There appears to be two limitations on this power: 1. You cannot be compelled to do something in a foreign country that would be a crime in that country 2. In issuing the notice the relevant oversight authority must give weight to your 'legitimate' interests.
I think 1 is a huge point as it effectively constrains the jurisdiction of the law to Australia.
However, there is still significant ambiguity. For example, can I be compelled to commit a crime against a foreign country while in Australia, if I have a legitimate interest in not committing a crime against that country?
Would a company's legitimate interest in not compromising customer trust (more than the existence of this legislation doesn't already), act as a significant constraint on the issuing of TANs/TCNs?
There's also ambiguity as to whether I can reveal the existence of a TAN/TCN to my employer. The law makes certain exceptions, including the ability to publish the aggregate total of TAN/TCN received in a 6 month period and seek legal advice. So in order to seek legal advice or reasonably execute a TAN/TCN can I let my employer know?
Can the Australian government compel me to sabotage the Australian software for their uses within Australia, and if so, can the Austrian government charge me with a crime for having done it while living in Austria?
The fact that I even have to ask this kind of question enrages me. I'm considering giving up my Australian citizenship over this, it is that infuriating.
The short answer is: 1. Non-compliance with a TAN/TCN is a civil not a criminal mater 2. As I stated above the law clearly says that it is a defence for non-compliance if a TAN/TCN would compel you to commit a crime in a foreign country. The issue is whether you can be compelled to commit an act in Australia, which would be a crime in a foreign country. 3. Consideration must be given to your legitimate interests.
In short, if you get a TAN/TCN then seek legal advice.
I agree that a lot of people seem to be catastrophizing this, but it still seems like a pretty big mess.
If I end up writing a little library and it gets popular, who's to say the spooks won't decide that's where they want the backdoor, and just send me a TAN to the email on my GitHub profile? Very likely not, but it is possible and would cost me at least several thousand dollars in legal bills to figure out how to respond.
Wonder if it will be possible to be insured against receiving such a request for foreigners (and maybe even Australians) who work on software that the Australian government would like to backdoor. To cover any possible fines for noncompliance but also, if you do want to use the "it's a crime in my country" defense, to deal with the complication and expense of hiring an Australian lawyer to represent you.
Note that they can always revoke the request they gave you and request a new one. So they can fine you an infinite amount of money and drive you to bankruptcy if they want to. Now, it's possible this would be seen as an abuse of power but you'd need to go to court over it and you can't afford lawyers nearly expensive as the government's.
> If I end up writing a little library and it gets popular, who's to say the spooks won't decide that's where they want the backdoor, and just send me a TAN to the email on my GitHub profile? Very likely not, but it is possible and would cost me at least several thousand dollars in legal bills to figure out how to respond.
TCN, not TAN.
So I feel strongly enough about the tyranny and evil of the Australian government that it looks like I'm going to be giving up my Australian citizenship.
Oh, wait:
"We will not approve your application to renounce your citizenship if you do not have another foreign citizenship or it is not in Australia’s interests." [emphasis added]
What an extraordinarily evil thing for the Australian government to have done to its citizens.
Well then, some other options:
0. Do the typical Australian thing: "she'll be right mate!", and stick my head in the sand, hoping that ignoring the bad man will make him go away. This seems to work for a lot of Australians, so might work for me. Could be, I'll never be the subject of a TAN/TCN, but then again, why risk it.
1. I could change my profession. However, this would mean that over time, only the types of people who are willing to act as repressive agents of the Australian government would be found in the software industry. This is really a non-savoury outcome, as I have over 30 years in the software industry and am very proud of the good I have done in this field - I would hate to turn it over to such cunts who think its fine to spy for the Australian Fascist Overlords. I know they're out there - people like me are keeping them from taking over, completely.
(A brief moment of brevity for the poor Australians reading this: Fuck. The Australian Government is literally Auntie Jack. If I don't do what she tells me to, she's gonna jump out of my computer and rip my bloody arms off. [1])
2. Do the paperwork: get my second citizenship, abandon the Australian citizenship, do everything I can to protest Australia and never, ever, contribute to its well-being ever again - this means never going back, removing my assets and resources from the Australian economy, and so on. Hmmm.
3. Submit to a TAN/TCN when/if it happens, but somehow sabotage the work such that it doesn't quite work out. The True Aussie Way™.
4. Insist on working only on software that never tracks the user in any way, whatsoever. This would mean quitting my current job, which already involves tracking people (with their full approval) for productive (non-espionage/law-enforcement) purposes, and finding something with a strict no-data policy.
I guess I'm gonna go with #4. Well, #2 seems a bit more appealing, actually.
Please, I beg of you .. let me walk tall in Australia! [2]
--
Sorry, due to your part in voting for that bill, you're now in breach of our terms. Please return your devices as well.
Mentioning that they may need to shut down services in Australia due to the law might be enough to cause a backlash.
Our left-leaning party voted for this fucking bullshit too, remember. Jacinda Ardern probably isn't going to save you.
To do that you really need to know what the law actually says and requires. Here is a start: TCN/TAN are not limited to Australian citizens. Revoking your citizenship will not shield you from being issued a TCN/TAN, but will lessen the value of your voice in engineering change.
That has nothing to do with whether you are an Australian citizen or not. If you are a resident in Austria, these laws do not allow the government to compel you to commit a crime in Austria.
Keep this in mind: The Australian government is still ripping children from their parents.
If software that I am involved in is in any way responsible for assisting that, in any way, I would be more than furious to say the least.
Nope, its Option #2 for me. Australia can go to hell.
And if they do try it, any of your non-Australian colleagues who review your code can immediately raise the alarm.
The law is ridiculous not only because of all the points they're making, but also because it just doesn't work in a modern, distributed, company. They need to compel the entire dev team to do as they wish to avoid it being stopped at some point, and if just one of those devs are not Australian (or even not living in Australia) then the secrecy part is blown and the company can take preventative action to stop this happening.
Australia has just ensured that every single Australian tech company needs a non-Australian to review its code. An absolute decrease in Australian security. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes agan.
Okay, so this just pushes the problem onto someone elses plate - the operator/sysadmin. I've known a few Australian operators. The law doesn't specifically target 'only people who can write code' - it applies to anyone who has access to the systems the Australian kooks and spooks want to infiltrate.
If you're already overseas (including NZ), it should be a pretty easy ride:
"You may be eligible to apply if you ... will acquire citizenship of another country as soon as your application to renounce Australian citizenship is approved" [0]
From what I remember, there's basically an agreement between all countries stating that a stateless person in your borders must be offered safe harbour... or something to that affect, and that might be triggering the "We will not approve your application to renounce your citizenship if you do not have another foreign citizenship" spiel.
Talk to a lawyer to get it straight though.
[0] https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/give-up-citizens...
If you think the law effects you then I highly recommend reading the entire text, as passed by parliament: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
I know less about the law than other posters, but I don't think there's much of an inference in the legislation of these notices being contingent on nationality or citizenship when you're overseas. If the bill transcends borders like that then there's surely no end. Seeing as it's as broad a net as "software serving end users in Australia", it could literally affect millions of people/nationals/workers outside Aus borders, and have catastrophic economic consequences at which point the whole insane thing unravels and the absurdity of it becomes clear.
But yeah, you and me both man, as soon as I'm able I'll try and fall on my dual citizenship, if it's not too late by then. This is infuriating both in terms of ethics and logistics
More importantly, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's an abuse of this site, because it destroys the intellectual curiosity that it exists for. So we ban accounts that do this.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.
I've been subject to these site rules myself, and felt my ire rise when it happens that I've been on the wrong side of them (with political discussions), but this particular response absolutely infuriated me and I am grateful for the rules being applied in my favour, for once.
I think it’s very likely that this law will eventually lead to everything everybody is worrying about.
I saw they were working in clauses to invoke Parliamentary Privilege so they can't be spied on.
Fuck that, there should be openness regarding discussions on any topic when they are there solely as their constituents' representatives. Had enough of them enacting laws that don't address the people's needs and serve no real purpose for the voters they clearly do not represent. Their inaction on climate change and continued embrace of the coal industry says it all.
And anything to do with security is clearly above these clowns pay grade.
Before, engineers etc might be guilt-tripped into helping catch "bad people". But this makes it official, with penalties for refusal.
Maybe it demonstrates that engineers etc don't cooperate as freely as they once did. That would be good news, no?
The trouble is, the secrecy. So we'll never know if there was an Australian-digital-armageddon, because none of us (Australians) are allowed to discuss it.
Have you got a source for this? I read (can’t remebemer where, sorry) that most Greens senators voted against it. From memory, Di Natali and SHY were in the list.
The legislation was waved-through by Labor because there is an election coming up and they were afraid to be labelled as pro terrorists and child molesters.
This site has sources: https://alp.fail
Aussie market is not that big. Its gdp is less than a tenth of USA, smaller than Canada and a half of India. It is a good size but if a bunch of google employees stage a protest over this, google may just pull out of it because losing talent can be a bigger pain.
Don't get me wrong, I want big tech companies to retaliate since that's the only way to get the attention of the Australian government (they stopped listening to the proletariat a long time ago). But it should be done as a retaliation, because that's the only justification that I believe would be consistent and might make a difference.
This doesn't seem very meaningful? I live in the US. If the Australian government goes to me and tells me to sabotage my employer, I can tell them to pound sand.
The point is that all software engineers (in Australia) being able to be co-opted as saboteurs is a fairly "meaningful" problem and should be a concern to everyone...
Even someone's little SaaS can be asked to turn up dirt on someone. I literally couldn't comply. I don't write encryption algorithms for a living I just build websites. I can't not encrypt people's data and according to european laws I can't store most of it anyway. Here, gov, have a username, email address, and this blob of encrypted text. Enjoy the insight.
It's getting so hostile to do business in software. At least construction and engineering liabilities are clear cut. I don't even know what my risks factors are anymore and they change every month.
It took longer than expected, but the governments have finally decided it's time to ruin the internet. I am going to go be a carpenter or something.
What a shitshow.
You’re clearly smart and lucid. Me perhaps less so but I have some spare time. Who else? Where are they gathering? What can I do?
I’m talking basic communications and publicity stuff, not anything anarchistic. Helping non-tech journalists. Writing articles to help the public understand this stuff. Lobbying MPs.
Maybe I just found a way to keep myself busy...
I don't think you'd have to "break encryption" or do anything advanced, the main thing they're looking to ask is to circumvent encryption. For example sending the plaintext password for a specific user from the login form, or OS backdoor, etc., delivered through a special software update just for that user. Additionally the wording of the law does not allow for an inability for you to do it, I believe you would be compelled to hire someone that can.
How do you advertise for the position? Lie about the job and then once they are on board the government hits them with the no-tell paperwork? What a shitty person I would have to become to make that happen, and I would have no choice at that point.
Perhaps they would have a saboteur on staff they would be willing to lend. Very hard position to hire for, no doubt.
Actually I'm not sure you could hire a contractor, since you'd probably be under a secrecy constraint and wouldn't be able to tell them what needed to be done.
Honestly, not bad advice.
Given the politics and bs around the big corps and govt ministries my skillsets fit into (business analyst/pm) a trade has been something I've been considering seriously for a while now. The peace of mind and lack of toxic office cultures is really appealing. They're apprenticeships too, so you're paid as you learn.
Being in NZ, I wonder: do you know Mike Rowe, from the American TV show 'Dirty Jobs'? If not I encourage you to research him and the TV show. It's not very often I recommend television.
Just thought I'd note that. This is crazy.
This is something I'm seriously considering. I live in Europe anyway, and at this rate I have zero interest in ever living in Australia again. I won't return, and I won't do anything to support Australia in any way, if I have to go down this path.
The Australian government has truly committed a hostile act against its own citizens.
On the other hand, if I were a global company developing proprietary software with development offices in Australia I'd be pretty concerned... and complain loudly and publicly and lay down what the consequences will be. Maybe there could already have been court orders and ways to compel companies to assist at the management level (in probably any country), and maybe there could potentially be moles (from any country) hiding anywhere, but if the more tinfoil hat interpretations are correct this turns every employee on that continent into a mole, and even worse, risks accidental compromises through incompetence (beyond the specific target of a warrant/order/whatever). Right?
In the late 90s I recall hearing of crypto work being done in Australia to avoid the crypto export laws of certain other countries. If I'm remembering that correctly, its software development economy may have benefited in the past from other countries making choices like these, and I suppose it will now suffer. Why would a bank or whatever want to expose itself to that? Australian offices could totally finish up blacklisted for certain software projects.
There was a "consultation period" and 99.7% of the submissions were against it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/a3j466/assistanc... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dowpZ_Xtr1N_DgkHJN8i...
All it took to convince the representatives and senators was for a submission from the Australian Federal Police that it was necessary to investigate threats over Christmas.
For example, in Britain you can be arrested for modestly offending someone on Twitter, due to their speech crime laws.[1] That's never going to commonly be the case in the US due to very strong speech protections.
Australia did away with its guns. The US is never going to follow that example. Australia's actions were not a trial for what would happen in the US.
The large counter examples to your premise are numerous.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
But yes, FVEY isn't an overarching conspiracy that implements all digital authoritarianism, nor does it have a monopoly on promulgating such corruption - I doubt FVEY itself coordinated the attack on Kim Dotcom. Nor is it the only such conspiracy - Sweden isn't part of FVEY yet eagerly went after TPB and Assange.
But pointing to such agreements is a good analogy for the similar ratcheting totalitarian trends we observe across countries - how intertwined the governments are, and how willingly they give up their citizen-subjects to each other. This is the larger issue - regardless of the actual mechanics of pollination, we can be sure that after the bugs have been worked out in Australia, we'll be staring down the same exact bullshit in the US.
(And I do apologize for blowing up a thread about Australia with US centrism. The point is that we, the people, are ultimately all in this together. Looking to US-exceptionalism as a reason to write off what's happening in Australia as their own problem is a broken outlook)
That's funny, the only exceptionalism I feel we've exhibited for a while is our exceptional ability to bury our heads in the sand and deny the existence of all the inconvenient problems we have to address in the future. :/
Each nation in question has different protections, or lack thereof, when it comes to privacy, speech, property rights, et al. One size will not fit all, each country would see a different response to the same attempted legislation. The US Government has tried for two decades - with very little success - to reach for something equivalent to what Australia just rushed through in no time at all. What would completely rewrite so much US law and interpretation so rapidly as to make such a drastic change possible in the US anytime soon? Nuclear terrorism, as a society shaking event, is about the only thing that comes to mind as plausible and that's far-fetched.
USG basically tried once to mandate backdooring encryption itself - in the 90s, when the entire topic was only relevant to a small community, there was basically no low level "street crime" involving encryption, and doing so required restricting individuals' distribution of software.
The renewed push is based on telling commercial companies that they have to setup their systems to assist the police, completely in line with precedents like CALEA. The much more diffuse tech-using community is already primed for heavy handed authoritarianism based on how these companies already operate, and also in general due to being pumped full of the terrorism by the 24/7 "news" cycle. I'd hope you're right that the US has constitutional protections to backstop this, but from my perspective those "protections" serve more as coping mechanisms rather than as effective restraints on government power.
I can perhaps see a legal exception for US Free software devs who aren't working commercially, but I can just as well see a malinterpretation declaring them as engaging in commercial activity ala Wickard v. Filburn.
No it didn't. Saying it did helps prevent the US implement similar measures.
Perhaps people outside Australia should also be wary of software from companies that do business in Australia, if there's any reason to think that the Australian government may want your data.
They are so the US and other 5 eyes members can spy on their own citizens in ways that are illegal under their own laws.
These laws are terrifying for everyone, not only Australians.
There is no law in the US prohibiting me from creating an alternate login screen for one particular customer just in order to capture their login password. So as a US citizen I have no defense within Australian law against an Australian demand that I capture the password of one of my users... perhaps a parliament member of the Australian opposition.
I can choose to simply ignore the demand. The US will not extradite me for violating a foreign law that does not have an equivalent in US law. But I suppose I can never go on vacation to Australia.
> Circumventing an electronic protection
> Unauthorised access
The company providing the protection cannot by definition circumvent it or be unauthorized. If a third party decides to deliver a payload to your browser to discover your Facebook password, then they are violating the DMCS in the US. But if Facebook decides to deliver a payload to your browser to discover your Facebook password that is simply them doing business in a different fashion. This isn't a violation of US law, so refusing it do it would be a violation of Australia's very poorly-considered new law.
Now if the TAN/TCN was issued to a US based company that would be a different issue but then you as an individual would not be in violation of it.
Not that that makes it a better law, but I think for people not physically in Australia the risk of being issued an enforceable (under Australian law) TAN/TCN is quite low.
The US is particularly aggressive about not ceding legal / constitutional sovereignty to other nations or entities.
Not really, that's just a consequence of the Australian Parliament's history of very strong party discipline. It is highly unusual for all the members of a parliamentary party not to vote the same way on a bill.
Also that the backdoors will be exploited by the other bad guys.
It potentially allows the government to turn employees into saboteurs. According to s.317C(6), a "designated service provider" can be someone who has developed software that is likely to be used in an electronic service that has one end-user in Australia. This is a very wide net and immediately includes effectively every free software developer, and the employees of every tech company. Now, there is an argument to be made that employees don't qualify (because they're acting on behalf of their employer), but that's not clear at the moment. It also includes sysadmins (or even ex-sysadmins) as people who can be "activated" as saboteurs.
It should be noted that it's very unlikely that this legislation would result in the Armageddon most people (including myself) are quite worried about. I imagine it's much more likely this power will be used against a few big players (Apple, Facebook, Google) in order to add features like being able to add additional devices to group chats (or something like that). But obviously the law gives them much more power than that, and that's a very big concern.
(And the fact that only 2 MPs voted against it tells me there's almost certainly some back-door dealings that resulted in this bill being passed.)