"Encryption has become a hot topic in parliament this week with the federal government's new laws designed to catch criminals who secretly communicate with each other allies last minute deal secured the passage of the new laws, and it's a move that subtracting attention from internet policy. Experts abroad are spoke to one of them to gauge he's views. Daniel Watson is the director of the internet policy research initiative at the message, she sits institute of technology. I think it's right for governments to be tackling the issue of how to do effective investigations in the digital environment. No question that's important to all of us. I think what is risky is. When government puts the interest of investigators over the safety of everyone who uses the internet and mobile phones. So can you elaborate on that what sort of weaknesses ov- owner abilities could come with these? If the strategy in government gets access to encrypted communications the government will now have a thirty two. To require communications companies internet companies software companies to provide assistance to law enforcement in conducting surveillance. I think there's nothing wrong with providing assistance. What I think is concerning is when that assistance becomes a requirement actually redesign the services that everyone in the world uses and to actually diminish the security of the services that we all depend on. Specifically, we've heard from law enforcement that they have difficulty when they encounter in cryptic communications. That is when the communications are the data that we use is scrambled. So that no one, but the intended recipients can access it. This is done obviously to protect users from all kinds of of fraud and abuse from criminal activity. It's designed to make sure the terrorists can't take over systems that we all depend on if. The power that the Australian government is now getting is used to weaken the security of an infrastructure used by everyone. Then I fear. We really will have been a situation where we'll have a disproportionate response to what is a real problem that that the police have, but we don't want to enable police to solve one set of crimes and create the risk of much larger set of crimes in tax. So what could the ramifications be for US-based tech companies then because essentially this is about a government challenging day K selling points, and that's being able to communicate in a secure environment. One of the most important features that computer hardware, companies smartphone hardware companies internet service providers offer is the ability to communicate securely to keep our banking information secure to keep our health records, secure to keep our family information, secure to keep proprietary. Business information secure. And if company that does business globally is all of a sudden told by the Australian government, did it has to weaken at security in order to do business in Australia. Then it may think twice about whether it's really worth being in the Australian market at the price of weakening at security, or frankly, incurring major expenses just to satisfy the regulatory requirements of one country among many and even terms of actually enforcing this. Is it a situation where a perpetrator could simply circumvent these laws bind venting a new form of encrypted communication. So in other words, alternative platform to what sap that Kant be traced. Well, remember this law does not prevent any citizen of stralia or anyone else from using the strongest encryption possible. So the police may demand that apple or Android? Loyd a smartphone provider create back doors for law enforcement to do surveillance. But nothing in this law will stop any either criminal or just security conscious individual from adding applications and services that provide extra security. So we do have to wonder how effective these provisions really will be a determined criminal or a determined terrorist. You certainly going to be able to go out onto the internet today and get for free services that will lead the capabilities that this law is designed to help the police work around. It's really important. I think for countries that respect human rights such as a stray Ilya to think about the kind of example that is being set and the kind of standard that's being established particularly with respect to the behavior of countries like China or Russia or others than human rights violators. If democratic countries decide that it's except. Able to reduce the security provisions that are available to all users can be very hard for us to resist those same kinds of demands from China from Russia, and they're going to be used outside the context of the rule of law in much more aggressive ways, they will will violate individual human rights in a way that I think we'd really be concerned about so we have to think about the global standard that we're setting here as well. And whether we're living up to the the values that we have then you want the director of the internet policy research initiative and to MIT."