Should ISP block child pornography?

Sun Dec 9 08:32:31 UTC 2018

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