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

281–290 of 294 posts

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

#281

Post by _Nat_ »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #182
int_19h wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why? It seems like a straightforward application of the law making some activity illegal, when its jurisdiction is explicitly defined as extending beyond the nation's borders. If you forget the border for a moment and just consider it all a single jurisdiction, aren't you basically saying that somebody can break the law and claim immunity from prosecution on the basis that their job requirements deman…

What I expect would happen is as follows: 1. you take job at place with code review. 2. Australian police say place a backdoor. 3. You say we have code review the backdoor will be caught. Now at this point the following might happen. 4a. make sure your code is reviewed by X. 4b. ok I guess it won't work. 4c. here is the code to put in, it has a very hard to catch bug that we can exploit. in no way would I expect them…

Is there a protection that prevents the government from requiring an employee take an action that may be discovered?

Or even a reason? I mean, unless the backdoor has a hard-coded URL like `www.ThisIsAGovernmentBackdoor.gov.au`, then a backdoor wouldn't seem to automatically implicate the government. Then an employer might well assume that the employee is just doing their own hacking. And presumably the employee can't say otherwise, right?

Or does the law say that employees can refuse if they fear discovery? And if so, couldn't employees always just refuse on that basis?

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

#282

Post by angry_octet »

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…

Actually you can be compelled whether you are a citizen or not, you just have to be in the country. So unless you have to give up your prior citizenship there is no reason not to proceed.

So please apply, and then maybe one day you can vote against those who support it.

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

#283

Post by angry_octet »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #174
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…

Do you mean tech companies in Australia refusing to hire Australian citizens? Or foreign companies? Because the first is very illegal. If your home country allows dual citizenship, it doesn't seem like a problem for getting a job outside Australia. If it's not a government job where they'll do security checks, just don't disclose your dual citizenship. I hold dual citizenship, and not that my company has asked or wou…

If you are overseas based Australian you can't be compelled by the Australian Government. Only the US Govt makes significant extra-territorial claims.

Unless you are bribing foreign government officials, committing war crimes or engaging in sex tourism, you just have to worry about local laws.

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

#284

Post by tomhoward »

geggam wrote: post #236

Good thing those folks in Australia have retained the ability to fight their govt via the right to bear arms.... right ?

I don't recall seeing news of an armed uprising and government overthrow in the U.S. over net neutrality or NSA activity.

There's no evidence that an armed citizenry would make any difference here.

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

#285

Post by angry_octet »

crawrey wrote: post #267
ggm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australian citizens, regardless of their location are obliged to comply with these requests. Extra-territorial law application is very complex. KP is one of the few places where you can routinely expect to be prosecuted in Australia for breaches overseas. or FGM. Or, more recently the war in Syria but bear with me: do you not also recognize that there is a huge reluctance to try and enforce the law in that last regar…

> Extra-territorial law application is very complex. KP is one of the few places where you can routinely expect to be prosecuted in Australia for breaches overseas. or FGM. Or, more recently the war in Syria but bear with me: do you not also recognize that there is a huge reluctance to try and enforce the law in that last regard? because it turns out simply being somewhere is not neccessarily a good basis to declare…

I'm not sure how much you have noticed about the Huawei executive/heir extradition process in Canada? It isn't a simple process. The govt has to establish that the alleged crime is also a crime in Canada. It is a similar process in most civilized countries. No guarantees in Thailand or the the Gulf states etc.

Don't get me wrong, it is terribly done legislation, but there is no chance it would work against someone overseas, even after they return. You'd only be in trouble if you were in Australia when served with a notice, went to the US and told the internet, and then came home.

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

#286

Post by bryanrasmussen »

_Nat_ wrote: post #281
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I expect would happen is as follows: 1. you take job at place with code review. 2. Australian police say place a backdoor. 3. You say we have code review the backdoor will be caught. Now at this point the following might happen. 4a. make sure your code is reviewed by X. 4b. ok I guess it won't work. 4c. here is the code to put in, it has a very hard to catch bug that we can exploit. in no way would I expect them…

Is there a protection that prevents the government from requiring an employee take an action that may be discovered? Or even a reason? I mean, unless the backdoor has a hard-coded URL like `www.ThisIsAGovernmentBackdoor.gov.au`, then a backdoor wouldn't seem to automatically implicate the government. Then an employer might well assume that the employee is just doing their own hacking. And presumably the employee can'…

I'm not saying the employees can refuse, I'm saying the employees can say I will be discovered because of this reason. I naively suppose the police are like me in that they do things with a purpose in mind, and if they cannot achieve their purpose by an action they refrain from it as a waste of energy.

If their purpose is to hack company X, are informed that the way they intend to do it will be discovered and expose the tool they were going to use, then I expect they would refrain from doing that and try to find some other way. If they do not refrain then their purpose must not be to hack company X but really just to expose the tool for some reason.

However if they just say I will likely be discovered because of this reason, the police will probably just say "that's a risk we're willing to take!" and go for it.

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

#287

Post by Nasrudith »

tracker1 wrote: post #264
Nasrudith wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"well regulated" meant able able-bodied male of adult age. Your definition is likely far more constrained. "practice" in this sense is not generally mentioned, as they were required to own a conventional firearm for the time. As to "training," there wasn't a regimen of regular firearms training per-se. It was generally considered common knowledge to know how to load and fire one's musket. As to any comparison of mode…

I meant it as unconstrained actually - the rationale and the right are separate things. Essentially unrestricted for the sake of practicality. Thus two separate points.

1. It is important to have a populace capable of using firearms. 2. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of course the interpretations are for better or worse living in practice regardless of plain text - freedom of the press still applies to internet and unfortunately the special pleading of obscenity laws have survived for centuries.

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

#288

Post by kdtsh »

kevinSuttle wrote: post #238
kdtsh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it’s just the way you look at it, and maybe even what your priorities are in choosing an email service. To me at least, I’m thoroughly disinterested in an email service which doesn’t implement IMAPS.

Which ones do?

Many I’m sure. Mailbox.org does, and that’s the service I use.

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

#289

Post by dang »

geggam wrote: post #242
krapp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good thing those folks in Australia have retained the ability to fight their govt via the right to bear arms.... right ? Why would violence be an appropriate response by Australians to disagreements with their country's laws? For that matter, given how many Americans disagree with their own country's governance, shouldn't the Tree of Liberty be soaked in the blood of tyrants and patriots by now? Or is the 2A crowd…

Question : What do the unarmed people do Answer : Get in the train to the gas chamber

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

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

#290

Post by marcus_holmes »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #275
bigger_cheese wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to look at our country from a historical point of view. We have a lot of cultural ties with the UK. Australia did not become a country until 1901 and no it wasn't a penal colony for that whole time, There was a lot of migration primarily from the UK - to this day UK is one of our largest source of permanent migrants. Most of Australia's laws, our parliamentary system etc was based on UK Westminster system. I…

Australia's (and Australians') attachment to the monarchy is one of those things that will change dramatically over the next twenty-odd years as the 60+ year-old set, who have anachronistic romantic notions of the monarchy, die off. The "royal weddings" (good lord, kill me now) do their little bit in fluffing up pro-monarchy anachronistic romantic notions in some of the younger set, but nowhere near the amount needed…

> Australia's (and Australians') attachment to the monarchy is one of those things that will change dramatically over the next twenty-odd years as the 60+ year-old set, who have anachronistic romantic notions of the monarchy, die off.

Also the general opinion appears to be that we'd rather be a Republic than have Charles as our king ;)

Post reply on HN