4 ms·

Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to dragoon employees in secret

18 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

Tehchops 8y ago
>experts >people who drafted the law Pick one. Whatever passes for tech journalism these days left ZDnet long ago. It's kind of a joke to expect an objective take on whether or not this law allows judicial overreach from one of the government staffers who helped draft it.
AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
> These fears are largely unfounded, say experts. So were fears of the NSA/Five Eyes dragnet, until the Snowden revelations proved that they could and were happening.
mtgx 8y ago
Say the people who passed the law.
floatingatoll 8y ago
They’re right in one respect: statistically, they only need to dragoon ~one person per tech company. So, therefore, they are “highly unlikely”, simply because of the inherent infrequency of needing to dragoon a single individual as they fully exercise their desires to spy on us all. Framing is everything.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gumby 8y ago
If that's the case there should be no problem changing the wording to assuage developers' fears, right? I've been very seriously thinking of moving back (to the point of starting to dispose of things like my car) but now am wary. This is not what Australia needs.
DFXLuna 8y ago
"Don't worry, we can't force you add a backdoor into your software. We'd rather talk to your CEO instead."
moomin 8y ago
History is littered with laws that “would never be abused” that... er... were. Look up the Stansted 15 sometime.
brokenmachine 8y ago
>We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us. https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184?lang=en https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184?la... Why not write them so secret dragooning is not possible then? The answer to that question is painfully obvious.
amorphic 8y ago
"If the industry and government would reach a solution that would enable access that doesn't go to removing electronic protection, and doesn't attract that prohibition against systemic weaknesses and vulnerabilities, if the industry player was mindful to challenge that, there's a very robust judicial review process in Australia," Ingle said. "They can very well go to the courts and determine that arguably this notice is not reasonable, proportionate, technically feasible, [or] practical, or say that it will introduce a systemic vulnerability, and is therefore unlawful." That's fine for Google and Apple. Where is a bootstraped or VC-funded communications startup supposed to find the money for that particular legal battle? The answer is that they avoid the whole scenario by not starting said startup in Australia or hiring any Australian employees.

18 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

>experts >people who drafted the law Pick one. Whatever passes for tech journalism these days left ZDnet long ago. It's kind of a joke to expect an objective take on whether or not this law allows judicial overreach from one of the government staffers who helped draft it.

AdmiralAsshat 8y ago

> These fears are largely unfounded, say experts. So were fears of the NSA/Five Eyes dragnet, until the Snowden revelations proved that they could and were happening.

mtgx 8y ago

Say the people who passed the law.

floatingatoll 8y ago

They’re right in one respect: statistically, they only need to dragoon ~one person per tech company. So, therefore, they are “highly unlikely”, simply because of the inherent infrequency of needing to dragoon a single individual as they fully exercise their desires to spy on us all. Framing is everything.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gumby 8y ago

If that's the case there should be no problem changing the wording to assuage developers' fears, right? I've been very seriously thinking of moving back (to the point of starting to dispose of things like my car) but now am wary. This is not what Australia needs.

DFXLuna 8y ago

"Don't worry, we can't force you add a backdoor into your software. We'd rather talk to your CEO instead."

moomin 8y ago

History is littered with laws that “would never be abused” that... er... were. Look up the Stansted 15 sometime.

brokenmachine 8y ago

>We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us. https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184?lang=en https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184?la... Why not write them so secret dragooning is not possible then? The answer to that question is painfully obvious.

amorphic 8y ago

"If the industry and government would reach a solution that would enable access that doesn't go to removing electronic protection, and doesn't attract that prohibition against systemic weaknesses and vulnerabilities, if the industry player was mindful to challenge that, there's a very robust judicial review process in Australia," Ingle said. "They can very well go to the courts and determine that arguably this notice is not reasonable, proportionate, technically feasible, [or] practical, or say that it will introduce a systemic vulnerability, and is therefore unlawful." That's fine for Google and Apple. Where is a bootstraped or VC-funded communications startup supposed to find the money for that particular legal battle? The answer is that they avoid the whole scenario by not starting said startup in Australia or hiring any Australian employees.