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

Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

protonmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 265 posts

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#81

Post by jeeeeb »

mcherm wrote: post #76
jeeeeb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil mater and the law explicitly states that being required to do an act or thing in a foreign jurisdiction that would contravene the laws of that jurisdiction is a defence for non-compliance.

> being required to do an act or thing in a foreign jurisdiction that would contravene the laws of that jurisdiction is a defense for non-compliance There is no law in the US prohibiting me from creating an alternate login screen for one particular customer just in order to capture their login password. So as a US citizen I have no defense within Australian law against an Australian demand that I capture the password…

Are you sure there is no law against this in the US? Isn't this potentially: 1. Circumventing an electronic protection 2. Unauthorised access (if your employer does not authorise the changes) .etc.

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#82

Post by lamerman »

thiagocsf wrote: post #69
Animats wrote: post #66

What problem does Australia have that could possibly justify this? Gangs in Sidney? Drug traffickers from New Zealand? Terrorists from Vietnam?

Being the the country with the weakest civil rights protections in the 5 eyes allows us to be used as a test bed. If this thing goes smoothly, expect the same to be attempted in UK, US, NZ and CA.

I think, you are right. It looks like governments globally are doing it. It may be a good indicator that encryption actually is hard for them at least on big scale. Russia also introduced a law year ago that forces companies to help "police" decrypt traffic, it works very selectively now though. It has of course nothing with criminals or terrorists, there is something more. :)

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#83

Post by ux-app »

thiagocsf wrote: post #70
cyphar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like Labor will win next election, but that really doesn't matter. Labor voted for the bill unanimously.

Shorten’s strategy to lose the battle/win the war has soured my view of him forever. He’s revealed himself to be a man of no principles.

> soured my view of him forever. He’s revealed himself to be a man of no principles.

I don't have a strong opinion of Shorten one way or the other, but I've read a lot of people express a similar POV and it strikes me as extremely naive.

If you went into politics with a view to die on your sword rather than compromise any of your values you'd have a very short career. Losing the battle to win the war is the only way to achieve anything.

I mean, be realistic. If the ALP had blocked the bill it would be political suicide for them. For now some nerds (us) are debating the issue on an obscure forum. The alternative would be for every man and his dog having our corrupt media ram the "Labor has made it easier for terrorists to kill you" story down their throat for the next few months.

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#85

Post by joshschreuder »

incompatible wrote: post #78
Animats wrote: post #66

What problem does Australia have that could possibly justify this? Gangs in Sidney? Drug traffickers from New Zealand? Terrorists from Vietnam?

Crime is pretty low in Australia, but that doesn't stop political parties trying to whip up paranoia about it to help their election chances.

One of the major parties' state election campaigns just a couple of weeks ago was running off the promise to curb violence in Melbourne (almost entirely baseless hysteria of African gangs). We had a mostly foiled terrorist attack the week of the election, and it was quite disgusting to see the leader of that party "pay tribute" to the victims even while having some sort of glee for the timing.

If you live in a number of places in the US you would likely find the levels of violent crime hilariously low here in comparison, yet there was attempt to play on the fears and "make Melbourne safe again". Luckily it was one of the least successful major party election campaigns in recent years.

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#86

Post by coptan »

adventured wrote: post #49
mindslight wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demand would come directly from the US government, after it passes the same law in five years. You do realize this is ultimately FVEY doing a trial in Australia, yes?

You could say that about any bad bill passed in any of the five eyes at any point in the past. The reality is, that's not how things work. For example, in Britain you can be arrested for modestly offending someone on Twitter, due to their speech crime laws.[1] That's never going to commonly be the case in the US due to very strong speech protections. Australia did away with its guns. The US is never going to follow t…

> Australia did away with its guns.

No it didn't. Saying it did helps prevent the US implement similar measures.

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#87

Post by joshschreuder »

cyphar wrote: post #10
retrogradeorbit wrote: post #6

The thing that makes me most despondent is, you just watch them all get voted back in next election.

It looks like Labor will win next election, but that really doesn't matter. Labor voted for the bill unanimously.

Actually they voted on the promise from the Libs that the amendments they proposed would be revisited in 2019, just to make Australia safe over Christmas. Which is somehow even more boneheaded than unanimously agreeing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-07/bill-shorten-says-con...

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#88

Post by HumanDrivenDev »

TomMarius wrote: post #80
HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possibly a good commercial decision given the size of the EU market, but a lot of people seem a bit delusional as to how much of an authority the EU is. They can't compel people outside their jurisdiction with the GDPR, anymore than Australia can with this law.

Actually they can - the second you place your foot on EU (or collaborating - extradition treaties) soil, and of course if you want to do business in EU then you need to have legal presence in the EU.

But if you set foot inside the EU... you are in the EUs jurisdiction.

Extradition treaties are usually subject to 'dual criminality' - so you would have to be breaking the country you are in as well to be extradited for violation of that same law to the EU.

And be realistic. The US hasn't even successfully managed to extradite Kim Dotcom from mighty New Zealand.

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#89

Post by ironic_ali »

dgzl wrote: post #73
ehnto wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why this bill is a complete disaster for the Australian tech industry. Every single software company in Australia just became blackmarked and could be "potentially compromised" by the government and whoever has figured out the governments likely hamfisted and boutique backdoor solutions. Even someone's little SaaS can be asked to turn up dirt on someone. I literally couldn't comply. I don't write encryption…

> It took longer than expected, but the governments have finally decided it's time to ruin the internet. I am going to go be a carpenter or something. Honestly, not bad advice.

I recently had some electrician, plumbing and gas work done and the bill was around my contractor rate here in NZ.

Given the politics and bs around the big corps and govt ministries my skillsets fit into (business analyst/pm) a trade has been something I've been considering seriously for a while now. The peace of mind and lack of toxic office cultures is really appealing. They're apprenticeships too, so you're paid as you learn.

Re: Australia’s vague anti-encryption law sets a dangerous new precedent

#90

Post by brianpgordon »

pera wrote: post #44
drngdds wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a very wide net and immediately includes effectively every free software developer, and the employees of every tech company. This doesn't seem very meaningful? I live in the US. If the Australian government goes to me and tells me to sabotage my employer, I can tell them to pound sand.

I am really not trying to be an alarmist but couldn't one be extradited to Australia for not complying?

Assuming you're in the US, you won't get extradited for anything unless your conduct was actually illegal in the US.
Post reply on HN