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

191–200 of 265 posts

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

#191

Post by fit2rule »

mirimir wrote: post #185
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…

If you think that this is a new thing, I recommend reading James Bamford's books about the NSA and its predecessors. It was not uncommon for technical staff to discreetly provide data to government intelligence agencies. Back in the telegraph days, that meant shlepping rolls of paper tape. Later, magnetic wire and tape. And this was often done without management knowledge. Because, you know, these were patriotic guys…

That is what is so scary about this. Australia is still committing crimes against humanity - this law pulls the tech community into that, and involves us in something that I would hope a lot of us would never choose to willingly participate in. But, if we leave in protest, the gap will be filled with people who have no problems with these human rights violations.

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

#192

Post by jmpman »

nojvek wrote: post #110
jmpman wrote: post #72

Apple should suspend selling any products into Australia and announce layoffs of all Australian employees for the day before the law goes into effect. The Australian market is small enough to make a stand without impacting the bottom line.

Layoff all Australian employees. That just looks weak. Apple is only pro privacy when it makes them more money. They already do business in China. They have a fiduciary duty to their investors to not jump the gun like that.

If taking a stand results in higher confidence in their products in other parts of the world, and higher sales, then it may be fiscally prudent to abandon the Australian market.

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

#193

Post by rorykoehler »

zmmmmm wrote: post #172
brokenmachine wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What proportionality test? Lets go with how the law is actually written. Say they decide hn is a den for hackers. I mean, it's right there in the name! Hacking attracts a >3yr sentence - hence, we need the data of all hn users, they're all potential hackers!

The bill states: The Director General of Security or the chief officer of an interception agency must not give a technical assistance notice to a designated communications provider unless the Director General of Security or the chief officer, as the case requires, is satisfied that: (a) the requirements imposed by the notice are reasonable and proportionate; and (b) compliance with the notice is: (i) practicable; and…

Asking for a backdoor is never reasonable. This law is rife for abuse the way it's worded.

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

#194

Post by rorykoehler »

robryan wrote: post #95

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…

Ties in nicely to Adam Curtis' observations regarding politics being a risk obsessed managerial domain now (see the economist article that was HN front page yesterday).

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

#195

Post by mirimir »

fit2rule wrote: post #191
mirimir wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that this is a new thing, I recommend reading James Bamford's books about the NSA and its predecessors. It was not uncommon for technical staff to discreetly provide data to government intelligence agencies. Back in the telegraph days, that meant shlepping rolls of paper tape. Later, magnetic wire and tape. And this was often done without management knowledge. Because, you know, these were patriotic guys…

That is what is so scary about this. Australia is still committing crimes against humanity - this law pulls the tech community into that, and involves us in something that I would hope a lot of us would never choose to willingly participate in. But, if we leave in protest, the gap will be filled with people who have no problems with these human rights violations.

Just to be clear, this is insidious.

Before, engineers etc might be guilt-tripped into helping catch "bad people". But this makes it official, with penalties for refusal.

Maybe it demonstrates that engineers etc don't cooperate as freely as they once did. That would be good news, no?

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

#196

Post by grecy »

Taniwha wrote: post #129

(essentially repeating a recent twitter thread here) Imagine you work in a modern software house and you get one of these ... and here I mean you, not your boss, not your coworkers, the govt knocks on your door and demands you put a back door in the thing you are working on at work ... So you write the code ... how do you write the unit test? how do you get it past the code review? the mandatory QA tests? ... all the…

> modern software design processes essentially designed to stop bad stuff like this happening ... what happens when you get caught? you lose your job, get blacklisted in the industry, after all you can't tell them the govt made you do it (on your CV/resume trying to explain why you were fired)

I often wonder about this in regards to those "signed" orders in the USA, and it seems now Australia is similar.

And I wonder if we need more people going public in a very big way. i.e. Jim Smith has to put out a press release that says "I work for company X and the Government of Y country asked me to do xyz, and I refused."

Go very, very public with it, putting out press releases, etc. etc.

Obviously there are laws against that, and Jim Smith is risking a lot, but I can't imagine how things will get better until people on the front lines do stuff like this.

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

#197

Post by mirimir »

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.

Maybe you're joking, but this will arguably affect employment prospects for Australian engineers etc. And their acceptance by open-source software projects.

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

#198

Post by XorNot »

cyphar wrote: post #136
jmpman wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be considered a boycott? I believe US companies are no longer allowed to boycott another country without authorization from the US government.

Apple has a subsidiary incorporated in Australia, which is necessary to do business here. They can just shut up shop, and fire all their Australian employees (though Australian labour laws might make this difficult to do without being sued for unfair dismissal).

AFAIK unfair dismissal only applies if the business is remaining a going concern.

If you're shutting down the company, you might have to pay severance but that'd be it.

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

#199

Post by dwd »

mirimir wrote: post #187
dwd wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But what would you deny? All .gov.au? All .au? Maybe a BGP suitable leak? Whatever, it wouldn't last.

Just the MPs and targetting their social media accounts would be enough and it wouldn't have to be effective or long term, it just needs to create enough of a media storm to bring it to the attention of the general population.

Mentioning that they may need to shut down services in Australia due to the law might be enough to cause a backlash.

Post reply on HN