5 ms·

IANAL, but sadly, the law does seem to target people rather than (or in addition to) corporations. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi

IANAL, but sadly, the law does seem to target people rather than (or in addition to) corporations. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6195_first-reps/toc_pdf/18204b01.pdf;fileType=application/pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... > 317C: > For the purposes of this Part, the following table defines: > (a) designated communications provider; > (b) the eligible activitiesof a designated communications provider > A person is a designated communications provider if... ... Actually, there's too many to list. But here are a few examples: > - the person provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia > - the person develops, supplies or updates software used, for use, or likely to be used, in connection with: (a) a listed carriage service; or (b) an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia > - the person 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 > - the person is a constitutional corporation who: (a) manufactures; or (b) supplies; or (c) installs; or (d) maintains; data processing devices Note that in the last situation they specifically mention corporations, but that prior situations do not require this. The requirements listed are to be interpreted as an OR not and AND... so ah, that's fun. So yes, we Australians can be legally required by our Government to perform corporate espionage... and almost no-one in Australia (certainly not the public at large) seems to give a f--k.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
Oh, and it's probably worth noting that you need not even be an Australian citizen to be covered, you simply need to have users in Australia. Of course, whether Australia can enforce these laws against non-citizens is another matter. However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at: https://cryptome.org/2018/11/5-Eyes-Crypto.pdf https://cryptome.org/2018/11/5-Eyes-Crypto.pdf Five Eyes just wanted this legislation pushed through somewhere and targeted Australia because we: - lack a bill of rights - are constantly distracted by politicians backstabbing each other, and - there's a strong 'think of the children' sentiment in Australia that can be (and has been) used to push through all sorts of egregious bills.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  >However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at: [PDF link] I read the PDF and didn't notice any mention of extradition. Am I missing something?
  - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
    Sorry for the ambiguity. The reference I provided was with regard to the fact the Australian Government has collaborated with other five eyes countries with this legislation, or at least the 'need' for this legislation. This is why I simply wrote there's a reasonable possibility of extradition, rather than anything definite.
    - blotter_paper 8y ago
      Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
  - A2017U1 8y ago
    Don't know anything about extradition but the law specifically mentions putting in backdoors to aid foreign nations at their request. It also notes that this can be for economic espionage too and isn't limited to national security (for the people who like to pretend that's not what their intelligence agencies are doing)
- bad_user 8y ago
  You can't force non-citizens, obviously, since non-citizens are not under Australian jurisdiction. If they could, then this would create a problem of national security for other countries. But yes, the Five Eyes countries can use Australia for their wiretapping.
  - GoblinSlayer 8y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
> the person provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia I don’t think this particular clause covers an individual working for a corporation as an employee, as in that case the employee isn’t providing the service the employer is. It reads to me like that clause is intended to cover people who produce software as sole operators of their business, or perhaps a group of people in a business partnership. I haven’t read the rest of the act, so maybe there is a stronger clause targeting employees? If the government can compel a company to do a thing that doesn’t necessarily mean they can compel any particular individual. You could refuse / quit / abandon the project. Maybe they’ll just find somebody else to do it?
- j16sdiz 8y ago
  Then the government threaten to sue, many will compel. If the government say they will get 5 year jail for telling anybody, how can they get help? Remember AU have no bill of rights.
chii 8y ago
in the definition part of the law: > contracted service provider, in relation to a designated > communications provider, means a person who performs services > for or on behalf of the provider, but does not include a person who > performs such services in the capacity of an employee of the > provider. The statute here is always talking about a contracted service provider who has to comply with the compelled "assistance". So as an employee, you do not have to worry about being jailed for non-compliance, as an employee cannot be a "contracted service provider". But you may be fired for non-compliance by your employer (if they choose to fire you because of it), but that's between you and your employer.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  I'm certainly not a lawyer, so absolutely may have misinterpreted. However, what I've quoted above is referring to the definition for a designated communications provider, as opposed to a 'contracted service provider' - the latter of which makes sense not to include employees as they're not 'contractors'. However, technical assistance notices (which are compulsory, as opposed to 'technical assistance requests') can be served to designated communications providers, as covered by 317L. So the fact employees aren't considered a 'contracted service provider' is therefore not relevant? Again, just reiterating, not at all a lawyer, however at this moment in time, this is my interpretation of the legislation.
  - chii 8y ago
    It is completely relevant, since the OP mentions that you as an australian working for a company could be compelled directly as a communications provider. I'm saying that if you are in the employ of a communications provider or a contracted service provider, you do not have to worry about being compelled directly. I take "the person" to mean an actual person, or a legal person, but the employee of the communications provider is not a person (IANAL, so don't use me as legal advice).

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago

Oh, and it's probably worth noting that you need not even be an Australian citizen to be covered, you simply need to have users in Australia. Of course, whether Australia can enforce these laws against non-citizens is another matter. However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at: https://cryptome.org/2018/11/5-Eyes-Crypto.pdf https://cryptome.org/2018/11/5-Eyes-Crypto.pdf Five Eyes just wanted this legislation pushed through somewhere and targeted Australia because we: - lack a bill of rights - are constantly distracted by politicians backstabbing each other, and - there's a strong 'think of the children' sentiment in Australia that can be (and has been) used to push through all sorts of egregious bills.

blotter_paper 8y ago
>However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at: [PDF link] I read the PDF and didn't notice any mention of extradition. Am I missing something?
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  Sorry for the ambiguity. The reference I provided was with regard to the fact the Australian Government has collaborated with other five eyes countries with this legislation, or at least the 'need' for this legislation. This is why I simply wrote there's a reasonable possibility of extradition, rather than anything definite.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  Don't know anything about extradition but the law specifically mentions putting in backdoors to aid foreign nations at their request. It also notes that this can be for economic espionage too and isn't limited to national security (for the people who like to pretend that's not what their intelligence agencies are doing)
bad_user 8y ago
You can't force non-citizens, obviously, since non-citizens are not under Australian jurisdiction. If they could, then this would create a problem of national security for other countries. But yes, the Five Eyes countries can use Australia for their wiretapping.
- GoblinSlayer 8y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

> the person provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia I don’t think this particular clause covers an individual working for a corporation as an employee, as in that case the employee isn’t providing the service the employer is. It reads to me like that clause is intended to cover people who produce software as sole operators of their business, or perhaps a group of people in a business partnership. I haven’t read the rest of the act, so maybe there is a stronger clause targeting employees? If the government can compel a company to do a thing that doesn’t necessarily mean they can compel any particular individual. You could refuse / quit / abandon the project. Maybe they’ll just find somebody else to do it?

j16sdiz 8y ago
Then the government threaten to sue, many will compel. If the government say they will get 5 year jail for telling anybody, how can they get help? Remember AU have no bill of rights.

chii 8y ago

in the definition part of the law: > contracted service provider, in relation to a designated > communications provider, means a person who performs services > for or on behalf of the provider, but does not include a person who > performs such services in the capacity of an employee of the > provider. The statute here is always talking about a contracted service provider who has to comply with the compelled "assistance". So as an employee, you do not have to worry about being jailed for non-compliance, as an employee cannot be a "contracted service provider". But you may be fired for non-compliance by your employer (if they choose to fire you because of it), but that's between you and your employer.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
I'm certainly not a lawyer, so absolutely may have misinterpreted. However, what I've quoted above is referring to the definition for a designated communications provider, as opposed to a 'contracted service provider' - the latter of which makes sense not to include employees as they're not 'contractors'. However, technical assistance notices (which are compulsory, as opposed to 'technical assistance requests') can be served to designated communications providers, as covered by 317L. So the fact employees aren't considered a 'contracted service provider' is therefore not relevant? Again, just reiterating, not at all a lawyer, however at this moment in time, this is my interpretation of the legislation.
- chii 8y ago
  It is completely relevant, since the OP mentions that you as an australian working for a company could be compelled directly as a communications provider. I'm saying that if you are in the employ of a communications provider or a contracted service provider, you do not have to worry about being compelled directly. I take "the person" to mean an actual person, or a legal person, but the employee of the communications provider is not a person (IANAL, so don't use me as legal advice).