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

141–150 of 294 posts

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

#141

Post by opportune »

flukus wrote: post #117
throwaway8879 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely.

I admire the consistency, but the ammount of posts I see along the lines of "we won't hire Australians anymore" and the absence of posts like "we'll be adding Australia to the list of countries we don't hire from" doesn't fill me with confidence that this is common. Even before this change plenty of Chinese nationals would likely be employed wherever they were storing data in Australia and MS didn't care about that.…

I don't think MS really hires many chinese nationals. There certainly aren't nearly as many chinese nationals at MS compared to facebook and uber

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

#142

Post by int_19h »

maldeh wrote: post #139
ENGNR wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'developer discusses with his boss' => that's 5 years prison right there, not joking It's 5 for not doing it and 5 for telling anyone, 10 for both

Assuming it could be proven, surely? And there have to be limitations as to how far an individual could go as to subterfuge, so if your company enforces a 2-person code review and there aren't other authorized Australian nationals at hand, you could point at process preventing you from doing so without others' knowledge (how naive this defense is, I have no idea)

You opt into participating that process by accepting the job, though. So from Australia's perspective, the way to comply with their law is to not take such jobs, and to leave if the process changes prevent you from complying.

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

#143

Post by int_19h »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #134
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Australian Government does not like whistleblowers: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard... I can't stress enough the potential for harm in any attempt to bypass various laws. The Australian Government even refused to allow independent Medical Doctors into their off-shore immigration detention centres for fear of the detention conditions being made public. Australia did nothing to even con…

Australia's public image of being a "larrikin" place - all beer on the beach and shrimp on the barbie, is at odds with its incredibly authoritarian attitudes. I'm always amazed at Aussie enthusiasm for the "smack of firm government" and their hatred of anyone breaking the rules.

It's really strange that of all the former British settler colonies, the one that's the most republican in attitude is also the one that's most enthusiastic about maintaining the surveillance/police state parity with UK. Canada and NZ are doing much better.

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

#144

Post by jeremija »

mastazi wrote: post #51
KorematsuFred wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true ? There is no way I am hiring an Australian citizen then.

"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…

How exactly would this work? Let's say I have been coerced into making a back door, and my company has a policy of enforcing code reviews for every project. Surely, somebody would notice? Or would they count on me to do my best to obfuscate the back door? What if I "don't know" anything about obfuscation?

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

#145

Post by golemiprague »

Australia is a nanny state and it manifests itself in many laws and regulation, that's how Australians like it. Everything requires licensing, endless regulations, lockdown, bicycle helmets, draconian alcohol laws, the works. If there is a doubt Australia will always err on the side of more rules and limits. If you value freedom Australia is not the place, the beaches are nice though.

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

#146

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

blotter_paper wrote: post #124
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sorry for the ambiguity. The reference I provided was with regard to the fact the Australian Government has collaborated with other five eyes countries with this legislation, or at least the 'need' for this legislation.

This is why I simply wrote there's a reasonable possibility of extradition, rather than anything definite.

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

#147

Post by int_19h »

jaza wrote: post #13
dgzl wrote: post #3

From what I understand, Australia (and other nations) don't give their citizens explicit rights, such as to personal and property privacy.

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…

You can't protect rights and freedoms from intrusion by the government by statute, which is kinda the whole point of having a constitution. If it's just a law saying the government can't do something, then it'll do that by first repealing that law - if all you need is a simple majority, the votes are always there.

The reason why the US constitution is so hard to amend is because of how high the bars are for the process - 2/3 in the House and in the Senate to submit amendments, and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify them. Or if going via state convention, then 2/3 of all state legislatures to request it, but still 3/4 to ratify anything that comes out of it.

I don't think it was a bad system originally, back before the 14th Amendment - since originally all those restrictions were on what the federal government can do, not on what the states can do. Between the states and their citizens, it was supposed to be taken care of by their respective state constitutions, which are generally much easier to amend - and even if they didn't, they wouldn't block other states from experimenting. With 14A, and the gradual incorporation of various constitutional protections on state level via it, the process to amend it needs to be more democratic IMO, and acknowledge the people, not just the states.

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

#148

Post by int_19h »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
12298765 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy, and our goal is longevity of a sustainable relationship between the people and their government. We have some issues in our country right now, but I have a good feeling we'll get them worked out in the next few years. Many of our laws and rights are in place not for short term feelings about safety between people and police, but for long term…

> We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy No, we haven't. In fact, we copied it largely from the UK. (We didn't like the fact that as a colony we didn't get representation in the national legislature or the full range of rights citizens in the UK itself had, but, hey, the US does the same thing. Initially, and still partially, even to it's capital district . We've got the oldest sur…

UK doesn't have proper separation of powers to this day, due to parliamentary sovereignty.

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

#149

Post by int_19h »

bigger_cheese wrote: post #128
danieltillett wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is exactly how the American constitution worked originally, as well, and for all the same reasons. Many things in it are compromises, and the Federalist Papers say as much in some of the rationales.

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

#150

Post by petre »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #71
mastazi wrote: post #30

I have migrated to Australia many years ago and I have recently become eligible to become a citizen. However I’ve heard stories of tech companies refusing to hire Australians because of the AA Bill, so I’m holding it off for now. The problem seems to be the provision that a tech worker can be coerced by the Australian Government into creating a backdoor, and they are not authorised to disclose it to their employer. I…

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 difference is the court order. In Australia, the individuals in the black car could show up with none of that and you'd still have to comply.

The Aussie politicians that voted for this are hurting everybody. A mining based economy with less business coming its way because of laws like this one.

https://boingboing.net/2017/07/15/malcolm-turnbull-is-an-idi...

Post reply on HN