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

Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 294 posts

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#121

Post by kirrent »

ausd123 wrote: post #18
kdtsh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have a legal right to both personal and private property under Australian law. I’m not sure where you got that idea.

I'm interested to know what the farmers whose properties get taken by mining companies have to say about that. Though genuinely unsure and curious as to whether that's a separate legal (or perhaps media reporting) issue.

It's like you haven't even seen The Castle, where this very constitutional issue is discussed. Acquisition of property must be on just terms with suitable compensation. Similar to the US 5th amendment.

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#122

Post by bigiain »

chii wrote: post #70
mastazi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For example, Australia’s law enforcement could compel Apple to provide access to a customer’s iPhone and all communications made on it without the user’s awareness or consent. An engineer involved would, in theory, be unable to tell their boss about this, or risk a jail sentence." Source: Sydney Morning Herald https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/dangerous-o... That would be a 5-year jail sentence appare…

I believe that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. The govt can compell an entity to assist in making encrypted information available. But the entity in question is not the individual employee, but the company who owns the product or service. If you're under the employment (i.e., not a contractor), you can't be an entity, and the employer will definitely know if they've been compelled. But I do agree the law i…

You are making the incorrect assumption that the people writing these laws are not idiots.

They don't understand the technology.

They don't listen to any of the people who advise them about this technology.

They seem only to be listening to the police and other law enforcement crying about "paedophiles and terrorists GOING DARK".

The Prime Minister at the time claimed the laws of Australia overrode the laws of mathematics. Seriously.

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#123

Post by ENGNR »

kevingadd wrote: post #82
TallGuyShort wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How confident are my fellow American citizens that the American government doesn't effectively have the same power? I mean if someone showed up at your house in a black Suburban with an official-looking letter that seemed like a court order that you provide them with a backdoor and threatening you with all manner of charges if you go public. How confident are you you could walk away cleanly from that any other way?

The American government does theoretically have this power, but it's not like any major player is refusing to do business with Americans yet because the downside to that is massive. It's possible it could come to that eventually. Australia is a target for retribution here because the policy is newer and they're a smaller player.

In the USA at least you could take it to the supreme court, Australians don't have a bill of rights

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#124

Post by blotter_paper »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #98
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but sadly, the law does seem to target people rather than (or in addition to) corporations. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... > 317C: > For the purposes of this Part, the following table defines: > (a) designated communications provider; > (b) the eligible activitiesof a designated communications provider > A person is a designated communications provider if... ... Actually, there…

Oh, and it's probably worth noting that you need not even be an Australian citizen to be covered, you simply need to have users in Australia. Of course, whether Australia can enforce these laws against non-citizens is another matter. However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affa…

>However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at: [PDF link]

I read the PDF and didn't notice any mention of extradition. Am I missing something?

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#125

Post by berbec »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #102
magduf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia's lawmakers just need to amend the law so that it doesn't matter where the data is stored, as long as the company operates within their nation's borders. I'd like to see how the Australian government handles things when MS cancels all their Windows and Office licenses.

What? Microsoft intentionally reducing their licence revenue?

Oh, they won't issue refunds. Just canceling licenses.

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#126

Post by kdtsh »

danieltillett wrote: post #114
kdtsh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure an argument can be made that privacy extends from property, but that argument would have to be fleshed our and defended - I’m not sure I can accept at face value a point about there not being a right to property in Australia (essentially incorrect) because privacy is being eroded (which in any case sounds like faulty reasoning). I’m fairly certain it’s still the case that you can’t be compelled to incriminat…

You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in a royal commission. This is one of the reasons royal commissions are popular - that and they employ an army of lawyers and QCs.

I suppose what I meant to say was ‘in a criminal case’. You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in non-criminal cases in the US too, the fifth amendment provides for protection only in criminal cases. I’m not sure if you can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in criminal cases in Australia, but in any case, royal commissions are not criminal cases, they’re commissions with quasi-judicial Powers (mainly because they have the power to compel people to do produce evidence, etc.)

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#128

Post by bigger_cheese »

danieltillett wrote: post #113
jaza wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australians have very few constitutionally guaranteed rights (compared to countries such as the US). The Constitution only gives us the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, and freedom of religion (and a few others). But many more rights, including extensive privacy rights, exist in statute law and elsewhere. The main argument against adding more rights to the Constitution, is: "we don't want to end up with o…

We don't actually have a constitutional freedom of religion in Australia. The first election I ever voted in this was a proposed change to the constitution and it was voted down. If the Australian government want it could establish a state religion and ban the rest - not that this would ever happen in practice.

I think the way it is worded in the Constitution is that the Commonwealth Government (i.e national government) can't make laws enforcing/restricting a religion. I.e can't ban/mandate a religion Australia wide. But where it falls down is there is nothing stopping the individual States from doing so (i.e New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland etc could make state laws banning religions).

I think that is one of the main problems with our constitution the states have a heap of power. I believe it is due to the history of federation where the six states came together to form Australia. There was a bunch of compromises required to get everyone on board, which is why you have things like Tasmania having the same number of Senators as NSW despite the huge disparity in total population.

Because of all the state provisions it is very difficult to make changes to the constitution. It requires a referendum with an overall national majority and a majority of all the states is also needed. That's why borderline referendums never seem to pass only the ones that are overwhelming supported ever get up (depending on your pov this is a feature not a bug).

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#129

Post by ausd123 »

kirrent wrote: post #121
ausd123 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested to know what the farmers whose properties get taken by mining companies have to say about that. Though genuinely unsure and curious as to whether that's a separate legal (or perhaps media reporting) issue.

It's like you haven't even seen The Castle, where this very constitutional issue is discussed. Acquisition of property must be on just terms with suitable compensation. Similar to the US 5th amendment.

While I agree with you in theory, it's worth remembering the only reason The Castle has a happy ending is because someone who was already wealthy offered to help out people (for free) who weren't.

Re: Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of storing data in Australia

#130

Post by cyphar »

Macross8299 wrote: post #74
otachack wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much ambiguity in this, though. Can't the complying Australian employee simply nudge his/her coworker and say "hey, patch this later" and then it's just a game of back and forth with the Australian government not having their way in the end?

I mean, you're pretty much advocating for the rough equivalent of a warrant canary, which have already been explicitly outlawed in Australia. [0] [0]: https://boingboing.net/2015/03/26/australia-outlaws-warrant-...

Please note that the legislation you are referencing is completely unrelated to the Assistance and Access Act. It's talking about journalistic warrants (warrants on journalists not by journalists) which are their own shitstorm, but a very different topic.

The Assistance and Access Act does have the same "existence or nonexistence" wording as the law you referred to, so you're not wrong that a warrant canary for a notice under the new legislation would be a criminal offense. But there is no blanket law against warrant canaries per se, it's done explicitly in each new law about secret warrants.

Post reply on HN