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

111–120 of 294 posts

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

#111

Post by talaketu »

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…

> gives us the right to vote.

Not true.

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

#112

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #94
chii wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> the person provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia

I don’t think this particular clause covers an individual working for a corporation as an employee, as in that case the employee isn’t providing the service the employer is.

It reads to me like that clause is intended to cover people who produce software as sole operators of their business, or perhaps a group of people in a business partnership.

I haven’t read the rest of the act, so maybe there is a stronger clause targeting employees?

If the government can compel a company to do a thing that doesn’t necessarily mean they can compel any particular individual.

You could refuse / quit / abandon the project. Maybe they’ll just find somebody else to do it?

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

#113

Post by danieltillett »

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…

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.

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

#114

Post by danieltillett »

kdtsh wrote: post #44
zaphirplane wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment was referring to privacy presumably search and enter On an aside it appears Australia has done away with the self incrimination protection laws Is that a right in most democratic countries?

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.

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

#115

Post by danieltillett »

robbiep wrote: post #11
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.

We don’t have a bill of rights, but we’re hardly a totalitarian state. Nanny state, maybe.

And getting worse all the time. OH&S has got totally out of control.

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

#116

Post by mr_toad »

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.

> The American government does theoretically have this power

So far they haven’t been able to enforce it, at least when challenged.

And there are organisations that prohibit the use of US based cloud providers.

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

#117

Post by flukus »

throwaway8879 wrote: post #86
flukus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you avoid hiring people from China, Iran, Russia and anyone else from an authoritarian regime?

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'm not aware of any MS ban on hiring Chinese either. So they were presumably fine with the threat of Chinese nationals inserting back doors, but it's a problem now because it's Australians.

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

#118

Post by BigUps »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #39
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…

Good news: https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/659332/encryption-l... Bad news: This is still the words of a politician, so it's likely they're relatively empty and the changes may be trivial and won't address the fundamental distrust it has sown in Australian-developed and / or operated technologies.

This comes after Labor allowed the bill through in the first place: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-06/labor-backdown-federa...

So definitely take it with a grain of salt.

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

#119

Post by ENGNR »

philliphaydon wrote: post #96
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…

So developer discusses with his boss. Developer A adds back door. Developer B then patches back door. Boss fires developer A. Developer A then uses this TAR crap to sue government for forcing him to do something and lose his job. I can’t see the government being able to defend itself. We elect the government to serve the people and the decisions of the government are negatively impacting the people no matter which wa…

'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

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

#120

Post by judge2020 »

ameister14 wrote: post #33
judge2020 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like the US with its right to bear arms I find this funny because the SCOTUS basically can change the Constitution whenever they want. The second amendment only states that the United States itself has a right to bear arms in order to defend itself (have a Militia)[0]. It didn't provide citizens the right to personal protection by guns until a 2008 Supreme Court case [1]. 0: https://www.constituteproject.org/consti…

You find it funny because you have a misunderstanding over what the constitution says. It doesn't say that the state has external threats and so needs a militia, which is what would be implied by your 'state defending itself' reading. It says a militia is necessary to secure a free State, and so we can't infringe the right to bear arms. That doesn't just mean external threats, and in fact is rooted in the idea that t…

My point is that the original intent of the amendment was not for citizens to bear arms for their self-defense. Guns (muskets) at the time were not thought to be used for protection because they were not very accurate and were slow to reload, making them ineffective against intruders. Multiple books and records show that the founding fathers/federalists/etc. only regarded the second amendment in a military context.

> The Heller case simply extended the existing individual right to own guns in order to protect their free State to that of protecting your person and home.

This is what I am saying is "funny" - While the decision was well-informed and carefully thought out, the SCOTUS did effectively change the constitution by changing what some text meant. It's not different than case law being the biggest precedent for regular legal proceedings.

This is more a debate of whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of those who wrote it. SCOTUS has shown that they think we should adapt to the times and that the United States can progressive deal with issues, and I believe it worked out in a positive manner for the specific 2008 case granting citizens more rights and freedoms.

Post reply on HN