more respected than he is... and he will pay for it with his political life. (Not for nothin', but Gleeson is also better-liked in the legal fraternity than Brandis, but that's a very low bar since Brandis is about as likable as haemorrhagic fever).
My point being: when the ALA calls for your scalp, you're finished as a participant in the legal community, irrespective of what political office you hold. That means that Malcolm "Parachuted Preselection" Turnbull is biding his time before sacking Brandis - literally everyone (including Brandis) knows he's toast.
And given that Brandis is a Dead AG Walking, nobody will support his proposed amendments in committee, so they won't get through.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
