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

141–150 of 265 posts

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

#141

Post by Taniwha »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #135
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…

This: https://twitter.com/alfiedotwtf/status/1070047303275175936 Which is absolutely brilliant.

yes that's the thread, thanks

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

#142

Post by cyphar »

gtbc wrote: post #105
ggm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live here? I do, and while tiny nuggets of truth are in individual sentence clauses, this is a very paranoid and over stated argument. We have a high court. They reverse bad federal and state laws. Lots of bad immigration decisions by ministers are being overturned. Mabo happened.

The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute is it not? In fact, in the case of the bad immigration decisions you mention, the minister has tried to pass legislation to restrict judicial oversight. EDIT: And he is also alleged to have used his already considerable discretionary powers to allow au pairs for politically connected individuals into Australia in violation of their visa conditions, with no c…

The High Court's powers are defined in Section III of the Australian Constitution. In fact, s73 explicitly disallows parliament from stopping the High Court from hearing an appeal from a Supreme State Court.

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

#144

Post by jeeeeb »

fit2rule wrote: post #139
jeeeeb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommend reading the actual law, as passed by parliament . Knowing your rights and legal options under the law and based on that approaching your MP (if you are still registered to vote in Australia) with your concerns to encourage them to address them. To do that you really need to know what the law actually says and requires. Here is a start: TCN/TAN are not limited to Australian citizens. Revoking your citize…

Pretty simple: there are countries where these activities are highly illegal. I'll become a citizen of one of them instead.

As I said before: it is a defence for non-compliance if a TAN/TCN would compel you to commit a crime in a foreign country

That has nothing to do with whether you are an Australian citizen or not. If you are a resident in Austria, these laws do not allow the government to compel you to commit a crime in Austria.

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

#145

Post by mwill »

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…

I'm less worried that these clauses will be used/abused, and more worried that the mere existence of these clauses will be catastrophic to the trust of Australian suppliers to overseas customers.

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

#146

Post by joppy »

djsumdog wrote: post #34
retrogradeorbit wrote: post #6

The thing that makes me most despondent is, you just watch them all get voted back in next election.

It's exceptionally sad since Australia has order of preference, instant runoff and mandatory voting. Even with all those safeguards to prevent major parties and ensure equal representation, Australia still ends up with major parties and too many people who don't bother with the bottom of the ballot.

I think this is partly the fault of how electorates work. Imagine an election where every electorate votes 30% party A, and the remaining 70% of the vote split somehow between parties B and C. Then you get only members of parties B and C in office, and so you could argue that 30% of the population is not even represented.

This is not so far off what happens with the Greens - in the last federal election they had about a 15% first-preference vote across Australia, but ended up with only 1/150 seats in parliament.

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

cyphar wrote: post #142
gtbc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute is it not? In fact, in the case of the bad immigration decisions you mention, the minister has tried to pass legislation to restrict judicial oversight. EDIT: And he is also alleged to have used his already considerable discretionary powers to allow au pairs for politically connected individuals into Australia in violation of their visa conditions, with no c…

The High Court's powers are defined in Section III of the Australian Constitution. In fact, s73 explicitly disallows parliament from stopping the High Court from hearing an appeal from a Supreme State Court.

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by dang »

sheepmullet wrote: post #104
fit2rule wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an Australian software developer, living in Europe and working for a European company (Austria) which has an Australian partner developing software for use in both the Australian and European markets. Can the Australian government compel me to sabotage the Australian software for their uses within Australia, and if so, can the Austrian government charge me with a crime for having done it while living in Austria?…

> I'm considering giving up my Australian citizenship over this Then you never should have had it in the first place.

That crosses into incivility and you can't post like that here.

More importantly, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's an abuse of this site, because it destroys the intellectual curiosity that it exists for. So we ban accounts that do this.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.

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

#149

Post by gtbc »

cyphar wrote: post #142
gtbc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute is it not? In fact, in the case of the bad immigration decisions you mention, the minister has tried to pass legislation to restrict judicial oversight. EDIT: And he is also alleged to have used his already considerable discretionary powers to allow au pairs for politically connected individuals into Australia in violation of their visa conditions, with no c…

The High Court's powers are defined in Section III of the Australian Constitution. In fact, s73 explicitly disallows parliament from stopping the High Court from hearing an appeal from a Supreme State Court.

Does that have much to do with the matter at hand?

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

#150

Post by tomtomau »

joshschreuder wrote: post #87
cyphar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like Labor will win next election, but that really doesn't matter. Labor voted for the bill unanimously.

Actually they voted on the promise from the Libs that the amendments they proposed would be revisited in 2019, just to make Australia safe over Christmas. Which is somehow even more boneheaded than unanimously agreeing. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-07/bill-shorten-says-con...

Except the law doesn't kick in until the New Year.
Post reply on HN