MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[deconstruct60]

So let's get to pricing a bit:

actual tMP are at 2,999 and 3,999, while the iMP is at 4,999.

Let's shape off the 900-1,000$ that takes for the screen. I don't think Apple would sell the mMP at less than 3,999 for a 32GB/1TB base model,

Several dubious presumptions here just to start things off. First, the MP 2013 (tMP) pricing is stuck in 2014 era quicksand It is what Apple was charging back then. The "$3999" 8 core is largely anchored off of what 8 cores went for in 2014-5 era ( in addition to standardizing on the D700s in that configuration also). The next Mac Pro is extremely unlikely to pick D700 pricing model for the entry level GPU.

Second, "minus" screen is somewhat dubious premise also. Apple doesn't have to start at 8 cores like the iMac. Pro. There is differentiation that Apple basically have to do with iMacs that is not as high with a Mac Pro ( if they add substantive over dimensions to differentiate on). The iMac should be 6 cores. Puzzler why it isn't already, but probably will in 2019. The point is don't start with the entry iMac Pro configuration and simply remove the screen. Apple can start with a sensible start entry point for the Mac Pro and work from there. In the Xeon W line up 6 ( or even 4 cores. Intel's pricing on the Xeon W probably won't move much. If not at all it wouldn't be surprising to see a 4 core at entry spot.) is better starting place than 8. The RAM probably will start at 4x8GB DIMMs ( 4GB DIMMS don't match up to Intel W very well ). Apple could pull another cheesy move and just put in 3 DIMMs like the original "limbo under $3,000" configuration, but they probably don't have do if drop the 2nd GPU that that was saddled with. Finally on GPU a Polaris option that Apple used in an iMac probably would be the entry candidate ( avoiding the HBM mark up). There are only two Vegas to choose from and they are pretty close. If Apple wanted a 3 GPU line up again they can easily pick a Polaris ( or if wait long enough Navi mid range option. ). In short, stepping down on CPU + GPU will be more than just a screen "cut" to the price.


Third, depending upon what Apple does for secondary storage internally they may forego the entry SSD level of the iMac Pro. At Apple's crazy mark up prices for high capacities starting at 256 or even 512GB would be a substantive price cut. If there is a "cheap" 2.5 SSD bay or second M.2 slot then folks who need bulk capacity at sane $/GB could just get a third party drive . Everything doesn't have to be stored on one , and only one, drive.

 

[fuchsdh]

Several dubious presumptions here just to start things off. First, the MP 2013 (tMP) pricing is stuck in 2014 era quicksand It is what Apple was charging back then. The "$3999" 8 core is largely anchored off of what 8 cores went for in 2014-5 era ( in addition to standardizing on the D700s in that configuration also). The next Mac Pro is extremely unlikely to pick D700 pricing model for the entry level GPU.

Second, "minus" screen is somewhat dubious premise also. Apple doesn't have to start at 8 cores like the iMac. Pro. There is differentiation that Apple basically have to do with iMacs that is not as high with a Mac Pro ( if they add substantive over dimensions to differentiate on). The iMac should be 6 cores. Puzzler why it isn't already, but probably will in 2019. The point is don't start with the entry iMac Pro configuration and simply remove the screen. Apple can start with a sensible start entry point for the Mac Pro and work from there. In the Xeon W line up 6 ( or even 4 cores. Intel's pricing on the Xeon W probably won't move much. If not at all it wouldn't be surprising to see a 4 core at entry spot.) is better starting place than 8. The RAM probably will start at 4x8GB DIMMs ( 4GB DIMMS don't match up to Intel W very well ). Apple could pull another cheesy move and just put in 3 DIMMs like the original "limbo under $3,000" configuration, but they probably don't have do if drop the 2nd GPU that that was saddled with. Finally on GPU a Polaris option that Apple used in an iMac probably would be the entry candidate ( avoiding the HBM mark up). There are only two Vegas to choose from and they are pretty close. If Apple wanted a 3 GPU line up again they can easily pick a Polaris ( or if wait long enough Navi mid range option. ). In short, stepping down on CPU + GPU will be more than just a screen "cut" to the price.


Third, depending upon what Apple does for secondary storage internally they may forego the entry SSD level of the iMac Pro. At Apple's crazy mark up prices for high capacities starting at 256 or even 512GB would be a substantive price cut. If there is a "cheap" 2.5 SSD bay or second M.2 slot then folks who need bulk capacity at sane $/GB could just get a third party drive . Everything doesn't have to be stored on one , and only one, drive.

Personally given that clearly a huge number of people just buy MBP and iMacs and get along fine, and the Mac mini going 4 to 6 cores, if the iMacs go to 6 cores with the next update I can't see them selling a SKU with fewer than 6, and I'd put even money on them just having an 8 core entry.

Ideal situation, in that they produce a minitower that accommodates single and dual socket configs, is we'd get a repeat of the latter Mac Pro era and you have a single highly-configurable model with barebones specs and the only differentiator to start with is if it's single (-W) or dual (-SP Silver or Gold) processors.

But I really don't have a clue beyond that I'd bet on. The iMac Pro and Mac Mini haven't really clarified much to me in regards to what final niches Apple intends to plug, beyond the realistic assumption that it's not going to be dramatically out of step with what the cheese grater was (a configurable mid-range tower that neither was as cheap as the -SP Bronze Xeon entry workstations, nor as high end as the -SP Platinum ranges now.) So if it's closer to a traditional tower, something that competes with the Z6 and part of the Z8's range.

To me, it'd make sense to keep a $2299–$2999 entry price and escalate, especially since a reasonable criticism of the old models was that you were paying for GPUs you didn't necessarily need and if they ship a bare-bones system it gives you much more flexibility in calibrating it for your workloads.

Basically the only things I'm sure of are that it'll have USB-A ports and a headphone jack

 

[deconstruct60]

Personally given that clearly a huge number of people just buy MBP and iMacs and get along fine, and the Mac mini going 4 to 6 cores, if the iMacs go to 6 cores with the next update I can't see them selling a SKU with fewer than 6, and I'd put even money on them just having an 8 core entry.

Most people don't buy a system purely on core count of the CPU. The clock speed of the CPU is a factor. With the Xeon W iteration Intel stopped kneecapping the 4 core offering as much as they had with the E5 16xx series. If it is 4 cores and the base clock is higher than the over the other Mac 4 core offerings the core count there is a gap. The Mac Pro shouldn't depend solely on that ( should be differences in internal storage , user access, flexibility , etc. also).

If Intel drops the Intel Xeon 6 core prices to the old 4 core range ( $450-550) then fine. Right now they don't ( it starts at $600+)

https://ark.intel.com/products/series/125035/Intel-Xeon-W-Processor

The "cheaper" 6 core option isn't particularly more well rounded good... its sole upside if if live vast majority of time in high parallel compute mode.
( W 2125 4x4GHz = 16 coreHz W 2133 6x3.6 =21.6 coreHz (50% more cores for +36% compute) , but if workload is often single threaded then 4.5 vs 3.9 (-13%) ).
There are going to be substantially fewer people who buy the Mini now that it starts at $799 than when it started in the $500 range. Apple isn't going to sell a "huge number" of mini's compared to a decade (or so) ago. That's probably going to drive the number down; not up. Apple is going to tap dance around that by the large markup they have on the SSD and higher average selling price. The Mac Pro numbers were already relatively small. If they drive the number substantially smaller, then the Mac Pro will probably fail long term.

If Apple wants to have a Mac Pro that tops the offerings in Mini and iMac for Single threaded drag racing score then the high clock Xeon W 4 option is cost effective way of getting there. Of the 8th generation offering it is as high clocked as any option that Apple would use. That should still be true when Intel releases the next iteration ( since bumping up the clocks and security features is about all they are going to have to offer as an update).

Ideal situation, in that they produce a minitower that accommodates single and dual socket configs, is we'd get a repeat of the latter Mac Pro era and you have a single highly-configurable model with barebones specs and the only differentiator to start with is if it's single (-W) or dual (-SP Silver or Gold) processors.

The primary differentiation of the Mac Pro from the rest of the Mac line up should not soley core counts. That is just mono-manically way too narrow.

Ideally they don't make the tower so mini that they remove chance to make a differentiation gap between the new Mac Pro and the other Mac offerings. There should be some empty slots , power in the 800-1,000W range , more than one internal storage drive , more than 4 DIMM slots , etc. Apple doesn't particularly need -SP if they put 8 DIMMs in there. They are highly unilkely to go "big" and put more x16 slots in the system than were in previous Mac Pros ( so don't need SP for that). The core count of -W covers a broad range. The size bloat for -SP would put the system well past 'minitower' classification.
They also aren't going to sell "barebones" ( highly stripped down RAM , cheap as possbile HDD, empty CPU sockets . etc. )

beyond the realistic assumption that it's not going to be dramatically out of step with what the cheese grater was (a configurable mid-range tower that neither was as cheap as the -SP Bronze Xeon entry workstations, nor as high end as the -SP Platinum ranges now.) So if it's closer to a traditional tower, something that competes with the Z6 and part of the Z8's range.

The Z6 is not particularly a mini-tower. Apple probably would touch Bronze at all. For workstation (iMac Pro ) they have used a Xeon W so for another workstation they'd likely use W again. "Cheap" Bronzse with an empty CPU socket configs Apple completely avoided in the past. They are unlikely to change course on that avoidance in the next iteration. Expecting them to do so isn't realistic. Apple isn't going to do empty CPU sockets to be cheaper like some HP/Dell configs. They are also unlikley to highly compete with the Z8 on size , slots , or ultra-max core count. ( The mini and iMac are no bigger than there were. Very small chance that the revised Mac Pro is going to get bigger than the 2010 model. ). More likely will be in the bigger than z4 but a bit smaller than the z6.

To me, it'd make sense to keep a $2299–$2999 entry price and escalate, especially since a reasonable criticism of the old models was that you were paying for GPUs you didn't necessarily need [\quote]

Apple is likely to swap the GPU for some other component cost. Base RAM configuration of 4GB DIMMs will bump costs. Base storage of a SSD will bump the cost. If "gotta have" 6 cores will bump the cost. If do all three will probably go past $2999. If want to hit the mid $2K range then definately would have to drop the 6 given the other two are bumped.

and if they ship a bare-bones system it gives you much more flexibility in calibrating it for your workloads.

It won't be so bare-bones that it won't have an SSD, substantive RAM , mid-range GPU. The issue more so is whether there will be ways around the top end BTO options if want to go around those. "Bare Bones" is a connotation that those reasonable entry points are some way outside the norm and barely operable minimum. Apple probably isn't going to sell a mostly empty container (where there are far more empty slots then filled ones).

Basically the only things I'm sure of are that it'll have USB-A ports and a headphone jack

If they engage in doing another "statement" system that's another " 20th anniversary Mac" vanity project and and intent to disappear into the rabbit hole for another 5-8 years then those wouldn't be safe bets either. ( All Type-C because it is the super future and AirPods for everyone. ) . There are several indications that is not what they are doing but it isn't in the impossible stage.

 

[barmann]

Personally given that clearly a huge number of people just buy MBP and iMacs and get along fine, and the Mac mini going 4 to 6 cores, if the iMacs go to 6 cores with the next update I can't see them selling a SKU with fewer than 6, and I'd put even money on them just having an 8 core entry.

I still believe Apple needs to provide a widely accepted workstation model, one that can be used beyond the limitations of their current offerings - whether a significant part of buyers chosse those models or not .

I just don't see how Apple can maintain OSX, and whatever 3rd party software support is left, by selling laptops and all-in-ones to casual users - customers which are easily lost - and those small shop pros who cling to OSX for convenience or fear/cost of change ( like myself ) .

Apple did everything they could to lose anything resembling a core user base, including the new Minis and the recent GPU upgrades for tb MBPs only, not to mention the iMPs - the ball is in their court .

Industry standards or bust, get fancy and it's game over .

Basically the only things I'm sure of are that it'll have USB-A ports and a headphone jack

I think you got carried away there ...

 

[fuchsdh]

There are going to be substantially fewer people who buy the Mini now that it starts at $799 than when it started in the $500 range. Apple isn't going to sell a "huge number" of mini's compared to a decade (or so) ago. That's probably going to drive the number down; not up. Apple is going to tap dance around that by the large markup they have on the SSD and higher average selling price. The Mac Pro numbers were already relatively small. If they drive the number substantially smaller, then the Mac Pro will probably fail long term.

I think they're making up volume with the Mac mini not through the fact that the people who want them are going to spend more anyhow (leaving aside the matter that upgrades should be less costly.) I've specc'd out a Mini and will be comparing it to a Mac Pro when it comes out—because while it has limitations and I'd need to get an eGPU, if the new Mac Pro is up in the iMac Pro level of cost or more limited in customization I'm going to have to decide how much I value ECC RAM and cores versus the bulk of the power I can get for much cheaper (even in the Mac realm.) I've already used my 2011 Mac mini for workloads and been impressed with it for its size, and given the new models are generally a major step up I start running into the same calculus a lot of professionals have—you can get an iMac and do most of the work for a lot less.

Ideally they don't make the tower so mini that they remove chance to make a differentiation gap between the new Mac Pro and the other Mac offerings. There should be some empty slots , power in the 800-1,000W range , more than one internal storage drive , more than 4 DIMM slots , etc. Apple doesn't particularly need -SP if they put 8 DIMMs in there. They are highly unilkely to go "big" and put more x16 slots in the system than were in previous Mac Pros ( so don't need SP for that). The core count of -W covers a broad range. The size bloat for -SP would put the system well past 'minitower' classification.
They also aren't going to sell "barebones" ( highly stripped down RAM , cheap as possbile HDD, empty CPU sockets . etc. )

This is certainly the other half of the equation beyond power, and I'd definitely agree with you it makes sense to produce the Mac Pro in this manner. I'm rather iffy on -SP showing up, because especially given the cost of the higher-clock, higher-core models it starts reaching beyond even Apple's usual pricing envelope, and they've never really be interested in the stuff that now fills the Bronze lineup of 1.x GHz SKUs, but I only mention it just because I know there's still a cost penalty if you want more cores for a 1S setup and that's a component of the people who don't want to consider stuff like the iMac or iMac Pro.

The Z6 is not particularly a mini-tower. Apple probably would touch Bronze at all. For workstation (iMac Pro ) they have used a Xeon W so for another workstation they'd likely use W again. "Cheap" Bronzse with an empty CPU socket configs Apple completely avoided in the past. They are unlikely to change course on that avoidance in the next iteration. Expecting them to do so isn't realistic. Apple isn't going to do empty CPU sockets to be cheaper like some HP/Dell configs. They are also unlikley to highly compete with the Z8 on size , slots , or ultra-max core count. ( The mini and iMac are no bigger than there were. Very small chance that the revised Mac Pro is going to get bigger than the 2010 model. ). More likely will be in the bigger than z4 but a bit smaller than the z6.

My use of "minitower" was mostly in relation to the previous Mac Pro. Best case scenario that Apple returns to something akin to a tower design or at least an equivalent with some PCIe slots, I see no possible way it's going to be as large as the cheesegrater Mac Pro, or for that matter any of Apple's previous pro machines absent the tube Mac Pro. Either way something <18in high would tentatively qualify it; given that it's a near-total certainty it's a) not going to have 5.25" bays, and b) not going to have 4 3.5" bays, there's certainly room for a 5,1-like machine in a smaller envelope without sacrifices except to the "fill all bays with hard drives" crowd.

And I agree, they aren't likely to offer Bronzes nor Platinums even if they went the -SP route. They probably aren't interested in a $1799 Mac Pro, nor are they particularly interested in competing with the high end Golds and beyond, because Apple was never interested in that market in the Intel era.

And yeah by bare bones I mostly mean basic specs (16GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD, if a PCIe card something like a 580) rather than selling 0CPU or no-RAM options. Another thing Apple hasn't really done in the modern era and is unlikely to do.

I think you got carried away there ...

If the lowly mini and the iMac Pro have both, it's here to stay for the foreseeable future. I'd be happy if every significant revision they just slowly migrated the -A ports to -C instead of killing them off entirely.

 

[Plutonius]

Anyone else think that Apple will try to add a T2 chip to the Mac Pro redesign like they did in all their recent releases ?

I'm hoping not.

 

[Polymorphic]

Anyone else think that Apple will try to add a T2 chip to the Mac Pro redesign like they did in all their recent releases ?

I'm hoping not.

Absolutely.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Absolutely.

maybe an better one with more pci-e lanes to host more then 1 disk.

 

[barmann]

Anyone else think that Apple will try to add a T2 chip to the Mac Pro redesign like they did in all their recent releases ?

I'm hoping not.

Very likely .
It's their new thing, and they stick with stuff like that like Communist Russia stuck with a 5 year plan .
Apple has become a ship that takes ages to turn, and little evidence suggests they even have plans to man the helm .

 

[ManuelGomes]

T2 (or T3 by then) will surely be there, have no doubts.
No going back now.

Still, I believe an 8 core -W will be the min config, along with 32GB RAM and a 512GB SSD. I'd expect no less by the end of 2019, probably when it's released. Will it be expensive? Hell yeah, but a nice entry level machine. Also, doubt they'll do Polaris, Vega 56 as min I guess, undervolted since performance hit will be minimum and power draw much lower. Going 7nm will help.

I'm quite curious about the new TBD. They might have released it already, for any of the new Mac Mini or rMBPs.

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyone else think that Apple will try to add a T2 chip to the Mac Pro redesign like they did in all their recent releases ?

I'm hoping not.

A better question is:

• Will Apple require booting from a T2 (or Tn) emulated SSD, or will the system have additional (4 would be a good number) M.2 slots that allow booting from an industry standard NVMe SSD?

Whether or not there's a T2 (or Tn) chip isn't important, but being able to stick in a $500 2TB 970 Evo (or the 4TB and 8TB ones in the pipeline) instead of paying the Apple tax would be a benefit. It would also be nice if the T2 flash daughtercards were optional - you could boot solely from an industry standard SSD.

And before anyone does the tired "not enough PCIe lanes" whine, a simple x8 -> 4*x4 switch (or even an x4 -> 4*x4) PCIe switch would work - with the obvious caveat that bandwidth would be shared if more than two (or one) SSD were to be simultaneously active.

But, since AAPL's lost another $11B in market cap since Friday it's probably unrealistic to expect a system that's more flexible and more affordable.

 

[Manzanito]

A better question is:

• Will Apple require booting from a T2 (or Tn) emulated SSD, or will the system have additional (4 would be a good number) M.2 slots that allow booting from an industry standard NVMe SSD?

Whether or not there's a T2 (or Tn) chip isn't important, but being able to stick in a $500 2TB 970 Evo (or the 4TB and 8TB ones in the pipeline) instead of paying the Apple tax would be a benefit. It would also be nice if the T2 flash daughtercards were optional - you could boot solely from an industry standard SSD.

And before anyone does the tired "not enough PCIe lanes" whine, a simple x8 -> 4*x4 switch (or even an x4 -> 4*x4) PCIe switch would work - with the obvious caveat that bandwidth would be shared if more than two (or one) SSD were to be simultaneously active.

But, since AAPL's lost another $11B in market cap since Friday it's probably unrealistic to expect a system that's more flexible and more affordable.

Why is that so? Maybe loosing market value will make them understand they can’t keep screwing their customers forever.

I mean, their only answer can’t always be “make it thinner, harder to repair, remove ports, increase price by 20%”. Sooner or later they’ll have to wake up.

 

[AidenShaw]

Why is that so? Maybe loosing market value will make them understand they can’t keep screwing their customers forever.

I mean, their only answer can’t always be “make it thinner, harder to repair, remove ports, increase price by 20%”. Sooner or later they’ll have to wake up.

For Apple's sake, I hope that you are right.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

A better question is:

• Will Apple require booting from a T2 (or Tn) emulated SSD, or will the system have additional (4 would be a good number) M.2 slots that allow booting from an industry standard NVMe SSD?

Whether or not there's a T2 (or Tn) chip isn't important, but being able to stick in a $500 2TB 970 Evo (or the 4TB and 8TB ones in the pipeline) instead of paying the Apple tax would be a benefit. It would also be nice if the T2 flash daughtercards were optional - you could boot solely from an industry standard SSD.

And before anyone does the tired "not enough PCIe lanes" whine, a simple x8 -> 4*x4 switch (or even an x4 -> 4*x4) PCIe switch would work - with the obvious caveat that bandwidth would be shared if more than two (or one) SSD were to be simultaneously active.

But, since AAPL's lost another $11B in market cap since Friday it's probably unrealistic to expect a system that's more flexible and more affordable.

Needs to be cpu pci-e and not stacked off the pch pci-e

 

[AidenShaw]

you could boot solely from an industry standard SSD

Edit: You can boot Apple OSX, Windows or Linux solely from an industry standard SSD.

BootCamp has proven to be a disaster - don't require software from Apple in order to boot Windows or Linux.

 

[Plutonius]

Whether or not there's a T2 (or Tn) chip isn't important

This group probably wouldn't agree with you .

 

[AidenShaw]

This group probably wouldn't agree with you .

Yikes! I had no idea that the T2 was a dumpster fire as serious as the ATI GPU problems on the MP6,1.

So yes, if the T2 implementation on the MP7,1 is a buggy as the current one - it would matter.

 

[mattspace]

Let me play devil's advocate for the T(x) chip for one moment... The primary purpose of the T(x) is systemic integrity protection - "is this what it claims to be", be it a person logging in, or a piece of hardware added to the system (or assumedly a piece of software) etc.

From a known clean source, a cryptographic signature is generated, and anything that deviates from that clean source results in a different signature, and fails certification. Potentially bad for DIY repairs, good for preventing someone from sneaking backdoored hardware or software into your system (entering people's homes to do that is not uncommon in police investigations).

So for context, this legislation set to pass in Australia will allow authorities to compel hardware, software and communications companies to either break their own encryption, or serve up compromised versions of their products to the targets of an investigation (and its jurisdiction would cover any company that does business in Australia, regardless of where they are based). It can be used against anyone suspected of a crime attracting a maximum sentence of 3 years or more (which is pretty much anything). Then have a read of the case of Witness K for why this is problematic. Other members of the Five Eyes group (US, Canada, Britain, New Zealand iirc) are salivating at this law, and if implemented here, it is almost certain that it will be exported with "regulation harmonising" treaties.

Apple's business model, leaning more heavily than ever on "we don't know, we don't want to know, and we don't want to be able to know" is clearly threatened by laws of this type. It's one thing to capitulate to China, but another altogether when the scope of the law might include Apple executives in their own homes.

Secure, or non-functional, for everyone, or noone - thats the direction we're heading in, as far as I can see, and Apple's gambit - betting that legislators will blink rather than have all encryption and security go away for everyone*.

*Because no criminal would ever pay a programmer to create their own software (including device operating systems) in disregard of the laws, and side-load it onto custom devices.

 

[H2SO4]

Let me play devil's advocate for the T(x) chip for one moment... The primary purpose of the T(x) is systemic integrity protection - "is this what it claims to be", be it a person logging in, or a piece of hardware added to the system (or assumedly a piece of software) etc.

From a known clean source, a cryptographic signature is generated, and anything that deviates from that clean source results in a different signature, and fails certification. Potentially bad for DIY repairs, good for preventing someone from sneaking backdoored hardware or software into your system (entering people's homes to do that is not uncommon in police investigations).

So for context, this legislation set to pass in Australia will allow authorities to compel hardware, software and communications companies to either break their own encryption, or serve up compromised versions of their products to the targets of an investigation (and its jurisdiction would cover any company that does business in Australia, regardless of where they are based). It can be used against anyone suspected of a crime attracting a maximum sentence of 3 years or more (which is pretty much anything). Then have a read of the case of Witness K for why this is problematic. Other members of the Five Eyes group (US, Canada, Britain, New Zealand iirc) are salivating at this law, and if implemented here, it is almost certain that it will be exported with "regulation harmonising" treaties.

Apple's business model, leaning more heavily than ever on "we don't know, we don't want to know, and we don't want to be able to know" is clearly threatened by laws of this type. It's one thing to capitulate to China, but another altogether when the scope of the law might include Apple executives in their own homes.

Secure, or non-functional, for everyone, or noone - thats the direction we're heading in, as far as I can see, and Apple's gambit - betting that legislators will blink rather than have all encryption and security go away for everyone*.

*Because no criminal would ever pay a programmer to create their own software (including device operating systems) in disregard of the laws, and side-load it onto custom devices.

I think Australia have made a mistake. The worst thing about this mistake is that now that the door has been opened I fear other countries will follow. It will have big implications on the ongoing implementation of Tx chips.

 

[mattspace]

I think Australia have made a mistake. The worst thing about this mistake is that now that the door has been opened I fear other countries will follow. It will have big implications on the ongoing implementation of Tx chips.

Plenty of people here contemplating what will happen to their careers, now that they could be jailed for significant periods of time, for refusing to install backdoors in their employer's systems, that they're not allowed to tell their employers they were compelled to install.

 

[H2SO4]

Plenty of people here contemplating what will happen to their careers, now that they could be jailed for significant periods of time, for refusing to install backdoors in their employer's systems, that they're not allowed to tell their employers they were compelled to install.

It's not their system surely so they are not permitted to install backdoors in something that isn't theirs?

 

[mattspace]

It's not their system surely so they are not permitted to install backdoors in something that isn't theirs?

the legislation pretty much enables the federal police to install anything they want anywhere, including requiring employees to act in an enabling role against their employers, and to compel, for example Apple, to serve up a compromised version of an app (or operating system) to a particular person, if the in-transit encryption can't be broken.

So lets say you're a public servant, suspected of leaking a document about how badly a government department is failing in its mission - a document the government is supposed to disclose, but is using cabinet-in-confidence, commercial-in-confidence, or ministerial discretion to sit upon, and not release. Lets say you were suspected of leaking said document to a journalist via whatsapp, and therefore the actual transit of the document is encrypted and can't be read. The legislation would allow the police to compel whatsapp to provide them with a compromised version of their app, that has back doors for the police, compel Apple to host it, and to push it as an update to the people suspected of being involved. The legislation would even allow for all this to be done, without the management of whatsapp or Apple ever being made aware of what is happening, by allowing the police to go directly to programmers within the various companies, with "do it or go to jail, tell anyone and go to jail", or they can go to the companies with "x million dollars a day fine if you don't do this".

 

[H2SO4]

the legislation pretty much enables the federal police to install anything they want anywhere, including requiring employees to act in an enabling role against their employers, and to compel, for example Apple, to serve up a compromised version of an app (or operating system) to a particular person, if the in-transit encryption can't be broken.

So lets say you're a public servant, suspected of leaking a document about how badly a government department is failing in its mission - a document the government is supposed to disclose, but is using cabinet-in-confidence, commercial-in-confidence, or ministerial discretion to sit upon, and not release. Lets say you were suspected of leaking said document to a journalist via whatsapp, and therefore the actual transit of the document is encrypted and can't be read. The legislation would allow the police to compel whatsapp to provide them with a compromised version of their app, that has back doors for the police, compel Apple to host it, and to push it as an update to the people suspected of being involved. The legislation would even allow for all this to be done, without the management of whatsapp or Apple ever being made aware of what is happening, by allowing the police to go directly to programmers within the various companies, with "do it or go to jail, tell anyone and go to jail", or they can go to the companies with "x million dollars a day fine if you don't do this".

That’s pretty significant and in practice I don’t believe will last. I think the public will force a more watered down version to be ratified.

 

[mattspace]

That’s pretty significant and in practice I don’t believe will last. I think the public will force a more watered down version to be ratified.

The public has little say in how politics works in Australia, when the government and the opposition are in lockstep on an issue, as they are on this. There's no bill of rights, and our constitution is primarily focussed on federal / state rights.

 

[H2SO4]

The public has little say in how politics works in Australia, when the government and the opposition are in lockstep on an issue, as they are on this. There's no bill of rights, and our constitution is primarily focussed on federal / state rights.

Wow. I still can’t see a bill like that surviving in a western society such as Australia appears to be. It sounds like a form of communism?