3 ms·

> (not an official one from the company) So... Atlassian is for this bill? Edit downvotes... This is a serious question, it's a pretty notable Australian tec

by lugg 8y ago

> (not an official one from the company) So... Atlassian is for this bill? Edit downvotes... This is a serious question, it's a pretty notable Australian tech company and is surprising to hear the company is unwilling to make a stand. How are you going to reassure companies elsewhere that their company communications are secure when clearly they wount be.

jjcm 8y ago
https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/1039095041371697157 https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/103909504137169715... For what it's worth, our CEO has been outspoken against this. This isn't a, "we're doing this because our company is for the bill" type of thing. It's a "we're doing this because me and my buddies who are working late tonight found out about this so we drafted up a letter to the government". I just don't want to say that I'm representing Atlassian's stance without running things through legal.
- lugg 8y ago
  I suspected as much, I just felt that if it was a stance worth making it was probably a stance worth running past legal (even if it meant a quick phone call out of hours.) Whether that call is met with abstantiation or otherwise is what I was wanting to infer. Because at this point, abstantiation or sitting on the fence is as good as supporting the bill.
cyphar 8y ago
I imagine it's because they aren't authorised to speak for the company on topics like what government policies the company is against (and I imagine this is why you got down-voted). But yes, I also would have expected Atlassian and other Australian-based technology companies to vocally oppose this bill because it will actually result in their customers moving away in the long run (this bill will only affect companies incorporated in Australia or other 5-Eyes countries) -- because this bill explicitly requires companies to architect security systems to be insecure. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be the case, which is incredibly disappointing.

by lugg 8y ago

jjcm 8y ago

https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/1039095041371697157 https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/103909504137169715... For what it's worth, our CEO has been outspoken against this. This isn't a, "we're doing this because our company is for the bill" type of thing. It's a "we're doing this because me and my buddies who are working late tonight found out about this so we drafted up a letter to the government". I just don't want to say that I'm representing Atlassian's stance without running things through legal.

lugg 8y ago
I suspected as much, I just felt that if it was a stance worth making it was probably a stance worth running past legal (even if it meant a quick phone call out of hours.) Whether that call is met with abstantiation or otherwise is what I was wanting to infer. Because at this point, abstantiation or sitting on the fence is as good as supporting the bill.

cyphar 8y ago

I imagine it's because they aren't authorised to speak for the company on topics like what government policies the company is against (and I imagine this is why you got down-voted). But yes, I also would have expected Atlassian and other Australian-based technology companies to vocally oppose this bill because it will actually result in their customers moving away in the long run (this bill will only affect companies incorporated in Australia or other 5-Eyes countries) -- because this bill explicitly requires companies to architect security systems to be insecure. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be the case, which is incredibly disappointing.