North Korean IT workers have infiltrated the Fortune 500

> I suppose you'd do it the same way any North Korean operative would.

What you are describing here is something any country could do – yes, it is conceivable that Australia's intelligence agencies could use bribery/harassment/threats/blackmail/etc to turn Australian citizens into unwilling spies – but the same is true of the UK, the US, France, Germany, whatever.

The thing that people are calling out Australia over, is a law which says a court can order someone to install a secret backdoor, and furthermore order them not to tell (almost) anyone about it. [0] And I'm sceptical that law could be used in the way you describe – e.g. "They'd offer you training on how to bypass the controls" – the law says a court can order you to install a backdoor – it doesn't say it can order you to attend a training course on how to "bypass controls".

Keep in mind, while proceedings are under seal, you are allowed to retain a lawyer, and your lawyer can make legal arguments before the judge, and can appeal the judge's rulings. IANAL, but would a judge rule that a power to order someone to install a backdoor extends to ordering them to attend a government-run training course on how to deceive their employer? Even if a judge did rule that way, would the appellate courts uphold the ruling?

Or, similarly – "They'd get you to exfiltrate the code and the product roadmap" – does a legal power to order someone to install a backdoor, extend to a legal power to order them to hand over generalised confidential information of their employer? Or similarly – "They'd have you do very innocent, justifiable things at first" – does a legal power to order someone to install a backdoor, extend to a legal power to order them to do "very innocent, justifiable things" which don't in themselves directly contribute to installing any backdoor?

And, as I said, if your lawyer can't talk the court out of it – resign. Will a judge hold that a judicial power to order to the installation of a backdoor extends to ordering a person not to resign their job?

Get a medical certificate saying you can't work. Get yourself admitted to a private psychiatric hospital on the grounds that the stress of this secret government order has caused you to have a nervous breakdown / panic episode / suicidal ideation / etc. (I think if I ever were issued such a secret government order, it really would have that kind of extreme detrimental impact on my mental health, I wouldn't be faking it.) I think a lot of psychologists/psychiatrists/etc would be very sympathetic to your plight. What's a judge supposed to do if they have a psychiatrist testifying that you are medically unfit to comply with the order, or return to the job which the order is associated with?

[0] You are explicitly allowed to tell your personal legal counsel.

> The ideology each state has nothing to do with the risk coming from employing people who can be compelled to follow such rules

What? You can't be serious. Of course the state ideology impacts the risk of the state acting ideologically.

Because the way the US treats other nations. For most of its history, it has been a war. It bullies other nations, interfere in their democratic process, when it doesn't invade them, or suspend their constitution or fund fascist paramilitary death squads to destabilise them. It could strike and annihilate Denmark tomorrow; a lot of Americans would cheer.

The US is very similar to the french Empire after the 1st Republic. It cloaks itself under the name of Republic, but isn't one itself. It's an evil country ran by evil people. The only difference is that Americans get to chose the Emperor every 4 years, whilst knowing no matter who is in charge, very little will change.

Of course its people aren't inherently evil or anything. But the propaganda is intense and permanent, so Americans unfortunately behave like little emperors themselves. This applies to most of Europe too, naturally.

That's why sometimes, I wish to pray to a higher power to spread class consciousness to the whole masses of America and Europe, but am also aware I'm part of the issue, and that it's wishful thinking.

I do not sympathize with NK at all, they are monsters.

What I am surprised about is that the same people who criticized other countries for doing X will not criticize their own/allied country doing a variation of X. I believe that we in the free West have a duty to keep our democrackes and we do that by not copying rules from the like of North Korea and by not constantly creating tools that help abolishing the division of powers.

That means when I critique Australia for that law I do so on the moral ground that Australia should know better, while North Korea is more or less openly evil.

I am a big fan of fixing our own problems instead of pointing elsewhere where it is even worse.

But I learned that there is a big group of people who think that pointing out that there is dog shit on the carpet makes you somehow a traiter and not someone who wants to live in a country without dogshit on the carpet.

You’re going on about moral clarity and cowardice, dodging any real arguments that could be had. This is just obfuscation and relativism (but NK is worse than X). There have been concrete counter-arguments to the narrative in the OP. It doesn’t matter if the head of state of NK has killed more people than Genghis Khan.

There’s also no point in fretting about cowardice. Critiquing a poor Asian country from an apartment in Europe/America/South America won’t get you harmed.