8 ms·

This executive order seems to be a passive aggressive way of declaring war against a country that has done nothing against the US directly. That said, I underst

This executive order seems to be a passive aggressive way of declaring war against a country that has done nothing against the US directly. That said, I understand that adobe is a US company. As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration? I hope Adobe understand they are now complicit in an international fracas, where there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids. They will blame Adobe for this, and not some executive order. What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech.

naniwaduni 7y ago
> As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration? Considering the converse is already true, why not?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  All potential infiltrations are non-Australian software? What do you mean by "the converse"?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I think by "the converse" GP means that apparently, thanks to recent Australian laws, all Australian software companies are legally required to facilitate government surveillance.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration? Yes! And if they were truly internatonal as you thought they were, it would be even worse, because they would be immune from any legal action. Corporations acting as if they were sovereign powers would be even worse than they are today. > there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids. That's, unfortunately, the whole point of sanctions. They work by inflicting enough civilian damage to get people to bully their own government into submitting to the will of party issuing the sanction. > What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech. Most of your SaaSes you depend on will stop working. This is a reminder why SaaS as practiced today is a bad idea.
adventured 7y ago
> What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? List of the countries under consequential US sanctions attention and their systems of government: Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions I too hope Australia is never like those countries. The countries that the US targets sanctions on, no coincidence, are always near the bottom of the Democracy Index (and typically very high on corruption rankings). Short list of liberal democracies that have zero fear of falling under comparable US sanctions today: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Slovakia, Czechia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and so on. The reason why so many powerful, influential, affluent, liberal nations cooperate with the US so frequently on sanctions - and have for much of the post WW2 era - is because they know they are under zero threat from the US sanctioning them and they also know the US has exclusively targeted sanctions at non-democratic, extremely high-corruption nations. It's really simple in fact, here's the Democracy Index. On average the higher countries rank, the less they ever need to be concerned about US sanctions being directed at them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Some of the countries near the bottom of that democracy list: Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I wonder whether "dictatorship" is actual reason. I see your list: > Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta. I read it as: Russia: enemy ex-superpower, second biggest net oil exporter. Cuba: stole our oil refineries half a century ago, we're still mad about it. Iran: in top 10 of net oil exporters (also, tried to take them over and fucked up). Venezuela: top ten of net oil exporters. North Korea: old enemy, though also universally considered evil. Syria: US wants to force a government change and supports the rebels; there could be an indirect oil-related angle in here. It may be that I've just been reading too much about energy economics recently and am getting all consipracy-theorist. Even if so, I absolutely don't buy that there's any higher good for any of those sanctions.
matchagaucho 7y ago
If the Australian Telecommunications Act were strictly enforced, would that result in banning US companies that refused backdoor access to encrypted systems?
PeterStuer 7y ago
You are in for a rude awakening if you just think in terms of 'international' company regardless of where it is actually from. 'US company' is to the rest of the world becoming a liability in many ways fast.

naniwaduni 7y ago

> As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration? Considering the converse is already true, why not?

thaumasiotes 7y ago
All potential infiltrations are non-Australian software? What do you mean by "the converse"?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I think by "the converse" GP means that apparently, thanks to recent Australian laws, all Australian software companies are legally required to facilitate government surveillance.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

As an Aussie, I look at these international companies as that: international. Should I now start considering all forms of non Aussie software /tech a matter of potential infiltration? Yes! And if they were truly internatonal as you thought they were, it would be even worse, because they would be immune from any legal action. Corporations acting as if they were sovereign powers would be even worse than they are today. > there's a lot of innocent people in Venezuela likely feeling an immediate financial crush, simply because the software they were using stopped. They can't work now. No money means they can't feed their kids. That's, unfortunately, the whole point of sanctions. They work by inflicting enough civilian damage to get people to bully their own government into submitting to the will of party issuing the sanction. > What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? This is a very sad day for international tech. Most of your SaaSes you depend on will stop working. This is a reminder why SaaS as practiced today is a bad idea.

adventured 7y ago

> What about the day when some US order outlaws my country? List of the countries under consequential US sanctions attention and their systems of government: Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions I too hope Australia is never like those countries. The countries that the US targets sanctions on, no coincidence, are always near the bottom of the Democracy Index (and typically very high on corruption rankings). Short list of liberal democracies that have zero fear of falling under comparable US sanctions today: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Slovakia, Czechia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and so on. The reason why so many powerful, influential, affluent, liberal nations cooperate with the US so frequently on sanctions - and have for much of the post WW2 era - is because they know they are under zero threat from the US sanctioning them and they also know the US has exclusively targeted sanctions at non-democratic, extremely high-corruption nations. It's really simple in fact, here's the Democracy Index. On average the higher countries rank, the less they ever need to be concerned about US sanctions being directed at them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Some of the countries near the bottom of that democracy list: Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I wonder whether "dictatorship" is actual reason. I see your list: > Russia: dictatorship. Cuba: dictatorship. Iran: theocratic dictatorship. Venezuela: dictatorship. North Korea: dictatorship. Syria: dictatorship. Sudan: recently a military junta. I read it as: Russia: enemy ex-superpower, second biggest net oil exporter. Cuba: stole our oil refineries half a century ago, we're still mad about it. Iran: in top 10 of net oil exporters (also, tried to take them over and fucked up). Venezuela: top ten of net oil exporters. North Korea: old enemy, though also universally considered evil. Syria: US wants to force a government change and supports the rebels; there could be an indirect oil-related angle in here. It may be that I've just been reading too much about energy economics recently and am getting all consipracy-theorist. Even if so, I absolutely don't buy that there's any higher good for any of those sanctions.

matchagaucho 7y ago

If the Australian Telecommunications Act were strictly enforced, would that result in banning US companies that refused backdoor access to encrypted systems?

PeterStuer 7y ago

You are in for a rude awakening if you just think in terms of 'international' company regardless of where it is actually from. 'US company' is to the rest of the world becoming a liability in many ways fast.