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

401–410 of 415 posts

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#401

Post by Grollicus »

brokenmachine wrote: post #71
_Nat_ wrote: post #43

Some of the comments so far seem to suggest that this bill would require software to include backdoors. However, it looks like [the bill's PDF]( https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... ) includes: > Division 7—Limitations > 317ZG Designated communications provider must not be required to implement or build a systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability etc. > (1) A technical assistance notice o…

They were going to supply a definition of "systemic weakness", but I can't find one in the bill itself. I'm patiently waiting for their proposed method of reading end-to-end encrypted messages without introducing a systemic weakness. But the meaning of words don't seem to matter anymore in the reality distortion field that is the Australian government. This is all supposedly to somehow make us more secure for Christm…

As long as we don't know P!=NP we're not sure if we actually need to introduce a systemic weakness to break crypto, no?

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#402

Post by nate_meurer »

craigsmansion wrote: post #397
nate_meurer wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dang…

I know this topic attracts emotional debate, but you're so emotional that you're inventing enemies. I personally am very much in favor of sensible, even strict, gun control. If you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a blood-lusting gun-nut, then I think it is you who will appear crazed in the end. I think your language bears that out here.

> "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap.

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest.

> Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation.

I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment?

The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#403

Post by brokenmachine »

magduf wrote: post #387
brokenmachine wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That was an amendment that was not passed. We got the full dictatorship version with no reporting at all.

Technically, it's not like a dictatorship at all. A dictatorship is a government where there's one person at the top with ultimate power. What you have really is more like a "cabal", much like China's government.

Oops. Totalitarian government?

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#404

Post by brokenmachine »

brokenmachine wrote: post #332
aiisahik wrote: post #308

As an Australian citizen who has spent many years in the US, I can say that this law is in line with the main ideology of the Australian government: extreme parentalism. You run a red light: fine for $450 in the mail. No court date, no arguments. You exceed the speed limit by 5km/h: $200 fine in the mail. No arguments. It is brutal but it's hard to deny that it works. Australia has some of the lowest per capital road…

They are trying to secretly force tech companies into unpaid labour to destroy the security of their own products in their ham-fisted stupid attempts however. This is much worse than the authoritarian way they handle traffic fines. There is no legal representation, no judicial oversight and no actual definitions of essential terms in the bill. Make no mistake, this is a dictatorship.

Oops. Actually, it's a totalitarian regime.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#405

Post by ShinTakuya »

msmithstubbs wrote: post #49
TheChaplain wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Atlassian Australian? Or did they move?

It looks like the cloud services are supplied by a company incorporated in the US [1] ‘Atlassian, Inc’. They probably needed to do this when they listed on the NASDAQ. There is also an Australian entity `Atlassian Pty Ltd` but it’s not clear to me what role that has. [1]: https://www.atlassian.com/legal/cloud-terms-of-service

Atlassian is still very much based in Sydney. The CEOs (there's two joint CEOs), vast majority of the engineering teams and more are all just down the road from me. As with most large international tech companies, they have a number of different legal entities for regulatory, tax and other reasons.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#406

Post by brokenmachine »

cyphar wrote: post #339
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I was an Australian citizen, I'd be committing a crime by saying: I have not had any communications requesting investigative cooperation from any Australian law enforcement or intelligence agency.

No, it would be an offense to make a statement about the existence or nonexistence of a journalistic information warrant. But I believe the bill which passed actually includes the ability to publish aggregated statistics about how many notices you've received. Removing the need for warrant canaries. (And you wouldn't have to be a citizen, just a subject of Australian law which means that you are either a citizen, are…

>I believe the bill which passed actually includes the ability to publish aggregated statistics about how many notices you've received.

But those stats would be useless as each notice can target an arbitrary number of people. The law as written can literally ask for the data of every one of your users.

As I understand it, there can be no stats about the number of individuals targeted, only the number of notices received.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#407

Post by magduf »

ern wrote: post #395
stephen_g wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As Churchill said, the strongest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. The voters are getting what they voted for.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#408

Post by magduf »

bigiain wrote: post #352
stephen_g wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? The same interests they are always representing. Themselves. The organisations and lobbyists that got them voted in. The organisations they're looking forward to offers of high-priced consultancies and directorships after the next election. Did you expect anything else?

Don't forget the voters who elected them. Do you see the voters running to the polls and voting for someone else when crap like this gets passed? Of course not. Therefore, the voters implicitly consent to it.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#409

Post by magduf »

graeme wrote: post #371
wallace_f wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sad day for democracy, but this fact restores some faith in humanity.

Everyone is misreading this comment. OP meant: democracy failed, but the good submissions restore faith in humanity. All the people who wrote in were on the side of common sense.

The people who wrote in do not represent the voting public, they're just a vocal minority. The voting public elected these lawmakers, and will happily re-elect them.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#410

Post by komali2 »

jjcm wrote: post #350
dunpeal wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the impact on you going to be like?

Hard to say. The final text of the bill with the amendments that got added this week haven't been published officially yet ( https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... only the first reading is available). Once it is we'll have to do a full review from legal - it's something a bunch of us are wondering internally right now. There are a lot of loopholes in the bill, so it's hard to say what things…

Any internal discussions about moving out of Australia?

I've read an interpretation that indicates that all Australian citizen employees are now essentially compromised, as they could be compelled under penalty of jail time to insert backdoors into an application without informing their employers.

Post reply on HN