Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 415 posts

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#371

Post by graeme »

wallace_f wrote: post #220
anotherhuman0 wrote: post #201

Somebody over on Reddit [1] went through all the submissions (there was a consultation period) and summarised and tallied them [2]. Fully 99%+ of submissions were against the bill. A sad day for democracy indeed. A church in Tasmania was in favour, because child pornography. 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... 2. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...

A sad day for democracy, but this fact restores some faith in humanity.

Everyone is misreading this comment. OP meant: democracy failed, but the good submissions restore faith in humanity. All the people who wrote in were on the side of common sense.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#372

Post by 75dvtwin »

hnzix wrote: post #349
75dvtwin wrote: post #348

Australia -- the 1st world leader of the modern Progressive policies. 2018 -- citizens loose communication privacy protection [0] 2017 -- whistleblowers and dissidents are committed to mental institutions [1] 2016 -- citizens loose financial transaction privacy (the cashless society with finalized transition by 2020) [2] 1996 -- government confiscated all firearms from the hands of private, law abiding citizens Swede…

> government confiscated all firearms It's relatively easy to get access to firearms in Australia, including semi-automatic pistols. [0] The gun control laws mainly affected semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. [0] https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/10/04/australias-gun-...

thx for the correction. You are right.

I should have said the confiscation (mandatory bayback) started with all semi-automatics and pump-action in 1996.

WRT pistols, the pistols that are allowed, have less lethal power than bow and arrow (if the below excerpt is correct).

"....

they can then attend at a licenced firearm dealer and select a handgun which is suitable for the competition in which they intend to take part. This firearm may be a single-shot air pistol, a single-shot .22-calibre pistol or a .22-calibre revolver or self-loading pistol. …"

https://ssaa.org.au/news-resources/research-archive/handgun-...

not sure if this was also the case before '96 and self-defense was already banned then.

The bolt actions that are allowed, cannot have pistol grip and must not look 'military'.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#374

Post by brokenmachine »

brokenmachine wrote: post #294
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US government ignores their laws and yet > Apple stared down the FBI in a mass murder case, because it was [legally] possible for them to do so.

The US government couldn't make Apple help them in public, but they just spy on everything they can themselves behind closed doors. So far we haven't seen the Australian government ignore its own laws so completely.

Could the downvoter please explain why, or educate themselves about Edward Snowden?

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#375

Post by dunpeal »

jjcm wrote: post #350
dunpeal wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the impact on you going to be like?

Hard to say. The final text of the bill with the amendments that got added this week haven't been published officially yet ( https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... only the first reading is available). Once it is we'll have to do a full review from legal - it's something a bunch of us are wondering internally right now. There are a lot of loopholes in the bill, so it's hard to say what things…

> That's an extreme measure and is probably overkill right now as the loophole that states you don't have to do anything to weaken your security will likely be used as a challenge against building in any backdoors.

I saw that, but another part of the bill that I've seen (on a cursory review, and as a non-professional) is the sweeping, extreme secrecy measures surrounding the execution of any part of the bill.

Basically, my understanding is that you can't tell me as a customer if you've been required to compromise my privacy.

So say you even take the extreme measure and ship some sensitive roles overseas. If for any reason that's not enough, and your government requires you to surrender some of my data, then you will be legally unable to tell me.

That will destroy all trust.

I like Atlassian and am extremely sorry to see this happening to you.

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#376

Post by Whitestrake »

bwilli123 wrote: post #147

Does this mean that if I take my iphone into an Apple Store in Australia for repair that a Genius could load unknown software (under legal compulsion) without Apple itself knowing?

They have to attempt to keep Apple from learning about it, as I understand it. I wonder what steps Apple will take to bar this kind of eventuality. If an employee makes a good faith attempt to comply with this request, which is then blocked by the overseas manufacturer, can they throw their hands up and say, "Well, I tried!"? Would this allow them to avoid the $50k fine and 10 years in jail the Government can hand out for not complying?

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#377

Post by shakna »

nate_meurer wrote: post #342
craigsmansion wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. Neither have you. Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm. But keep on living in the past. If events like Sandy Hooks can't change your collective opinion, I doubt that anything will. It's all on your hands, you proud all-american weekend w…

> Surprisingly, I have not lived at the time of the American Revolution. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine , or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fu…

Australia didn't criminalize guns, we regulated them.

Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated.

Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public.

Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available.

[0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#379

Post by [deleted] »

75dvtwin wrote: post #348

Australia -- the 1st world leader of the modern Progressive policies. 2018 -- citizens loose communication privacy protection [0] 2017 -- whistleblowers and dissidents are committed to mental institutions [1] 2016 -- citizens loose financial transaction privacy (the cashless society with finalized transition by 2020) [2] 1996 -- government confiscated all firearms from the hands of private, law abiding citizens Swede…

[deleted]

Re: Australian parliament passes encryption laws unamended

#380

Post by brokenmachine »

anotherhuman0 wrote: post #201

Somebody over on Reddit [1] went through all the submissions (there was a consultation period) and summarised and tallied them [2]. Fully 99%+ of submissions were against the bill. A sad day for democracy indeed. A church in Tasmania was in favour, because child pornography. 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... 2. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...

Even that church was not all-in:

>The Synod has some hesitancy about ‘safeguarding national security’ being one of the objectives of the notices, as it is not clear what additional activities this captures that are not criminal activities. For example, notices to address terrorist activities are already about enforcing criminal laws as would be notices targeting foreign espionage. We have a concern that ‘safeguarding national security’ might mean the desire of a government of the day to target civil society groups and individuals that oppose its policies or to target whistleblowers that expose wrong-doing by the government of the day. It would be good if the explanatory memorandum of the Bill includes an explanation of what non-criminal activities are intended to be caught under ‘safeguarding national security’ under the Bill.

Post reply on HN