Return to

Five Eyes backdoor in Encryption


Another two articles that backup the notion that five eyes nations are pushing to break encryption some how.



EndGame: “It is hereby an offence to use any cryptographic method not listed in Schedule 3 to encrypt communications. Maximum penalty: 25 years imprisonment.”

Schedule 3, of course, lists a handful of methods, all of which have government backdoors.

I do not believe this problem has a technological solution. Eventually a white-list approach will be legislated and then it’s game over for privacy.

The only solution in such a scenario is the abandonment of widespread and public encryption methods. If you and Party B want to communicate privately, you will have to come up with your own, custom way to do so, and not make the method public.

That is, of course, the way the real “bad guys” already operate… and have operated for centuries… They do not place their trust in systems they do not control or understand. They couldn’t care less about government installing backdoors in widespread/public encryption methods because they don’t use such methods so the laws won’t affect them.



If they gain ground with this, we in the tech industry need to make absolutely sure that there are no devices that are shall we say, exempt? Unaffected?

For instance, the devices used by the… people… who want this put into place?

1 Like


Clearly we need to ban open source and EMP it for orbit. It the only way to be sure a terrorist does not have strong encryption code.

If Intels disaster of a CPU it not enough to make shit being secure is important. It is of concern.

I’d like a back door into everyone bank, government, military and wives undies. But thats why back doors no longer work. We made encryption and built it well.

As the Western world we will have to devolve to china and control or stay free and encrypted. I can see the West wanting to claw into peoples everything.



Because your post was talking about putting back-doors into encryption algorithms despite the fact that the publication from the Australian government never says this, and in-fact suggests potentially the opposite, yet no one mentioned that at all. In fact with it being the whole reasons this topic exists, it seems no one has read it either.

Do how do 9 people have something to say on this when only a couple of them actually clicked the link? Are they jumping to conclusions based on past media and/or media bias on this new information?

What do you think is the reasons for the contradiction in information from the most recent publication compared to the previous publication?

It wouldn’t. The new publication suggests they are aware that it wouldn’t work as well.

Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare.

Encryption is vital to the digital economy and a secure cyberspace, and to the protection of personal, commercial and government information.

Along with the last statement there’s no suggestion that they would want to implement something like this. right at the start they say they know encryption is needed to keep peoples information secure, suggests that they know everyone needs to be able to use encryption.

You can see why I picked at your statement? Your statement changed drastically as soon as it was challenged and you provide no information or evidence to back up your claims.

Everyone here seems to be going for what-ifs, conspiratorial scenarios (regardless if true or not), and quoting the register for some reason. Has anyone actually read the publication and thought about talking about what they’ve actually said?

1 Like


Not only did my position not change at all, but I even provided elaboration, clarification and examples. I find it quite disturbing that you would be so intellectually dishonest to assert such a thing. Not a good example for a moderator to be making. Maybe you should lock this thread because you are insulting other members of the community and are turning the thread toxic?

Aren’t the conspiracy nuts the ones that are convinced they are right in thinking something, when everyone else thinks the opposite? :thinking: Sounds a lot like what you are saying. Hmmm…


Look, I appreciate that some members of the community are happy to blindly believe whatever their governments tell them. That’s your prerogative. That doesn’t mean you need to be condescending and hostile towards people who hold a different view.

1 Like


Trouble is open source crosses the world and nations.

If you dont ban that then encryption is a known tech ?

It that simple.



Where am I intellectually dishonest?

Your statement changed. :man_shrugging:

You started saying it was about terrorism, specifically that this has nothing whatsoever to do with “fighting terrorism” (the publication never once says “fighting terrorism”)

You then said

The different labels are used simply to appeal to/target different segments of the population.

but that’s not what you said initially. You just took my reply tacked it on as if that was good enough, but anyone can do that. That does mean what you said changed.

I said what you said changed and you never provided evidence. Maybe it was blunt? But I don’t see how it was condescending or hostile? (I’ve no intention of begin hostile towards anyone)

Have you read the article? My replies about the topic have been based off the information given from the Australian publication, of which no one seams to have read?

What do you think i’m saying that i’m right in thinking something?

What have I actually said in this topic? I’ve questioned where people have got information as it hasn’t come from the publication and as source wasn’t provided; I’ve questioned some things people have said because it contradicts what the publication said; and I’ve posed some questions based on these.

My thoughts so far is that many people are basing their thoughts on information from a year or more ago but aren’t looking at the new information and talking about the differences, similarities, what that might mean, and why there are differences in stance from what was said a year or more ago to what seems to be suggested now.

The only thing i’m trying to do is challenge people to read the article and consider what it says.

Have you read it? As still, no one seems to have any opinion on what was actually said.

There’s a lot of information in that new publication waiting to be taken apart line by line, but it seems to me like no one is that bothered by what it says. Strange considering people seem to care a lot about the topic in general.



For the moment there doesn’t seem to be any suggestion that they want to ban encryption. As mentioned earlier they do state the importance of encryption for the protection of personal, commercial and government information.

Is it a possibility? Yes. Since they are sovereign nations, the meeting isnt about making them all implement one method, a nation could in theory believe that banning types of encryption is the way to go. But the article seems to suggest that that likely isnt on the table.



But that flies in the face of strong encryption. Its either hot air and hand waving or action to break computers.

1 Like


I’m not sure i get what you mean? If you mean its one or the other, either they limit or break encryption or do nothing. You can get access to un-encrypted data without breaking strong encryption.



I’m not currently in a state to be able to debate you but I noticed you didn’t read the two articles I posted earlier on Australia. Inside it mentioned rather than creating a back door, they want to force organisations to send encrypted data to some entity along side the pair to pair encrypted data. While I would argue that’s worse, what is your opinion on this?

While you have voiced a lot on definitive facts on what is in the articles, you haven’t really discussed the articles much at all so what I’m asking is, what is your actual opinion on the content on the articles? Considering it does effect privacy and security on a case by case bases



Well Normies dont know what is so is fair game as always. Limit encryption is either outlaw it or break it. And people that use open source are then criminal scum or security minded.



Yes, the old men ruling the world keep trying to legislate against mathematics. Obviously they will fail. Just more stupidity.



Just a side note to provide the thought process of the recently ex prime minister of Australia

Another side note is to think of the context of apple devices and the US government suing apple about the encrypted phones.



My people are morons. And criminals

1 Like


As a kiwi, I will support that statement /s

1 Like


I assume this is the article;

There is a second page as well;

I don’t know enough to engage in this discussion other than “feelings”.

Governments are made of individuals. In every group there are bad actors, including government. My feeling is that these proposed laws are well meaning but are ripe for misuse. I distrust and dislike authority of any kind as I’ve run into the bad apples personally. There are laws that shouldn’t be in existence but are there to benefit the rich or corporations. An example is marijuana laws. From my reading the original reason for laws against weed had to do with the cost of newsprint. Hemp was cheaper than an existing material [sorry, my memory of details escapes me at the moment]. Thus the laws helped a rich individual curtail competition. In the same way these laws can be used by unscrupulous individuals. I wouldn’t want my government having the ability to have a backdoor into anyones data. This is along the lines of " I would rather have 1,000 criminals go free than have one innocent be incarcerated/executed".



The software is done. Now it ban it or you can use it.Or what’s your password or go to jail.



It depends. Worse then breaking or banning encryption?

I’ve read most of them, I might have missed one, this is the one i read that talked about other methods than breaking encryption. But not specifically sending data side by side, which is that one?

The article above for example talks about alternative methods

Australia plans to gain access to the communication between certain suspects and intercept the messages as they are sent, basically reading the texts as soon as the recipient does.

Is this worse? Id probably say no.

The effect of forcefully weakening encryption is already known. The US considered anything above 40-bit encryption a munition until 1996 and there were export laws restricting the use of anything stronger1

There is no reason that laws shouldn’t exist which enable the government to protect the country, new legislation comes into existence because old legislation doesn’t apply to new inventions as they can be specific in nature.

I see no reasons anyone should have issue with that, unless your an anarchist.
(the implementation of a piece of legislation in general, not necessarily an obviously bad piece of legislation. keeping in mind context. I know that’s statement is ripe for strawman arguments :smile: )

The major issue I think is around proportionality, warranty requirements, and oversight. With newer technologies giving greater access to larger amounts of information, you need to ensure the correct frameworks are in place for new legislation so that they can be executed appropriately.

This is the key issue i think. Not that there shouldn’t be legislation in this area, but that the level of oversight must be high. After all we’re not talking about a new thing, just a new medium. Legislation exists to do similar things for all other types of investigatory requirements.

The new publication seems to also agree with your here.

We have to keep in mind as well that it is just a statement of principles outlining high level observations and agreed principles for the topic they are attempting to solve.

The question I guess is where does anyone want to start? Is there a section of the statement that you disagree with?

I get the impression that this is the concern for a lot of people, not necessarily the need for legislation but the potential for misuse.