"The privacy of a terrorist can never be more important than public safety. Never."
Is it a question of privacy or cost? The means exist to decrypt, its just more expensive. On 13 June 2017 at 00:16, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote: > Brandis: "Trust me, we only want the envelope, not the content." > > <David Speers interviews him to see what that actually means, everybody > laughs> > > Brandis: "Actually, we want the content too." > > <silence> > > > - mark > > > On 06/13/2017 04:16 PM, James Andrewartha wrote: > >> https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-06-13/national-security-statement >> >> Also includes the usual BS about breaking encryption in the name of >> national security, aka the war on maths. >> >> "However encrypted messaging applications are also used by criminals and >> terrorists - at the moment much of this traffic is difficult for our >> security agencies to decrypt, and indeed for our Five Eyes partners as >> well. >> >> Most of the major platforms of this kind are based in the United States >> where a strong libertarian tradition resists Government access to private >> communications as the FBI found when Apple would not help unlock the >> iPhone of the dead San Bernardino terrorist. >> >> The privacy of a terrorist can never be more important than public safety. >> Never." >> >> > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
