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

151–160 of 294 posts

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

#151

Post by grizzles »

Aussie entrepreneurs aren't too happy about this law or some of the other ones, eg. the immigration laws.

One friend (health related ml/ai) is moving from Australia to Thailand next week. He is PISSED the Aussie government wouldn't let him hire one guy who was already in the country but not a citizen. That cost 6 other domestics their job. They were sent packing last week.

He's not the first and he certainly won't be the last to move his company overseas because of the govts anti biz policies.

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

#152

Post by int_19h »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
xxpor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US there's no explicit right to vote.

> In the US there's no explicit right to vote. Yes, there is. There is no explicit general prohibition on laws impairing that specific right the way there is some other rights, but the existence of the right is explicit, among other places in Amendment XV, Sec. 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or prev…

This implies that the right can be denied for other reasons, which would mean that it's not an inherent right of citizens. And, indeed, courts do not consider e.g. restrictions on voting for citizens with criminal records to be unconstitutional.

And it's not like it's a new invention. I mean, women couldn't vote back when 15A was passed, and they still couldn't vote after. It wasn't a surprise, either - many suffragists opposed 15A even before it was ratified for this exact reason, because its wording made it clear that it wasn't covering sex.

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

#153

Post by int_19h »

spydum wrote: post #22
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.

To be fair this isn’t solved via constitutional rights in the US either - look up eminent domain law.

Better yet, look up "mineral rights". It actually comes up a lot in private house sales.

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

#154

Post by blotter_paper »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #146
blotter_paper wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by ggm »

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…

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.

As I read it, the law requires warrants and court enforcement. I don't think you can be required to backdoor code in secret or held to account by the security agencies not to inform your employer. I would be very surprised if tat was legal and uncontestable.

I do expect you can be informed by your employer you have to backdoor code.

I do not expect you can have an extra-territorial obligation placed on your work conducted outside Australia. If you are working inside australia remotely I think its complex.

I think the EFF should fund your case. Take citizenship and help fight this.

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

#157

Post by danieltillett »

kdtsh wrote: post #126
danieltillett wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Po…

No you can’t be compelled to give evidence against yourself in a normal criminal case. You can be compelled to give evidence in a royal commission hearing and that evidence can be used to prosecute you in a subsequent criminal case.

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

#158

Post by danieltillett »

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…

Yes establishing a state religion is a power retained by the states. The states were independent countries before federation and so they retain a great deal of power.

In practice this is not something that we have to worry about here in Australia. The high court has rule in a few case an implied right to freedom of religion in the constitution in much the same way they have done so for freedom of speech - although freedom of speech seems to be under far more attack of late here.

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

#159

Post by BLKNSLVR »

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.

The beaches and sunshine mean that there are better things to do than worry about f*cking politics.

Australian frogs are coming to the boil.

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

#160

Post by viraptor »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #38
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…

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

1. You likely can't force someone to disclose all their citizenships.

2. In most countries you can't legally discriminate based on nationality. In practice publishing this comment here will likely cause you more trouble if you reject someone now, than Australian government.

3. If you apply this to all... what countries are you left with exactly where the government or LE can't force people to do something?

Post reply on HN