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

91–100 of 265 posts

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

#91

Post by fit2rule »

jeeeeb wrote: post #52
cyphar wrote: post #13

While I understand why they didn't mention this (because it's not clear if this interpretation of the bill is correct -- given there is currently no common law around it), I would like to point out what is the most concerning thing (to me) about this legislation. It potentially allows the government to turn employees into saboteurs. According to s.317C(6), a "designated service provider" can be someone who has develo…

Personally I've been reading the text and trying to grasp the implications of this. There appears to be two limitations on this power: 1. You cannot be compelled to do something in a foreign country that would be a crime in that country 2. In issuing the notice the relevant oversight authority must give weight to your 'legitimate' interests. I think 1 is a huge point as it effectively constrains the jurisdiction of t…

I'm an Australian software developer, living in Europe and working for a European company (Austria) which has an Australian partner developing software for use in both the Australian and European markets.

Can the Australian government compel me to sabotage the Australian software for their uses within Australia, and if so, can the Austrian government charge me with a crime for having done it while living in Austria?

The fact that I even have to ask this kind of question enrages me. I'm considering giving up my Australian citizenship over this, it is that infuriating.

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

#92

Post by fit2rule »

cyphar wrote: post #13

While I understand why they didn't mention this (because it's not clear if this interpretation of the bill is correct -- given there is currently no common law around it), I would like to point out what is the most concerning thing (to me) about this legislation. It potentially allows the government to turn employees into saboteurs. According to s.317C(6), a "designated service provider" can be someone who has develo…

>very unlikely that this legislation would result in the Armageddon

The trouble is, the secrecy. So we'll never know if there was an Australian-digital-armageddon, because none of us (Australians) are allowed to discuss it.

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

#93

Post by fit2rule »

ehnto wrote: post #31
brian-armstrong wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if it comes to it, we could always choose to just blacklist all Australian devs from writing software.

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…

There's another alternative you maybe haven't considered: give up your Australian citizenship.

This is something I'm seriously considering. I live in Europe anyway, and at this rate I have zero interest in ever living in Australia again. I won't return, and I won't do anything to support Australia in any way, if I have to go down this path.

The Australian government has truly committed a hostile act against its own citizens.

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

#94

Post by jeeeeb »

fit2rule wrote: post #91
jeeeeb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I've been reading the text and trying to grasp the implications of this. There appears to be two limitations on this power: 1. You cannot be compelled to do something in a foreign country that would be a crime in that country 2. In issuing the notice the relevant oversight authority must give weight to your 'legitimate' interests. I think 1 is a huge point as it effectively constrains the jurisdiction of t…

I'm an Australian software developer, living in Europe and working for a European company (Austria) which has an Australian partner developing software for use in both the Australian and European markets. Can the Australian government compel me to sabotage the Australian software for their uses within Australia, and if so, can the Austrian government charge me with a crime for having done it while living in Austria?…

I was worried about this as well which is why I read the law and commented above.

The short answer is: 1. Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil not a criminal mater 2. As I stated above the law clearly says that it is a defence for non-compliance if a TAN/TCN would compel you to commit a crime in a foreign country. The issue is whether you can be compelled to commit an act in Australia, which would be a crime in a foreign country. 3. Consideration must be given to your legitimate interests.

In short, if you get a TAN/TCN then seek legal advice.

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

#95

Post by robryan »

One of the worst things about this bill is that the opposition knows it is full of problems and could have blocked it and forced a range of amendedments.

The Labor party here though is afraid of creating any point of difference on anything that could in any way be considered “national security” legislation. So instead of risk a lengthy period over the summer break where they would be attacked if any kind of terrorist attack happened they caved and passed the original version.

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

#96

Post by gtbc »

Australia has an unstable federal political system, with elections every three years or less (this is baked into the constitution, so it will be hard to amend). Imagine the US House of Representatives with the equivalent of Speaker of the US House of Representatives as the Prime Minister of Australia as you won't be far off. Unlike the UK, there isn't a strong civil service, and unlike the US, the Senate, states and courts are weaker, and there isn't a separate executive branch.

This leads to a revolving door of occasionally unsavoury characters getting into positions of great, and virtually unchecked power. Giving these figures enormous power without judicial oversight is deeply problematic. Checks and balances are not a big thing in Australia.

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

#97

Post by macdice »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #22
cyphar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an Australian law, so it can only affect people under Australian jurisdiction -- I didn't think that needed to be said. There are significant numbers of free software developers in Australia (I'm one of them). The point is that all software engineers (in Australia) being able to be co-opted as saboteurs is a fairly "meaningful" problem and should be a concern to everyone...

Well, if it comes to it, we could always choose to just blacklist all Australian devs from writing software.

Suppose there is an Australian who works on important and widely used open source infrastructural software, has commit rights, and is compelled to insert a back door by this new law. Well, obviously that would be really bad. But it seems unlikely to succeed; too many eyeballs. Something closed like a mobile communications app in an app store seems like a more plausible target, but we should already have no faith in apps in app stores in the first place, with or without such laws in existence, wherever they come from. Even with "open source" apps, there is no way to know that you're running the same code. More generally, I have no faith at all that a person or company that develops such apps in (insert other country here) is not similarly compromised, even if they don't have an explicit law like that. For example, some countries have secret courts and secret court orders, so who knows? So as an end user I wouldn't personally feel any more secure if Australian developers were banned from participating in projects I care about, and of course that'd be terrible for those developers.

On the other hand, if I were a global company developing proprietary software with development offices in Australia I'd be pretty concerned... and complain loudly and publicly and lay down what the consequences will be. Maybe there could already have been court orders and ways to compel companies to assist at the management level (in probably any country), and maybe there could potentially be moles (from any country) hiding anywhere, but if the more tinfoil hat interpretations are correct this turns every employee on that continent into a mole, and even worse, risks accidental compromises through incompetence (beyond the specific target of a warrant/order/whatever). Right?

In the late 90s I recall hearing of crypto work being done in Australia to avoid the crypto export laws of certain other countries. If I'm remembering that correctly, its software development economy may have benefited in the past from other countries making choices like these, and I suppose it will now suffer. Why would a bank or whatever want to expose itself to that? Australian offices could totally finish up blacklisted for certain software projects.

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

#98

Post by dgzl »

ironic_ali wrote: post #89
dgzl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

My father started his own house painting business when I was born. It's tough work and not great pay, but he loves the peace of mind of being his own boss. I worked with him growing up and can attest that owning your life in this way is actually very liberating.

Being in NZ, I wonder: do you know Mike Rowe, from the American TV show 'Dirty Jobs'? If not I encourage you to research him and the TV show. It's not very often I recommend television.

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

#99

Post by ggm »

gtbc wrote: post #96

Australia has an unstable federal political system, with elections every three years or less (this is baked into the constitution, so it will be hard to amend). Imagine the US House of Representatives with the equivalent of Speaker of the US House of Representatives as the Prime Minister of Australia as you won't be far off. Unlike the UK, there isn't a strong civil service, and unlike the US, the Senate, states and…

Do you live here? I do, and while tiny nuggets of truth are in individual sentence clauses, this is a very paranoid and over stated argument.

We have a high court. They reverse bad federal and state laws. Lots of bad immigration decisions by ministers are being overturned. Mabo happened.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

ux-app wrote: post #83
thiagocsf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN