What Could Australia's New Access Law Mean for Encryption in Other Countries?
A new bill in Australia that would give law enforcement access to encrypted communications passed on Friday. Will other countries pick up the baton?
December 07, 2018 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
Australian Parliament passed a bill on Thursday requiring tech companies to grant access to encrypted messages or data to law enforcement. The move comes shortly after the country's dueling political parties struck up an agreement earlier this week requiring stricter oversight for data requests and subjecting the legislation to a 12-month parliamentary review.
Other last-minute sticking points included defining the term 'systemic weakness,' an action implemented into a form of electronic protection that would render methods of authentication or encryption less effective and cannot be required under the new law. The tweaks appeared specifically designed to nullify the privacy and cybersecurity concerns that have plagued the bill and others like it around the globe, but don't offer up any answers to lingering doubts about the efficacy of such a law when it comes to combating terrorism.
Still, that might not stop other countries from hopping on the bandwagon. Jarno Vanto, a shareholder with Polsinelli, said shortly before the Parliament approved the new legislation, “I think we're going to see renewed attempts in the U.K., also maybe the U.S., for these types of laws.”
Among other things, the law would requires a person with “knowledge of a computer or a computer system” to assist the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to gain access to data on a device subject to a warrant.
Lizzie O'Shea, who sits on the board of Australian advocacy organization Digital Rights Watch, remained critical of the bill earlier this week despite saying that some “extremely dangerous elements” had been addressed.
“Make no mistake—this bill is still deeply flawed, and has the likely impact of weakening Australia's overall cybersecurity, lowering confidence in e-commerce, reducing standards of safety for data storage and reducing civil right protections. In its very design, it is antithetical to human rights and core democratic principles,” O'Shea said in a statement posted to the Digital Rights Watch site.
The criticism doesn't necessarily discount the possibility of a similar law popping up in other countries. Australia is a member of Five Eyes, an intelligence alliance featuring Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States that made waves in August with a communiqué advocating for backdoors to encryption in the name of security.
The tech community has responded less than enthusiastically, citing potential vulnerabilities to cybersecurity. Just because you build a door with the government in mind doesn't mean that a hacker can't come along and kick it down.
There's also no guarantee that risk and reward are a package deal. Vanto raised the possibility that bad actors would simply adapt in the face of increased scrutiny.
“I also think that any of these bad actors, terrorists, are most likely not using smartphones to communicate whatever it is that they're doing. They're using other methods of communication because they're aware of this, the vulnerabilities of these technologies, as well,” Vanto said.
Last week, the Digital Industry Group—an association of tech companies that boasts marquee names like Google, Facebook and Twitter—sent a message to Australian Parliament urging the government to consider exploring alternative solutions.
“A number of governments around the world have rejected such legal and market interventions in favour of a broader policy response which embraces international engagement, technical training for agencies, investment in new investigatory techniques and enhanced company engagement,” read the message.
The tech companies' interest in the problem might not be entirely humanitarian. Vanto questioned whether or not consumers in general would be inclined to use their personal devices less if they knew that Big Brother could be watching.
He doesn't foresee a bill similar to Australia's going the distance in the U.S. any time soon.
“I think right now there's little appetite in the U.S. for this kind of law,” Vanto said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250