Apple has
strongly criticized Australia’s anti-encryption bill, calling it “dangerously
ambiguous” and “alarming to every Australian.”
The
Australian government’s draft law — known as the Access and Assistance Bill —
would compel tech companies operating in the country, like Apple, to provide
“assistance” to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in accessing
electronic data. The government claims that encrypted communications are
“increasingly being used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid
detection and disruption,” without citing evidence.
But critics
say that the bill’s “broad authorities that would undermine cybersecurity and
human rights, including the right to privacy” by forcing companies to build
backdoors and hand over user data — even when it’s encrypted.
Now, Apple
is the latest company after Google and Facebook joined civil and digital rights
groups — including Amnesty International — to oppose the bill, amid fears that
the government will rush through the bill before the end of the year.
In a
seven-page letter to the Australian parliament, Apple said that it “would be
wrong to weaken security for millions of law-abiding customers in order to
investigate the very few who pose a threat.”
“We
appreciate the government’s outreach to Apple and other companies during the
drafting of this bill,” the letter read. “While we are pleased that some of the
suggestions incorporated improve the legislation, the unfortunate fact is that
the draft legislation remains dangerously ambiguous with respect to encryption
and security.”
“This is no
time to weaken encryption,” it read. “Rather than serving the interests of
Australian law enforcement, it will just weaken the security and privacy of
regular customers while pushing criminals further off the grid.”
Apple laid
out six focus points — which you can read in full here — each arguing that the
bill would violate international agreements, weaken cybersecurity and harm user
trust by compelling tech companies to build weaknesses or backdoors in its
products. Security experts have for years said that there’s no way to build a
“secure backdoor” that gives law enforcement authorities access to data but
can’t be exploited by hackers.
Although
Australian lawmakers have claimed that the bill’s intentions are not to weaken
encryption or compel backdoors, Apple’s letter said the “the breadth and
vagueness of the bill’s authorities, coupled with ill-defined restrictions”
leaves the bill’s meaning open to interpretation.
“For
instance, the bill could allow the government to order the makers of smart home
speakers to install persistent eavesdropping capabilities into a person’s home,
require a provider to monitor the health data of its customers for indications
of drug use, or require the development of a tool that can unlock a particular
user’s device regardless of whether such tool could be used to unlock every
other user’s device as well,” the letter said.
Apple’s
comments are some of the strongest pro-encryption statements it’s given to
date.
Two years
ago, the FBI sued Apple to force the technology giant to build a tool to bypass
the encryption in an iPhone used by one fo the the San Bernardino shooters, who
killed 14 people in a terrorist attack in December 2015. Apple challenged the
FBI’s demand — and chief executive Tim Cook penned an open letter called the
move a “dangerous precedent.” The FBI later dropped its case after it paid
hackers to access the device’s contents.
Australia’s
anti-encryption bill is the latest in a string of legislative efforts by
governments to seek greater surveillance powers.
The U.K.
passed its Investigatory Powers Act in 2016, and earlier this year the U.S.
reauthorized its foreign surveillance laws with few changes, despite efforts to
close warrantless domestic spying loopholes discovered in the wake of the
Edward Snowden disclosures.
The Five
Eyes group of governments — made up of the U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and
New Zealand — further doubled down on its anti-encryption aggression in recent
remarks, demanding that tech companies provide access or face legislation that
would compel their assistance.
Comments