Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 415 posts

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#391

Post by _archon_ »

protonmail wrote: post #346
blkcoffee wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Bill itself "A person is a designated communications provider if... 4 the person provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia 5 the person provides a service that facilitates, or is ancillary or incidental to,the provision of an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia 6 the person develops, supplies or updates software used, for use, or likely to be used,…

If that happens, then you could simply use ProtonVPN to bypass the block.

Wouldn't that mean that ProtonVPN then has an end user in Aus, and would then be theoretically subject to all this nonsense?

A user would have to double-VPN for ProtonVPN to be the solution. Right?

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#392

Post by cyphar »

girvo wrote: post #390
cyphar wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the new law has no judicial review and has a few other things that wouldn't fly in the US. It's markedly worse (though don't get me wrong, the US definitely has it pretty bad in this area too).

You say that like FISA Courts are actually judicial review and not rubbing stamps... where you win is that you have a stronger set of rights and case law about it.

The difference is that there isn't even fake judicial review. And I disagree that we have a stronger set of rights -- the difference is that the NSA explicitly ignores your constitutional rights.

All of our rights (other than the right to a jury for certain criminal trials, freedom of religion, the aquisition of property must be 'on just terms', the right to be a senator if you can vote, and the right to vote in federal elections) are in common law. This means that any new law can overturn those interpretations.

Personally I think Australia needs to push for a constitutional bill of rights. Unfortunately this is going to be a very hard battle to win, given the enormous requirements to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#393

Post by nate_meurer »

shakna wrote: post #377
nate_meurer wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine , or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fu…

Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them. Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public. Regulation isn't a…

> Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated.

Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war).

> Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access.

No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#394

Post by mediocrejoker »

interfixus wrote: post #167
neotek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This immensely stupid law applies to any business that operates in Australia, which includes Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Facebook, Github, and every other major tech company on the planet. If they want to continue doing business in Australia (and they very much do) then they'll be forced to comply, which means everybody in the world is negatively affected by this insanity.

Fastmail, don't forget. With a somewhat heavy heart, but I shall be cancelling my service there.

Does anyone know of a similar service hosted in Canada?

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#395

Post by ern »

stephen_g wrote: post #264
anotherhuman0 wrote: post #201

Somebody over on Reddit [1] went through all the submissions (there was a consultation period) and summarised and tallied them [2]. Fully 99%+ of submissions were against the bill. A sad day for democracy indeed. A church in Tasmania was in favour, because child pornography. 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... 2. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...

Lots of people reporting that the offices of MPs and senators were inundated with calls today and over the last few days. Twitter was on fire too. Ignored, just like the expert testimony before the PJCIS. Who do these fools think they were representing? Today I watched my country's democracy die via livestream, with the words "Labor withdraws all amendments".

>Who do these fools think they were representing

Voters? I don’t mean to be snarky, but while Tweets, submissions and letters may inform the content of bills in democracies, but the counts of these are not numerically representative of much, apart from the feelings of people who feel strongly about an issue.

That said, these laws sound exceedingly stupid.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#396

Post by ffoxd »

brokenmachine wrote: post #351

I have to say, the coverage of this bill on the news has been atrocious. I've seen zero discussion of the possible ramifications of losing all security companies in Australia. Any software company that depends on security (and which one doesn't?) would be insane in the membrane to think they could credibly work in Australia now. All they are saying is "the bill was passed to access encrypted communications of terrori…

Australia doesn’t have much in the way of judicial oversight. The joys of parliamentary supremacy and a weak constitution.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#397

Post by craigsmansion »

nate_meurer wrote: post #393
shakna wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them. Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public. Regulation isn't a…

> Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated. Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war). > Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. No kidding. You seem to assume that you're ar…

Yeah, I'm not "misunderstanding" anything.

We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. It has no bearing on the present, no matter how much your kind would like to obfuscate the matter with jingoist bombast.

> which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol

Not talking about drugs or alcohol, but sure, change the subject. "But what about...?"

> "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex

That's not a reflex. That's a shrug: there's simply no event terrible enough that will evoke change. Apparently this actually is what you want. It's sad for the children, because they never got the chance to vote, but for the rest of you: just stay afraid, wave that flag, and polish the caskets.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#398

Post by jacques_chester »

MuppetMaster42 wrote: post #381
jacques_chester wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically included in your benefits package as part of the job. You don't have to give up Australian citizenship to get an E3, so if necessary you can fly back to Australia for treatment.

If you want to get double taxed, sure you can keep your Australian Medicare and private health insurance. As far as the ATO is concerned, unless you discontinue both, you're considered an Australian resident for tax purposes. Even though the US considers you a resident alien, the ATO requires you to at least look like you won't be coming back for >1 year.

My experience was that the ATO did not consider me a tax resident. Basically if you've tidied up your Australian affairs, earn 0% in Australia and 100% in the US, they aren't totally bloody-minded. I did make sure to use a specialist tax agent though.

After ~3 years the IRS considers me a resident for tax purposes. The ATO only cares about my income because they want to collect HECS payments.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#399

Post by mimixco »

mvid wrote: post #365
mimixco wrote: post #360

This is a big deal for people of all countries as the major tech firms will quickly build-in the required backdoors to stay in compliance -- and they won't just be there for Australian citizens; they'll be there for all of us.

Will they? Is Australia a big enough market to give up global credibility as a company?

We can only hope not.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#400

Post by brokenmachine »

mvid wrote: post #366
brokenmachine wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if necessary you can fly back to Australia for treatment If a sickness/injury is bad enough to need to fly back to Australia, there's a pretty good chance you won't be allowed on a plane.

That is naive and simplistic. Sure, if you were hit by a car you probably won't be making a flight. But cancer? Elective surgery? Physical therapy? There are plenty of slow roll medical issues that can survive a 16 hour plane trip.

Sure, but it's financial ruin if it isn't one of those things, even if you survive. Who's being naive?

That's fine. You're ok with taking that chance, I'm not.

Post reply on HN