9 ms·

Probably an idea to throw Australia on that list - https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-actually-in-australias-encryption-laws-everything-you-need-to-know/ http

Probably an idea to throw Australia on that list - https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-actually-in-australias-encryption-laws-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-actually-in-australias-e...

LilBytes 7y ago
I'm surprised we (Australia) aren't already on more of these lists. After having this discussion with my manager and colleagues (the conversation with my manager was in my interview process where I bluntly stated if I was asked to comply with anything from this law, I'd immediately resign, my manager also agreed). Everyone I've spoken to agreed we'd immediately resign since it was the only potential option to protect our selves as employees and our employers. Edit: I'll need to spend a little more time looking into the Assistance and Access Laws. The following article attempts to downplay some of these concerns: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/myths-assistance-access-act https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- baroffoos 7y ago
  > I'd immediately resign You are assuming that is actually an option. There is nothing to suggest the current Australian government would not prevent you from resigning until the task had been completed. This is the same government currently attempting to make it illegal to boycott businesses that are damaging to the environment.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    They don't have legal authority to prevent you from resigning. Also, the proposed anti-boycott rules have been widely criticized as unconstitutional, unworkable and ludicrously against the conservatives free speech pronouncements. Unlikely they would get support from Senate cross bench.
    - type0 7y ago
      They could compel your employer not to accept the resignation before the correct procedures are done and you have completed the task.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - crispinb 7y ago
        Executive powers in Aus aren't that strong - they'd have to pass a law to give themselves that specific power. I don't think there's one to permit this now, though I'm no expert and there are many obscure laws. That's the good(ish) news - the bad is that restraints on the passing of bad law are generally pretty weak in the absence of a hostile Senate. This is particularly true with the current feeble opposition, and even more so given the general atmosphere of cowering obeisance that the major parties have allowed (or encouraged) to develop around any legislation involving the word 'security'.
        angry_octet 7y ago
        There is a good description of the many shortcomings of the legislation at https://stateofit.com/interception/ https://stateofit.com/interception/ and https://stateofit.com/interceptionpart2/ https://stateofit.com/interceptionpart2/ -- TCNs (compelled changes) are not the real problem, its the more than willing compliance from companies with TARs -- voluntary technical assistance requests. It is unclear how much (if any) the company is shielded from civil suits for complying with TARs. The problem is not really that you couldn't resign -- it is that the company would hire replacements that would get the job done. The company executive would be compelled to. Albanese (and his forgettable deputy Marles) have so far been a disaster for the ALP.
      - zik 7y ago
        Employers can't refuse to accept your resignation in Australia. Or rather they can refuse as much as they like but your resignation still holds.
      - 7y ago
- angry_octet 7y ago
  Since National Security Letters exist, blocking all employees from the US would also be logical. Same for running anything on third-party hardware. There needs to be a more effective response than Hari Kiri.
  - type0 7y ago
    > Since National Security Letters exist, blocking all employees from the US would also be logical. Sure, it would be, especially for companies located in neutral countries, but since US influence is so strong everywhere almost all over the world that's also practically impossible. "Every animal is equal but some animals are more equal than others"
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      We haven't seen the implementation details for Gaia-X, but it would not be unreasonable for it to include that priviledged persons (admins, company management) by EU citizens and resident in the EU, or possibly even FR/DE only. Full document below in Deutch. https://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html https://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt/das-projekt-gaia-x.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=18 https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt... China and Russia obviously have their own systems, but many other countries some some element of national control which is less obvious. Japan certainly has a mature native cloud capability, although it would be highly disruptive to move everything to it. Its like plans to be 'cloud agile', it doesn't work unless you deploy to both every time, and you probably just double your cost and bugs for deployment ops. So the tendency will be towards cloud balkanization. Which could really suck, or it could force a path away from proprietary APIs towards standards, which will suck in a different way.
  - pnako 7y ago
    It's the same in France, and many other western countries. I think it's just the usual "Australians not realizing they live in a bubble", and kindly warning the rest of the world about laws or practices that have already been in place in our countries for twenty years.
- LIV2 7y ago
  As an Aussie living & working overseas I'm still not sure if it applies to me and makes me a liability? I know they can't enforce it unless I go home but I will someday
  - mmjaa 7y ago
    It does make you a liability. Australians can be shanghai'ed into working for the Australian intelligence agencies wherever they are on Earth. I'm also an Australian living overseas, have worked on many sensitive projects that would be of interest to the Australian government and its masters, and I'm quite prepared to give up my nationality over this issue.
    - LIV2 7y ago
      Ah okay, yeah I think I'll get citizenship somewhere else
      - mmjaa 7y ago
        At this point I think its the only thing Australians can do about their country. Australians will never be afforded an opportunity to overthrow their government, nor will we get the revolutions our demonstrations hope for.
        pinkfoot 7y ago
        You have obviously never lived through a civil war.
        mmjaa 7y ago
        Australia will never have one. Its institutions are designed to ensure that.
dwd 7y ago
Sucks to have such a retarded Gov. In the case of Chinese-based employees the assumption is that anything they did would go through Chinese Government controlled networks (there's VPN ban even for foreign businesses) and likely result in your intellectual property being shared with your Chinese-based competitors. Not to mention their access being potentially compromised and used. If an Australian-based employee complied with a letter, they could destroy your business reputation when it got out, even if you threw them under the bus. Probably the main reason Australian employees are still given latitude is that committing compromised code into the codebase would require involving everyone who could possibly see that code change.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Yeah I would assume most only don't have them on the list because they weren't actually dealing with them in the first place and had no expectation to have a use for them.

LilBytes 7y ago

I'm surprised we (Australia) aren't already on more of these lists. After having this discussion with my manager and colleagues (the conversation with my manager was in my interview process where I bluntly stated if I was asked to comply with anything from this law, I'd immediately resign, my manager also agreed). Everyone I've spoken to agreed we'd immediately resign since it was the only potential option to protect our selves as employees and our employers. Edit: I'll need to spend a little more time looking into the Assistance and Access Laws. The following article attempts to downplay some of these concerns: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/myths-assistance-access-act https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
baroffoos 7y ago
> I'd immediately resign You are assuming that is actually an option. There is nothing to suggest the current Australian government would not prevent you from resigning until the task had been completed. This is the same government currently attempting to make it illegal to boycott businesses that are damaging to the environment.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  They don't have legal authority to prevent you from resigning. Also, the proposed anti-boycott rules have been widely criticized as unconstitutional, unworkable and ludicrously against the conservatives free speech pronouncements. Unlikely they would get support from Senate cross bench.
  - type0 7y ago
    They could compel your employer not to accept the resignation before the correct procedures are done and you have completed the task.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - crispinb 7y ago
      Executive powers in Aus aren't that strong - they'd have to pass a law to give themselves that specific power. I don't think there's one to permit this now, though I'm no expert and there are many obscure laws. That's the good(ish) news - the bad is that restraints on the passing of bad law are generally pretty weak in the absence of a hostile Senate. This is particularly true with the current feeble opposition, and even more so given the general atmosphere of cowering obeisance that the major parties have allowed (or encouraged) to develop around any legislation involving the word 'security'.
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        There is a good description of the many shortcomings of the legislation at https://stateofit.com/interception/ https://stateofit.com/interception/ and https://stateofit.com/interceptionpart2/ https://stateofit.com/interceptionpart2/ -- TCNs (compelled changes) are not the real problem, its the more than willing compliance from companies with TARs -- voluntary technical assistance requests. It is unclear how much (if any) the company is shielded from civil suits for complying with TARs. The problem is not really that you couldn't resign -- it is that the company would hire replacements that would get the job done. The company executive would be compelled to. Albanese (and his forgettable deputy Marles) have so far been a disaster for the ALP.
    - zik 7y ago
      Employers can't refuse to accept your resignation in Australia. Or rather they can refuse as much as they like but your resignation still holds.
    - 7y ago
angry_octet 7y ago
Since National Security Letters exist, blocking all employees from the US would also be logical. Same for running anything on third-party hardware. There needs to be a more effective response than Hari Kiri.
- type0 7y ago
  > Since National Security Letters exist, blocking all employees from the US would also be logical. Sure, it would be, especially for companies located in neutral countries, but since US influence is so strong everywhere almost all over the world that's also practically impossible. "Every animal is equal but some animals are more equal than others"
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    We haven't seen the implementation details for Gaia-X, but it would not be unreasonable for it to include that priviledged persons (admins, company management) by EU citizens and resident in the EU, or possibly even FR/DE only. Full document below in Deutch. https://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html https://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt/das-projekt-gaia-x.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=18 https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt... China and Russia obviously have their own systems, but many other countries some some element of national control which is less obvious. Japan certainly has a mature native cloud capability, although it would be highly disruptive to move everything to it. Its like plans to be 'cloud agile', it doesn't work unless you deploy to both every time, and you probably just double your cost and bugs for deployment ops. So the tendency will be towards cloud balkanization. Which could really suck, or it could force a path away from proprietary APIs towards standards, which will suck in a different way.
- pnako 7y ago
  It's the same in France, and many other western countries. I think it's just the usual "Australians not realizing they live in a bubble", and kindly warning the rest of the world about laws or practices that have already been in place in our countries for twenty years.
LIV2 7y ago
As an Aussie living & working overseas I'm still not sure if it applies to me and makes me a liability? I know they can't enforce it unless I go home but I will someday
- mmjaa 7y ago
  It does make you a liability. Australians can be shanghai'ed into working for the Australian intelligence agencies wherever they are on Earth. I'm also an Australian living overseas, have worked on many sensitive projects that would be of interest to the Australian government and its masters, and I'm quite prepared to give up my nationality over this issue.
  - LIV2 7y ago
    Ah okay, yeah I think I'll get citizenship somewhere else
    - mmjaa 7y ago
      At this point I think its the only thing Australians can do about their country. Australians will never be afforded an opportunity to overthrow their government, nor will we get the revolutions our demonstrations hope for.
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        You have obviously never lived through a civil war.
        mmjaa 7y ago
        Australia will never have one. Its institutions are designed to ensure that.

dwd 7y ago

Sucks to have such a retarded Gov. In the case of Chinese-based employees the assumption is that anything they did would go through Chinese Government controlled networks (there's VPN ban even for foreign businesses) and likely result in your intellectual property being shared with your Chinese-based competitors. Not to mention their access being potentially compromised and used. If an Australian-based employee complied with a letter, they could destroy your business reputation when it got out, even if you threw them under the bus. Probably the main reason Australian employees are still given latitude is that committing compromised code into the codebase would require involving everyone who could possibly see that code change.

Nasrudith 7y ago

Yeah I would assume most only don't have them on the list because they weren't actually dealing with them in the first place and had no expectation to have a use for them.