[ad_1]
Apple said: "We encourage the government to maintain its stated intention not to weaken encryption or force suppliers to incorporate systemic weaknesses into their products." Apple explained its grievances with the bill in six points:
- Overly broad powers that could weaken cybersecurity and encryption
- A lack of appropriate independent judicial review
- Technical requirements based solely on the subjective opinion of the government as to reasonableness and practicability
- Unprecedented interception conditions
- Needlessly smothering secret mandates
- Extraterritoriality and global impact
Apple's walls against backdoors (which allow law enforcement to access devices) are not a new development, but their continued fight against backdoors deserves to be highlighted. In 2016, Apple fought back when the FBI attempted to compel Apple to unlock the iPhone's shooter San Bernardino. Along with privacy concerns, Apple says the flip side of such a backdoor access is potentially the opportunity to give the keys to hacking at the castle. Apple said, "There is a significant risk of making the jobs of criminals easier, not harder." Increasingly, not weaker, encryption is the best way to protect against these threats.
However, Apple commended the Australian government for its willingness to work with the company and others, while warning that the bill is still unfit: "We appreciate the government's action towards Apple and others are pleased that some of the incorporated suggestions are improving the legislation, but unfortunately the bill remains dangerously ambiguous with regard to encryption and security. "
The Australian Parliament accepts submissions for consideration of the bill until October 12. TechCrunch downloaded the complete statement from Apple, which you can read here.
Source link
