9 ms·

While I understand why they didn't mention this (because it's not clear if this interpretation of the bill is correct -- given there is currently no common law

by cyphar 8y ago

While I understand why they didn't mention this (because it's not clear if this interpretation of the bill is correct -- given there is currently no common law around it), I would like to point out what is the most concerning thing (to me) about this legislation. It potentially allows the government to turn employees into saboteurs. According to s.317C(6), a "designated service provider" can be someone who has developed software that is likely to be used in an electronic service that has one end-user in Australia. This is a very wide net and immediately includes effectively every free software developer, and the employees of every tech company. Now, there is an argument to be made that employees don't qualify (because they're acting on behalf of their employer), but that's not clear at the moment. It also includes sysadmins (or even ex-sysadmins) as people who can be "activated" as saboteurs. It should be noted that it's very unlikely that this legislation would result in the Armageddon most people (including myself) are quite worried about. I imagine it's much more likely this power will be used against a few big players (Apple, Facebook, Google) in order to add features like being able to add additional devices to group chats (or something like that). But obviously the law gives them much more power than that, and that's a very big concern. (And the fact that only 2 MPs voted against it tells me there's almost certainly some back-door dealings that resulted in this bill being passed.)

drngdds 8y ago
>This is a very wide net and immediately includes effectively every free software developer, and the employees of every tech company. This doesn't seem very meaningful? I live in the US. If the Australian government goes to me and tells me to sabotage my employer, I can tell them to pound sand.
- cyphar 8y ago
  It's an Australian law, so it can only affect people under Australian jurisdiction -- I didn't think that needed to be said. There are significant numbers of free software developers in Australia (I'm one of them). The point is that all software engineers (in Australia) being able to be co-opted as saboteurs is a fairly "meaningful" problem and should be a concern to everyone...
  - brian-armstrong 8y ago
    Well, if it comes to it, we could always choose to just blacklist all Australian devs from writing software.
    - spdionis 8y ago
      That sounds like a reasonable outcome...
      - brian-armstrong 8y ago
        No, not reasonable, but it's the will of the Australian people and we should respect their sovereignty.
        jakobloekke 8y ago
        I honestly can’t tell if this is an honest comment, or a dark ironic reference to Trump, Brexit or current Italian politics.
        TomMckenny 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
        brokenmachine 8y ago
        This was not the will of the Australian people. There was a "consultation period" and 99.7% of the submissions were against it. https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistance_and_access_bill_2018_just_passed_the/eb75et6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8iinbqRd1peTgQp_fSL0vELDA/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...
        talaketu 8y ago
- dvtrn 8y ago
  This doesn't seem very meaningful? I live in the US. How very Ameri-centric?
  - drakenot 8y ago
    That wasn’t their point. These are global services and many of them are written and controlled by people who aren’t under the authority of Australian law.
    - MRD85 8y ago
      I don't really follow these things much but isn't Julian Assange wanted for breaking American law while not under its authority? Wouldn't America need reciprocal deals?
  - dang 8y ago
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- incompatible 8y ago
  Yeah, just remember not to go to Australia on holiday. It's more of an issue for companies that have a business presence in Australia, the usual suspects that sell proprietary software or advertising there. It also makes it hard to trust software developed in Australia. Perhaps people outside Australia should also be wary of software from companies that do business in Australia, if there's any reason to think that the Australian government may want your data.
  - enturn 8y ago
    That's a good point. There's no guarantee that compromised devices will stay within Australian jurisdiction. How are diplomats affected by this law?
    - incompatible 8y ago
      I'm just looking through the bill and noticed that as well as targetting anyone who provides an electronic service that has one or more users in Australia, or anyone who develops software used in such a service, it also targets anyone who "manufactures or supplies components for use, or likely to be used, in the manufacture of a facility for use, or likely to be used, in Australia". So they can also demand that equipment manufacturers insert back doors. Manufacturers may just ship their compromised hardware worldwide, for convenience when other governments demand the same service.
    - incompatible 8y ago
      The law seems to permit them to target people outside Australia suspected of violating foreign laws, possibly at the request of a foreign government. So the US, for example, could ask Australia to use its new powers to force a Chinese manufacturer to help bug a US resident, if I'm interpreting it right.
      - brokenmachine 8y ago
        This is exactly what these laws are really about. They are so the US and other 5 eyes members can spy on their own citizens in ways that are illegal under their own laws. These laws are terrifying for everyone, not only Australians.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 8y ago
  The demand would come directly from the US government, after it passes the same law in five years. You do realize this is ultimately FVEY doing a trial in Australia, yes?
  - adventured 8y ago
    You could say that about any bad bill passed in any of the five eyes at any point in the past. The reality is, that's not how things work. For example, in Britain you can be arrested for modestly offending someone on Twitter, due to their speech crime laws.[1] That's never going to commonly be the case in the US due to very strong speech protections. Australia did away with its guns. The US is never going to follow that example. Australia's actions were not a trial for what would happen in the US. The large counter examples to your premise are numerous. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
    - coptan 8y ago
      > Australia did away with its guns. No it didn't. Saying it did helps prevent the US implement similar measures.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      Neither of the examples you gave have anything to do with signals intelligence. But yes, FVEY isn't an overarching conspiracy that implements all digital authoritarianism, nor does it have a monopoly on promulgating such corruption - I doubt FVEY itself coordinated the attack on Kim Dotcom. Nor is it the only such conspiracy - Sweden isn't part of FVEY yet eagerly went after TPB and Assange. But pointing to such agreements is a good analogy for the similar ratcheting totalitarian trends we observe across countries - how intertwined the governments are, and how willingly they give up their citizen-subjects to each other. This is the larger issue - regardless of the actual mechanics of pollination, we can be sure that after the bugs have been worked out in Australia, we'll be staring down the same exact bullshit in the US. (And I do apologize for blowing up a thread about Australia with US centrism. The point is that we, the people, are ultimately all in this together. Looking to US-exceptionalism as a reason to write off what's happening in Australia as their own problem is a broken outlook)
- pera 8y ago
  I am really not trying to be an alarmist but couldn't one be extradited to Australia for not complying?
  - adventured 8y ago
    Definitely not in the case of the US. For other developed, liberal democracies, it'd be similarly very unlikely. It'd be equivalent to allowing China (or Turkey, etc) to extradite a citizen over speech that offends said foreign government. The US is particularly aggressive about not ceding legal / constitutional sovereignty to other nations or entities.
  - jeeeeb 8y ago
    Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil mater and the law explicitly states that being required to do an act or thing in a foreign jurisdiction that would contravene the laws of that jurisdiction is a defence for non-compliance.
    - mcherm 8y ago
      > being required to do an act or thing in a foreign jurisdiction that would contravene the laws of that jurisdiction is a defense for non-compliance There is no law in the US prohibiting me from creating an alternate login screen for one particular customer just in order to capture their login password. So as a US citizen I have no defense within Australian law against an Australian demand that I capture the password of one of my users... perhaps a parliament member of the Australian opposition. I can choose to simply ignore the demand. The US will not extradite me for violating a foreign law that does not have an equivalent in US law. But I suppose I can never go on vacation to Australia.
      - jeeeeb 8y ago
        Are you sure there is no law against this in the US? Isn't this potentially: 1. Circumventing an electronic protection 2. Unauthorised access (if your employer does not authorise the changes) .etc.
bad_user 8y ago
Laws eventually get abused. I think it’s very likely that this law will eventually lead to everything everybody is worrying about.
- dwd 8y ago
  Even if it doesn't the unintended consequences and the Chilling Effect to public discourse is going to prove damaging. I saw they were working in clauses to invoke Parliamentary Privilege so they can't be spied on. Fuck that, there should be openness regarding discussions on any topic when they are there solely as their constituents' representatives. Had enough of them enacting laws that don't address the people's needs and serve no real purpose for the voters they clearly do not represent. Their inaction on climate change and continued embrace of the coal industry says it all. And anything to do with security is clearly above these clowns pay grade.
  - Whitestrake 8y ago
    My civil rights _should_ trump your parliamentary privilege (in an ideal world, I guess)...
thiagocsf 8y ago
> only 2 MPs voted against it Have you got a source for this? I read (can’t remebemer where, sorry) that most Greens senators voted against it. From memory, Di Natali and SHY were in the list. The legislation was waved-through by Labor because there is an election coming up and they were afraid to be labelled as pro terrorists and child molesters. This site has sources: https://alp.fail https://alp.fail
- jee1shi 8y ago
  MP's are different from senators. MP's are in the house while senators are in the senate.
jeeeeb 8y ago
Personally I've been reading the text and trying to grasp the implications of this. There appears to be two limitations on this power: 1. You cannot be compelled to do something in a foreign country that would be a crime in that country 2. In issuing the notice the relevant oversight authority must give weight to your 'legitimate' interests. I think 1 is a huge point as it effectively constrains the jurisdiction of the law to Australia. However, there is still significant ambiguity. For example, can I be compelled to commit a crime against a foreign country while in Australia, if I have a legitimate interest in not committing a crime against that country? Would a company's legitimate interest in not compromising customer trust (more than the existence of this legislation doesn't already), act as a significant constraint on the issuing of TANs/TCNs? There's also ambiguity as to whether I can reveal the existence of a TAN/TCN to my employer. The law makes certain exceptions, including the ability to publish the aggregate total of TAN/TCN received in a 6 month period and seek legal advice. So in order to seek legal advice or reasonably execute a TAN/TCN can I let my employer know?
- fit2rule 8y ago
  I'm an Australian software developer, living in Europe and working for a European company (Austria) which has an Australian partner developing software for use in both the Australian and European markets. Can the Australian government compel me to sabotage the Australian software for their uses within Australia, and if so, can the Austrian government charge me with a crime for having done it while living in Austria? The fact that I even have to ask this kind of question enrages me. I'm considering giving up my Australian citizenship over this, it is that infuriating.
  - jeeeeb 8y ago
    I was worried about this as well which is why I read the law and commented above. The short answer is: 1. Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil not a criminal mater 2. As I stated above the law clearly says that it is a defence for non-compliance if a TAN/TCN would compel you to commit a crime in a foreign country. The issue is whether you can be compelled to commit an act in Australia, which would be a crime in a foreign country. 3. Consideration must be given to your legitimate interests. In short, if you get a TAN/TCN then seek legal advice.
fit2rule 8y ago
>very unlikely that this legislation would result in the Armageddon The trouble is, the secrecy. So we'll never know if there was an Australian-digital-armageddon, because none of us (Australians) are allowed to discuss it.
mwill 8y ago
I'm less worried that these clauses will be used/abused, and more worried that the mere existence of these clauses will be catastrophic to the trust of Australian suppliers to overseas customers.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  I'm more worried they will be abused. Also that the backdoors will be exploited by the other bad guys.
lawland 8y ago
> I imagine it's much more likely this power will be used against a few big players (Apple, Facebook, Google) Aussie market is not that big. Its gdp is less than a tenth of USA, smaller than Canada and a half of India. It is a good size but if a bunch of google employees stage a protest over this, google may just pull out of it because losing talent can be a bigger pain.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Note that Google, Apple, etc all have Australian employees and have subsidiaries incorporated in Australia. Google Maps came out of Google Australia, for instance. So you could argue they'd lose talent by pulling out. Don't get me wrong, I want big tech companies to retaliate since that's the only way to get the attention of the Australian government (they stopped listening to the proletariat a long time ago). But it should be done as a retaliation, because that's the only justification that I believe would be consistent and might make a difference.
mirimir 8y ago
If you think that this is a new thing, I recommend reading James Bamford's books about the NSA and its predecessors. It was not uncommon for technical staff to discreetly provide data to government intelligence agencies. Back in the telegraph days, that meant shlepping rolls of paper tape. Later, magnetic wire and tape. And this was often done without management knowledge. Because, you know, these were patriotic guys.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  That is what is so scary about this. Australia is still committing crimes against humanity - this law pulls the tech community into that, and involves us in something that I would hope a lot of us would never choose to willingly participate in. But, if we leave in protest, the gap will be filled with people who have no problems with these human rights violations.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Just to be clear, this is insidious. Before, engineers etc might be guilt-tripped into helping catch "bad people". But this makes it official, with penalties for refusal. Maybe it demonstrates that engineers etc don't cooperate as freely as they once did. That would be good news, no?
    - acct1771 8y ago
      It demonstrates that the internet has broken a lot of propaganda.
chris1993 8y ago
From what appears in the media it looks like not so much back-door dealings as realpolitik. There is considerable domestic politics in play where the opposition (Australian Labor) party didn't want to get labelled 'soft on terrorism' by a struggling government which is looking for any message to attack the opposition over the xmas holiday period, particularly if there are any 'incidents' during this time. The opposition have requested that the legislation be reviewed and, one would hope, amended when parliament is resumed.
caf 8y ago
(And the fact that only 2 MPs voted against it tells me there's almost certainly some back-door dealings that resulted in this bill being passed.) Not really, that's just a consequence of the Australian Parliament's history of very strong party discipline. It is highly unusual for all the members of a parliamentary party not to vote the same way on a bill.
cmroanirgo 8y ago
Agree. Imagine also if, as a potential 'saboteur' the gov then try and sweeten the 'deal' with cash 'on the side'. Suddenly, we're also targets for moral corruption too -- just like the pollies who voted for this disaster.

by cyphar 8y ago

drngdds 8y ago

>This is a very wide net and immediately includes effectively every free software developer, and the employees of every tech company. This doesn't seem very meaningful? I live in the US. If the Australian government goes to me and tells me to sabotage my employer, I can tell them to pound sand.

cyphar 8y ago
It's an Australian law, so it can only affect people under Australian jurisdiction -- I didn't think that needed to be said. There are significant numbers of free software developers in Australia (I'm one of them). The point is that all software engineers (in Australia) being able to be co-opted as saboteurs is a fairly "meaningful" problem and should be a concern to everyone...
- brian-armstrong 8y ago
  Well, if it comes to it, we could always choose to just blacklist all Australian devs from writing software.
  - spdionis 8y ago
    That sounds like a reasonable outcome...
    - brian-armstrong 8y ago
      No, not reasonable, but it's the will of the Australian people and we should respect their sovereignty.
      - jakobloekke 8y ago
        I honestly can’t tell if this is an honest comment, or a dark ironic reference to Trump, Brexit or current Italian politics.
        TomMckenny 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
      - brokenmachine 8y ago
        This was not the will of the Australian people. There was a "consultation period" and 99.7% of the submissions were against it. https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistance_and_access_bill_2018_just_passed_the/eb75et6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8iinbqRd1peTgQp_fSL0vELDA/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...
        talaketu 8y ago
dvtrn 8y ago
This doesn't seem very meaningful? I live in the US. How very Ameri-centric?
- drakenot 8y ago
  That wasn’t their point. These are global services and many of them are written and controlled by people who aren’t under the authority of Australian law.
  - MRD85 8y ago
    I don't really follow these things much but isn't Julian Assange wanted for breaking American law while not under its authority? Wouldn't America need reciprocal deals?
- dang 8y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
incompatible 8y ago
Yeah, just remember not to go to Australia on holiday. It's more of an issue for companies that have a business presence in Australia, the usual suspects that sell proprietary software or advertising there. It also makes it hard to trust software developed in Australia. Perhaps people outside Australia should also be wary of software from companies that do business in Australia, if there's any reason to think that the Australian government may want your data.
- enturn 8y ago
  That's a good point. There's no guarantee that compromised devices will stay within Australian jurisdiction. How are diplomats affected by this law?
  - incompatible 8y ago
    I'm just looking through the bill and noticed that as well as targetting anyone who provides an electronic service that has one or more users in Australia, or anyone who develops software used in such a service, it also targets anyone who "manufactures or supplies components for use, or likely to be used, in the manufacture of a facility for use, or likely to be used, in Australia". So they can also demand that equipment manufacturers insert back doors. Manufacturers may just ship their compromised hardware worldwide, for convenience when other governments demand the same service.
  - incompatible 8y ago
    The law seems to permit them to target people outside Australia suspected of violating foreign laws, possibly at the request of a foreign government. So the US, for example, could ask Australia to use its new powers to force a Chinese manufacturer to help bug a US resident, if I'm interpreting it right.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      This is exactly what these laws are really about. They are so the US and other 5 eyes members can spy on their own citizens in ways that are illegal under their own laws. These laws are terrifying for everyone, not only Australians.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 8y ago
The demand would come directly from the US government, after it passes the same law in five years. You do realize this is ultimately FVEY doing a trial in Australia, yes?
- adventured 8y ago
  You could say that about any bad bill passed in any of the five eyes at any point in the past. The reality is, that's not how things work. For example, in Britain you can be arrested for modestly offending someone on Twitter, due to their speech crime laws.[1] That's never going to commonly be the case in the US due to very strong speech protections. Australia did away with its guns. The US is never going to follow that example. Australia's actions were not a trial for what would happen in the US. The large counter examples to your premise are numerous. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
  - coptan 8y ago
    > Australia did away with its guns. No it didn't. Saying it did helps prevent the US implement similar measures.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Neither of the examples you gave have anything to do with signals intelligence. But yes, FVEY isn't an overarching conspiracy that implements all digital authoritarianism, nor does it have a monopoly on promulgating such corruption - I doubt FVEY itself coordinated the attack on Kim Dotcom. Nor is it the only such conspiracy - Sweden isn't part of FVEY yet eagerly went after TPB and Assange. But pointing to such agreements is a good analogy for the similar ratcheting totalitarian trends we observe across countries - how intertwined the governments are, and how willingly they give up their citizen-subjects to each other. This is the larger issue - regardless of the actual mechanics of pollination, we can be sure that after the bugs have been worked out in Australia, we'll be staring down the same exact bullshit in the US. (And I do apologize for blowing up a thread about Australia with US centrism. The point is that we, the people, are ultimately all in this together. Looking to US-exceptionalism as a reason to write off what's happening in Australia as their own problem is a broken outlook)
pera 8y ago
I am really not trying to be an alarmist but couldn't one be extradited to Australia for not complying?
- adventured 8y ago
  Definitely not in the case of the US. For other developed, liberal democracies, it'd be similarly very unlikely. It'd be equivalent to allowing China (or Turkey, etc) to extradite a citizen over speech that offends said foreign government. The US is particularly aggressive about not ceding legal / constitutional sovereignty to other nations or entities.
- jeeeeb 8y ago
  Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil mater and the law explicitly states that being required to do an act or thing in a foreign jurisdiction that would contravene the laws of that jurisdiction is a defence for non-compliance.
  - mcherm 8y ago
    > being required to do an act or thing in a foreign jurisdiction that would contravene the laws of that jurisdiction is a defense for non-compliance There is no law in the US prohibiting me from creating an alternate login screen for one particular customer just in order to capture their login password. So as a US citizen I have no defense within Australian law against an Australian demand that I capture the password of one of my users... perhaps a parliament member of the Australian opposition. I can choose to simply ignore the demand. The US will not extradite me for violating a foreign law that does not have an equivalent in US law. But I suppose I can never go on vacation to Australia.
    - jeeeeb 8y ago
      Are you sure there is no law against this in the US? Isn't this potentially: 1. Circumventing an electronic protection 2. Unauthorised access (if your employer does not authorise the changes) .etc.

bad_user 8y ago

Laws eventually get abused. I think it’s very likely that this law will eventually lead to everything everybody is worrying about.

dwd 8y ago
Even if it doesn't the unintended consequences and the Chilling Effect to public discourse is going to prove damaging. I saw they were working in clauses to invoke Parliamentary Privilege so they can't be spied on. Fuck that, there should be openness regarding discussions on any topic when they are there solely as their constituents' representatives. Had enough of them enacting laws that don't address the people's needs and serve no real purpose for the voters they clearly do not represent. Their inaction on climate change and continued embrace of the coal industry says it all. And anything to do with security is clearly above these clowns pay grade.
- Whitestrake 8y ago
  My civil rights _should_ trump your parliamentary privilege (in an ideal world, I guess)...

thiagocsf 8y ago

> only 2 MPs voted against it Have you got a source for this? I read (can’t remebemer where, sorry) that most Greens senators voted against it. From memory, Di Natali and SHY were in the list. The legislation was waved-through by Labor because there is an election coming up and they were afraid to be labelled as pro terrorists and child molesters. This site has sources: https://alp.fail https://alp.fail

jee1shi 8y ago
MP's are different from senators. MP's are in the house while senators are in the senate.

jeeeeb 8y ago

Personally I've been reading the text and trying to grasp the implications of this. There appears to be two limitations on this power: 1. You cannot be compelled to do something in a foreign country that would be a crime in that country 2. In issuing the notice the relevant oversight authority must give weight to your 'legitimate' interests. I think 1 is a huge point as it effectively constrains the jurisdiction of the law to Australia. However, there is still significant ambiguity. For example, can I be compelled to commit a crime against a foreign country while in Australia, if I have a legitimate interest in not committing a crime against that country? Would a company's legitimate interest in not compromising customer trust (more than the existence of this legislation doesn't already), act as a significant constraint on the issuing of TANs/TCNs? There's also ambiguity as to whether I can reveal the existence of a TAN/TCN to my employer. The law makes certain exceptions, including the ability to publish the aggregate total of TAN/TCN received in a 6 month period and seek legal advice. So in order to seek legal advice or reasonably execute a TAN/TCN can I let my employer know?

fit2rule 8y ago
I'm an Australian software developer, living in Europe and working for a European company (Austria) which has an Australian partner developing software for use in both the Australian and European markets. Can the Australian government compel me to sabotage the Australian software for their uses within Australia, and if so, can the Austrian government charge me with a crime for having done it while living in Austria? The fact that I even have to ask this kind of question enrages me. I'm considering giving up my Australian citizenship over this, it is that infuriating.
- jeeeeb 8y ago
  I was worried about this as well which is why I read the law and commented above. The short answer is: 1. Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil not a criminal mater 2. As I stated above the law clearly says that it is a defence for non-compliance if a TAN/TCN would compel you to commit a crime in a foreign country. The issue is whether you can be compelled to commit an act in Australia, which would be a crime in a foreign country. 3. Consideration must be given to your legitimate interests. In short, if you get a TAN/TCN then seek legal advice.

fit2rule 8y ago

>very unlikely that this legislation would result in the Armageddon The trouble is, the secrecy. So we'll never know if there was an Australian-digital-armageddon, because none of us (Australians) are allowed to discuss it.

mwill 8y ago

I'm less worried that these clauses will be used/abused, and more worried that the mere existence of these clauses will be catastrophic to the trust of Australian suppliers to overseas customers.

brokenmachine 8y ago
I'm more worried they will be abused. Also that the backdoors will be exploited by the other bad guys.

lawland 8y ago

> I imagine it's much more likely this power will be used against a few big players (Apple, Facebook, Google) Aussie market is not that big. Its gdp is less than a tenth of USA, smaller than Canada and a half of India. It is a good size but if a bunch of google employees stage a protest over this, google may just pull out of it because losing talent can be a bigger pain.

cyphar 8y ago
Note that Google, Apple, etc all have Australian employees and have subsidiaries incorporated in Australia. Google Maps came out of Google Australia, for instance. So you could argue they'd lose talent by pulling out. Don't get me wrong, I want big tech companies to retaliate since that's the only way to get the attention of the Australian government (they stopped listening to the proletariat a long time ago). But it should be done as a retaliation, because that's the only justification that I believe would be consistent and might make a difference.

mirimir 8y ago

If you think that this is a new thing, I recommend reading James Bamford's books about the NSA and its predecessors. It was not uncommon for technical staff to discreetly provide data to government intelligence agencies. Back in the telegraph days, that meant shlepping rolls of paper tape. Later, magnetic wire and tape. And this was often done without management knowledge. Because, you know, these were patriotic guys.

fit2rule 8y ago
That is what is so scary about this. Australia is still committing crimes against humanity - this law pulls the tech community into that, and involves us in something that I would hope a lot of us would never choose to willingly participate in. But, if we leave in protest, the gap will be filled with people who have no problems with these human rights violations.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Just to be clear, this is insidious. Before, engineers etc might be guilt-tripped into helping catch "bad people". But this makes it official, with penalties for refusal. Maybe it demonstrates that engineers etc don't cooperate as freely as they once did. That would be good news, no?
  - acct1771 8y ago
    It demonstrates that the internet has broken a lot of propaganda.

chris1993 8y ago

From what appears in the media it looks like not so much back-door dealings as realpolitik. There is considerable domestic politics in play where the opposition (Australian Labor) party didn't want to get labelled 'soft on terrorism' by a struggling government which is looking for any message to attack the opposition over the xmas holiday period, particularly if there are any 'incidents' during this time. The opposition have requested that the legislation be reviewed and, one would hope, amended when parliament is resumed.

caf 8y ago

(And the fact that only 2 MPs voted against it tells me there's almost certainly some back-door dealings that resulted in this bill being passed.) Not really, that's just a consequence of the Australian Parliament's history of very strong party discipline. It is highly unusual for all the members of a parliamentary party not to vote the same way on a bill.

cmroanirgo 8y ago

Agree. Imagine also if, as a potential 'saboteur' the gov then try and sweeten the 'deal' with cash 'on the side'. Suddenly, we're also targets for moral corruption too -- just like the pollies who voted for this disaster.