nanog mailing list archives
Re: Should ISP block child pornography?
From: bzs () theworld com
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 00:54:36 -0500
My impression is that like the judge in my previous note they did neither, or both, or all of the above. The law apparently just says if LE or a court of competent jurisdiction demands the contents of a device it has to be provided in a readable form and how that's accomplished is not their (the legislature's, LE's, et al's) problem to specify. Provide it or face consequences. So what you list are two possible solutions, remove encryption entirely or add a backdoor, or sniff and save everything submitted to the encryption routine, etc. I suppose the mischievous thought is whenever one receives such a demand send back a cleartext copy of the Australian Constitution, or the lyrics to the Sex Pistols' "God Save The Queen". How can they prove that's not the correct decryption without the encryption key? I suppose they can drag you in to testify under oath. Next Up: Australia's Legislature Outlaws Cancer! On December 8, 2018 at 18:26 owen () delong com (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.” OwenOn Dec 8, 2018, at 14:41 , bzs () theworld com wrote: On December 8, 2018 at 19:41 hank () efes iucc ac il (Hank Nussbacher) wrote:Governments that require ISPs to block "certain" sites have no clue what is required technologically to adhere to their demands.Well that's certainly true. Australia just passed a law mandating decryption be made available to law enforcement simply ignoring the many technical explanations about why we don't know how to do this without compromising security entirely. I've often said if a judge in their court orders you to raise your left foot in the air you would be well-advised to lift that foot. If the judge orders you to also raise your right foot the judge doesn't have a problem, YOU have a problem. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Current thread:
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography?, (continued)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? cosmo (Dec 07)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Aaron1 (Dec 07)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? cosmo (Dec 07)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Hank Nussbacher (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Max Tulyev (Dec 08)
- RE: Should ISP block child pornography? Keith Medcalf (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Max Tulyev (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? J. Hellenthal (Dec 09)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? bzs (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Owen DeLong (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? bzs (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Matt Palmer (Dec 09)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? bzs (Dec 08)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Larry Allen (Dec 11)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Aaron1 (Dec 11)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Max Tulyev (Dec 11)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Aaron1 (Dec 11)
- Re: Should ISP block child pornography? Max Tulyev (Dec 11)