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

221–230 of 294 posts

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

#221

Post by zaphirplane »

danieltillett wrote: post #157
kdtsh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.lawyersweekly.com.au/pol...

“Section 6DD of the Act provides that, where a witness is compelled by a summons to give evidence to the Royal Commission, that evidence isn’t admissible against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, or of a state or territory. It is, however, admissible against a corporation. ”

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

#222

Post by Nasrudith »

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.

Saying "it is unfair I can't get away with crime too" is not a defense. And many in fact /are/ already refusing to do so. Witness many privacy laws which explicitly bar storage of citizen data in US jurisdictions - granted some have cynical "so they can access it" motivations. It was why Microsoft of all corporations, one which has been enough of a toady to be caught with NSA in variable names sued hard to demand warrant protection.

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

#223

Post by bad_user »

yingw787 wrote: post #31
jjcm wrote: post #4

That's one of the biggest things that lawmakers here couldn't seem to understand - tech companies have high mobility across borders. Even if a law has no teeth, why would Microsoft store data in Australia when the next country over can still serve data for the region? It just creates too much risk, from a privacy and PR standpoint. Startups will be more adverse to founding in Australia as well. It just creates a blac…

I think that "high mobility across borders" is an assumption based on existing trade regulations. From recent developments it's clear countries can and do force companies to do things they don't want, and companies will do it because they can't or won't lose access to consumers in those markets. For example, Apple has begun storing Russian user data in Russia in compliance with Russian data storage laws ( https://ven…

> Apple has begun storing Russian user data in Russia in compliance with Russian data storage laws

I don't see how this is inherently bad.

First of all Russia's intelligence agencies get access to any data belonging to Russian citizens anyway, simply because those citizens are under Russian legislation.

I don't know the details, however note that the GDPR also imposes restrictions on exporting the data of EU citizens outside the EU. For example exports are only allowed in countries or territories that have enough safeguards for the protection of that data.

This is important for privacy, for example if our local security agencies mishandle my data, I can sue them, I can vote for the opposition, I can convince other people to do the same, etc, however if a foreign agency mishandles my data, like those of Australia, I can do absolutely nothing about it.

And from the state's point of view, having access to the data of your citizens is also a matter of national security. I can definitely see why a rival of the USA wouldn't want the data of its citizens stored on servers located in the USA.

---

Companies that want access to the Australian market will succumb to Australian demands of course.

The problem for Australia however is that their local companies will get hurt in the international marketplace.

For example Fastmail, which competes with Google by promising better privacy, is now in a very awkward situation of having to explain how this bill is affecting them and what they are doing about it. In a market dominated by Google, hurting your local companies that compete with Google is downright stupid and will have an effect on their economy.

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

#224

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> We've got the oldest surviving written Constitution, sure, but that's a different issue.

According to this, San Marino is still using their 1600 constitution:

* https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/oldest-constitutions-sti...

There is some debate on whether it counts though.

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

#225

Post by Nasrudith »

tracker1 wrote: post #26
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…

"... shall not be infringed" because of the need for a "well regulated militia," not for said militia. It's an example of why the right is needed. Especially given the people raised a violent coup against their own government. These people were not in favor of disarming the public in general... to interpret it otherwise would be effectively changing the law.

Well regulated also essentially meant "competent" then as well. So it could be interpretted as "so our militia can have enough firearms practice to shoot straight and know how to fire, maintain, and reload the right to have gund shall not be infringed".

Essentially like a justification for public schools and compulsory education being "literacy is essential to function be an informed citizen which is needed for self government". Just like how merely being able to shoot well isn't enough to be a good soldier but it is important.

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

#226

Post by throw0101a »

threatofrain wrote: post #192
int_19h wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proce…

I think it's the splitting of government power that secures people's rights, not the fact that the Constitution needs many votes to amend. Because someone still has to enforce the Constitution; of course it's going to be the government. Your rights are just words if the government doesn't care.

> I think it's the splitting of government power that secures people's rights [...] Your rights are just words if the government doesn't care.

And how did that go with Trump-GOP in the White House and the House-GOP and Senate-GOP? See also Kavanaugh and the ignoring/suppression of Garland.

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

#227

Post by ggm »

crawrey wrote: post #163
ggm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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. This law gave the government the power to do just that. Details of implementing a backdoor in secret is close to impossible, as any developer would know. There was a post[1] made by "Alfie John" (alfiedotwtf) that outlines a scenario in which a developer is presented with a Technical…

I am not a lawyer. But, I think we can all agree the track record for the Attorney General in Australia fucking it up to coin a phrase, is remarkably high.

so This law gave the government the power to do just that. Is in my non-lawyer opinion, HIGHLY contestable. I would expect somebody like Atlassian to do just that: take it up to them, pony up, and contest the legality of this.

An employee has liabilities for things done to their employers code which causes material harm. I think the canary in the mine would be huge here: resign, do not cause your employers product to be backdoored, you cannot be obligated to introduce bugs.

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

#228

Post by philpem »

mises wrote: post #215
philliphaydon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We elect the government to serve the people Quit making me laugh, buddy. Unfortunately, I think we all know that once they get their office, they do very little to serve the people. Not sure about the case with Australia, but you can't sue the American government unless it lets you. Otherwise, it just claims sovereign immunity. Wrong as that is, it's a very good defense as it keeps them out of court. This might lea…

That could lead to some interesting court cases.

Employee gets fired for introducing a backdoor, but "may or may not have been" subject to one of these assistance notes (the Government won't comment either way, the employee insists they had a Technical Assistance Note). Employee sues the employer for wrongful dismissal because of the alleged unprovable TAN.

I wonder which way that court case would go... sounds like a recipe for deadlock.

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

#229

Post by dragonwriter »

why_only_15 wrote: post #107
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The US has a very different system in a lot of ways. The UK doesn't have a formal constitution, its executive is subject to the legislature in a way it isn't in the US, one house, etc. The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the US is a republic. Also, the UK wasn't a democracy in any meaningful sense in 1776. The History Of Parliament Online is a very useful resource ( https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/resea…

> The UK doesn't have a formal constitution

The UK doesn't have a single written document that lays out the Constitution, but I wouldn't necessarily call the Constitution informal.

> its executive is subject to the legislature in a way it isn't

True.

> one house,

The UK still has a bicameral, not unicameral, legislature, though it now has priority in the lower house (unlike the US, which retains greater power in the undemocratic upper house, a feature it copied from the UK which has since shed it.)

> The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the US is a republic.

The UK is a representative democracy with a ceremonial monarch and the US is a representative democracy without a ceremonial monarch; the absence of a monarch is the sum total of the difference indicated by “republic”.

> Also, the UK wasn't a democracy in any meaningful sense in 1776.

Neither, though, was the US in 1776, or 1789, for much the same reason: the colonies had imported and retained (in some cases added to) the kinds of restrictions on the franchise found in the UK, and kept them past the revolution and Constitution, which left decision of who could vote to the States (and, while not in the federal government, also often had even more stringent property, etc., requirements for office holders.)

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

#230

Post by fixermark »

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…

Wow, so Australian law allows them to basically impress any citizen into espionage?

That's buck-wild.

Post reply on HN