4 ms·
That could lead to some interesting court cases. Employee gets fired for introducing a backdoor, but "may or may not have been" subject to one of these assista
by philpem 8y ago
That could lead to some interesting court cases.
Employee gets fired for introducing a backdoor, but "may or may not have been" subject to one of these assistance notes (the Government won't comment either way, the employee insists they had a Technical Assistance Note). Employee sues the employer for wrongful dismissal because of the alleged unprovable TAN.
I wonder which way that court case would go... sounds like a recipe for deadlock.
- mises 8y agoAnother possible concern is that the employee sues for wrongful termination, alleging they were "just following the law" (which they would have been). The employee shouldn't lose his job for following the law, the company shouldn't have such problems for trying to protect its users, and this whole mess was caused by government intervention. But yes, it will be interesting to see how the courts rule. Not familiar with Australian law, so if anybody has thoughts about this, please feel free to enlighten me.
- JoshTriplett 8y agoEven better: employee gets criminally prosecuted in a (slightly) more sensible jurisdiction for having intentionally introduced the backdoor.