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

151–160 of 265 posts

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

#151

Post by dwd »

fit2rule wrote: post #126
jeeeeb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I'm working on software systems that are precisely the sort of thing that the Australian government will target with this law (transportation systems), and it is highly likely that these systems will be targeted with a TAN/TCN. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the software segment that I currently work on is going to be hit by this law, and hard, within the next year or so. If I don't get a TAN/TCN request, I'm al…

Now would be a good time to protest this by systematically denying Peter Dutton and the rest of these wankers access to any online service.

Sorry, due to your part in voting for that bill, you're now in breach of our terms. Please return your devices as well.

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

#152

Post by macdice »

fit2rule wrote: post #126
jeeeeb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I'm working on software systems that are precisely the sort of thing that the Australian government will target with this law (transportation systems), and it is highly likely that these systems will be targeted with a TAN/TCN. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the software segment that I currently work on is going to be hit by this law, and hard, within the next year or so. If I don't get a TAN/TCN request, I'm al…

An easier option than 2 for most Australians: come help build the software industry in New Zealand. It's a 3 hour flight and requires zero paperwork for Aussies to work here (as long as you have no criminal record; so you probably can't move so easily after you disobey one of these requests...).

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

#153

Post by mcherm »

jeeeeb wrote: post #81
mcherm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, I am fairly sure.

> Circumventing an electronic protection

> Unauthorised access

The company providing the protection cannot by definition circumvent it or be unauthorized. If a third party decides to deliver a payload to your browser to discover your Facebook password, then they are violating the DMCS in the US. But if Facebook decides to deliver a payload to your browser to discover your Facebook password that is simply them doing business in a different fashion. This isn't a violation of US law, so refusing it do it would be a violation of Australia's very poorly-considered new law.

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

#154

Post by Nasrudith »

zmmmmm wrote: post #107

I'm grappling with what to do about this law. I develop software in Australia, for a company, separately as a private software vendor and separately again as an open source contributor. From what I can understand, this law can compel me to silently insert malware into any of these. Morally I feel like I need to modify the licenses, READMEs and terms of conditions for products I sell and the contracts under which I do…

The simplest solution is probably a harder one practically - leave Australia. Sadly one doesn't simply leave their country and immigrate to someplace else in addition to any personal concerns - it might not be an option, let alone a desirable one but it has its merits.

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

#156

Post by brokenmachine »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #32
spdionis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a reasonable outcome...

No, not reasonable, but it's the will of the Australian people and we should respect their sovereignty.

This was not the will of the Australian people.

There was a "consultation period" and 99.7% of the submissions were against it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...

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

#157

Post by cyphar »

gtbc wrote: post #149
cyphar wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The High Court's powers are defined in Section III of the Australian Constitution. In fact, s73 explicitly disallows parliament from stopping the High Court from hearing an appeal from a Supreme State Court.

Does that have much to do with the matter at hand?

"The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute" is not an entirely accurate statement (though there are restrictions on what you can sue the Commonwealth for) . That was my point.

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

#159

Post by nicwilson »

jen729w wrote: post #58
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…

Do we know of any organised groups who are opposing this? Both of our main political parties are in bed with this disaster so we can’t leave it to the opposition. You’re clearly smart and lucid. Me perhaps less so but I have some spare time. Who else? Where are they gathering? What can I do? I’m talking basic communications and publicity stuff, not anything anarchistic. Helping non-tech journalists. Writing articles…

Greens, acs.org.au, possibly some of the business/legal councils
Post reply on HN