If I understand this volte-face correctly, the guy that wanted encryption banned is also saying that end-to-end encryption mitigates the risk of interception by bad actors?…
[…] The former Australian Prime Minister also addressed the ban on Huawei he introduced, and echoed thoughts he expressed in March last year, that a threat is the combination of capability and intent, and while capability takes years to create, intent can change instantly.
“It’s not a question of saying, Huawei is doing bad things at the moment? The real question is, not looking for a smoking gun, but asking whether this is a loaded gun, and whether you want to have that risk,” Turnbull told the BBC.
Turnbull added it was a question of whether a nation wanted to give China the ability to interfere with “one of the most fundamental technological platform forms of your modern economy” in the form of 5G and the Internet of Things.
At this point of proceedings, irony was frolicking around a London common, doing what it does and spreading good cheer. But the former Australian PM stayed between the lines.
The ambulance would soon be called however, when Turnbull revealed some reasoning behind the ban, and how it wasn’t because of fears Huawei could tap into networks.
“The issue is actually not so much a question of interception,” he said. “Because increasingly end-to-end encryption means that data that can be intercepted can’t be read.”
Defibrillators were at this point being called for a fallen literary device. No surprise really, the human brain is barely able to handle the concept that the person responsible for sending Australia down the path of being a global encryption pariah is now saying that very same technology the Five Eyes want to get into — the technology Turnbull’s Home Affairs minister said is used by pedophiles, and hence, a bad technology — is able to protect those nations from Beijing’s prying eyes, and would hence be a good technology.