Apple says 'dangerous' Australian encryption laws put 'everyone at risk'
"It would be wrong to weaken security for millions of law-abiding customers in order to investigate the very few who pose a threat," the tech giant said.
Claire ReillyFormer Principal Video Producer
Claire Reilly was a video host, journalist and producer covering all things space, futurism, science and culture. Whether she's covering breaking news, explaining complex science topics or exploring the weirder sides of tech culture, Claire gets to the heart of why technology matters to everyone. She's been a regular commentator on broadcast news, and in her spare time, she's a cabaret enthusiast, Simpsons aficionado and closet country music lover. She originally hails from Sydney but now calls San Francisco home.
ExpertiseSpace, Futurism, Science and Sci-Tech, Robotics, Tech CultureCredentials
Webby Award Winner (Best Video Host, 2021), Webby Nominee (Podcasts, 2021), Gold Telly (Documentary Series, 2021), Silver Telly (Video Writing, 2021), W3 Award (Best Host, 2020), Australian IT Journalism Awards (Best Journalist, Best News Journalist 2017)
has come out with one of its strongest defences of
yet, saying it is the "single best tool we have to protect data and ultimately lives."
The tech giant has made a submission to the Australian government in response to proposed encryption laws in the country that it says are "dangerously ambiguous" and have the potential to compromise security, safety and
for millions of people -- not just in Australia, but around the world.
The Australian parliament is currently considering new encryption laws that would require tech giants such as Apple, Facebook, WhatsApp and more to provide access to encrypted communications to law enforcement for policing crime.
The so-called "Assistance and Access Bill" sets out three levels of assistance that companies can be called on to provide to police and national security agencies. These range from "voluntary assistance" all the way up to a notice issued by the attorney general requiring tech companies to "build a new capability" in hardware or software to allow access to encrypted communications.
Australia's conservative federal government has insisted that the laws would not require tech companies to build so-called "back doors" into encrypted communications.
But Apple has slammed the bill, saying it is too broad, that the wording is "dangerously ambiguous," and that it would create "unprecedented" powers for law enforcement without appropriate judicial oversight, including the ability to intercept encrypted communications and "eavesdrop" on people in real time.
Apple also says the proposed Australian laws could force the company to break the laws of other jurisdictions such as the US and Europe, and compromise the privacy of users around the world.
"Some suggest that… access to encrypted data could be created just for only those sworn to uphold the public good," Apple wrote in its submission. "That is a false premise. Encryption is simply math. Any process that weakens the mathematical models that protect user data for anyone will by extension weaken the protections for everyone.
"It would be wrong to weaken security for millions of law-abiding customers in order to investigate the very few who pose a threat."
Apple joined the chorus of other security and privacy experts calling the bill "vague," saying that it fails on basic terms to outline how law enforcement would access encrypted data and under what circumstances.
As a result, the company says key elements of the law rely on the government's "subjective" understanding of "technical complexities." In short, that the government could force a tech company to break encryption, even if security experts, academics and the companies themselves believe that is "dangerous and irresponsible."
Perhaps most alarming is Apple's contention that the laws would create "unprecedented" power for Australia's top spy agency ASIO to order tech companies to build capabilities into their systems to intercept encrypted communications -- changes that would "allow the government to eavesdrop on their customers."
Watch this: Apple vs. the FBI: An easy explanation