[ad_1]
Apple has strongly criticized the Australian anti-encryption bill, calling it "dangerously ambiguous" and "alarming for all Australians".
The Australian government bill, known as the Access and Assistance Act, would force technology companies operating in the country, such as Apple, to provide "assistance" to law enforcement agencies and intelligence to access electronic data. The government claims that encrypted communications are "increasingly used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid detection and disruption," without citing evidence.
Critics say the "general powers of the bill that would undermine cybersecurity and human rights, including the right to privacy" by forcing companies to create backdoors and transmit data from user, even encrypted.
Apple is the latest company after Google and Facebook join civil and digital rights groups, including Amnesty International, to oppose the bill, fearing the government will repeal it before the end of the year.
In a seven-page letter to the Australian parliament, Apple said it "would be wrong to weaken the security of millions of law-abiding customers to investigate the few people who pose a threat."
"We appreciate the government's contact with Apple and other companies during the drafting of this bill," reads the letter. "We are pleased that some of the incorporated suggestions are improving the legislation, but the unfortunate fact is that the bill remains dangerously ambiguous with respect to encryption and security."
"This is not the time to weaken encryption," he says. "Rather than serving the interests of Australian law enforcement, this will only weaken the security and confidentiality of regular customers while keeping criminals out of the network."
Apple has outlined six key points – which you can read in full here – each arguing that the bill would violate international agreements, weaken cybersecurity, and undermine user confidence by forcing technology companies to create weaknesses or gates. stolen in their products. Security experts have said for years that there is no way to create a "secure back door" that would give law enforcement access to data but could not be exploited by pirates.
Although Australian lawmakers have claimed that the bill is not intended to weaken encryption or to impose backdoors, Apple's letter states that "the magnitude and vagueness of law, coupled with unclear restrictions, "suggest its interpretation.
"For example, the bill could allow the government to order smart speaker manufacturers to install persistent listening capabilities in an individual, to require a provider to monitor the health data of its customers. customers to detect any signs of drug use, or to develop security solutions. a tool that can unlock the device of a particular user, whether or not it is used to also unlock the device of any other user, "says the letter.
Apple's comments are among the strongest encryption claims ever made.
Two years ago, the FBI sued Apple to force the tech giant to create a tool to bypass the encryption of an iPhone used by one of the shooters in San Bernardino, who killed 14 people at a terrorist attack in December 2015. Apple challenged the FBI's claim – and CEO, Tim Cook, wrote an open letter calling this decision a "dangerous precedent." The FBI subsequently dropped the case after paying hackers to gain access to the device's content.
Australia's anti-encryption bill is the latest in a series of legislative efforts by governments to strengthen surveillance powers.
The United Kingdom enacted its Investigative Powers Act in 2016 and, early this year, reauthorized its foreign supervisory laws with few changes, despite efforts to close loopholes in the United States. National spies without a warrant discovered following the revelations of Edward Snowden.
The Five Eyes government group – made up of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – has doubled its anti-encryption aggression in recent statements, demanding that Technology companies provide access or be subject to legislation that would require them to get their help.
Source link
