I don't know that it's that simple. Further down that section (1920) in reference [1] reads

"(3) A dedicated encrypted criminal communication device does not include-- (a) a device if-- (i) the device has been designed, modified or equipped with software or security features, and (ii) a reasonable person would consider the software or security features have been applied for a primary purpose other than facilitating communication between persons involved in criminal activity to defeat law enforcement detection,"

It's not automatic: depending on what a reasonable person thinks and the definition of criminal activity.

> applied for a primary purpose other than facilitating communication between persons involved in criminal activity to defeat law enforcement detection

Does the jurisdiction matter? For example, if an activist was using a device to do things in another country that would be legal in Australia but were crimes in the other country.

I doubt a judge would interpret the law that way.

I mean, in my country, it's increasingly unclear to me whether things like "loudly criticizing the executive branch" are now considered criminal. Recent executive branch statements on this issue seem to indicate that they may consider some critics criminal just for being critics. But it's hard to be sure. And so far, every critic they've threatened to arrest has also been accused of committing other crimes.

So "the government only considers a duress PIN illegal if it is used to facilitate crime" seems like a potentially tricky standard to apply.

I love how this statement could apply to so many different countries right now!

> depending on what a reasonable person thinks

But this is just legal fiction, so not a barrier to "automatic"

At the pace of regulations we have, one day everything will be forbidden and we will all be criminals just for protecting our own wealth or security from these... yes, from these mafias.

And we will all rationalise it and believe it's normal and has always been like that.

Sad but true for so many people.

I could use a knife to chop meat, not people; I could use a car to commute, not as a high speed bullet; I could use a gun to eliminate pests, not to kill people. Just because I can use something to do something nefarious doesn't mean it should be banned, of we should not use Internet at all because it facilitates scammers.

It is always the human mind that dictates the action, not the tool. It is futile to try and ban the tool, and I bet 100% they knew that.

This is uncanny and worryingly specific, and I'm not a lawyer, but if you're not already under suspicion of being a criminal, then installing graphene doesn't match this definition I think

"This regulation will only apply to people who are already criminals" is a line that has never held

Suspect, they wrote, and that happens all the time. If you go into a store on the way home from work, and 99 days this works fine but the 100th day they want to look in your bag, but you can't show them confidential drawings of the Google Pixel 14 Max that you carry as part of your work, now they'll think you really did steal something and you went from no suspicion (spot check) to definitely a suspect and new things start to apply to you, e.g. if you leave without resolving the suspicion the police might have grounds to enter your house or search you when you walk out next time. The suspicion is based on being a suspect, not on any actual evidence (nobody saw you put anything in your bag)

I mean, you don't really have to speculate about what this is for, it's for an authority providing for lawful search, it seems pretty well-scoped, and similar to any old search warrant, which is not a new thing, really https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/deccd...

Basically, they're not really setting up for a blanket ban on personal security features, that interpretation is obviously catastrophizing. Not that there aren't hamfisted laws somewhere like this, but NSWs implementation seems OK I guess

We have mass surveillance already in all 5 eyes countries that assumes that anyone can be a criminal at all times.

And the problems of government regulation are why we need empowerment through good open technology, not the protection of the other side of the over-concentrated power see-saw.