But submissions to a senate review of the plan have seen some of the nation's largest telcos warn even though they support the aims of the legislation, there's still work to be done on the detail. Technology giant Apple issued a strident warning that rather than protecting Australians against serious crime, allowing authorities to access encrypted platforms could cause security concerns. "It will just weaken the security and privacy of regular customers while pushing criminals further off the grid," the tech giant said. Browser software provider Mozilla went further, warning the Australian government's plan "could do significant harm to the internet" globally. Mozilla pointed to the "intentionally vague" explanation of exactly what service providers could be requested to do under the new laws.

"If these provisions are enacted into law, they will not only pose problems in themselves, but will also set a concerning precedent for other countries who may demand similar exceptional access powers and assistance from companies, including those in Australia," the company said. Calls for consultation In its submission, Telstra warned that asking a service provider to access encrypted information could have far-reaching consequences. Because of the secretive nature of the legislation, a provider could be required to make a "modification to a piece of network equipment or operating software without the knowledge or awareness of other service providers”. The anti-encryption bill could result in telcos making system changes that could affect third party businesses and customers, warns Telstra. Credit:Glenn Hunt

Asking a service provider to make a system change may have ripple effects across a range of other providers, and third parties should be protected if their services are interrupted because of this, Telstra said. The actions of one telco could result in “service degradation, network faults, or other impacts on its business or non-target customers", Telstra warned. Optus said it supports what the scheme is trying to achieve but there should be more focus on a two-way dialogue between telcos and authorities before they are ordered to act. As it stands, it appears a law enforcement body wouldn't have to check with a provider about whether it can get access to information before it orders it to do so. "It is important that service providers be compensated for the cost of providing assistance and recognition given to the concept that in some cases compensation might extend to the opportunity cost being borne by service providers in providing the requested assistance," Optus said in its submission.

The Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence has asked for more detail on how bodies like ASIO will make and record requests for information, and what civil or criminal liabilities they will be able to offer the providers who have to access that information. The office also questioned whether some of the information requests could bypass the regular need for a warrant. "IGIS queries whether technical assistance requests are intended to be capable of use in circumstances in which they could effectively enable an agency to bypass statutory warrant or authorisation requirements," the office said in its submission. Mr Dutton's office declined to comment on the submissions.