Re:Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to drag...
by floatingatoll on Monday December 17, 2018 @11:20AM
(#18699866)
They’re right in one respect: statistically, they only need to dragoon ~one person per tech company.
So, therefore, they are “highly unlikely”, simply because of the inherent infrequency of needing to dragoon a single individual as they fully exercise their desires to spy on us all.
Re:Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to drag...
by Tehchops on Monday December 17, 2018 @11:07AM
(#18699777)
>experts
>people who drafted the law
Pick one.
Whatever passes for tech journalism these days left ZDnet long ago.
It's kind of a joke to expect an objective take on whether or not this law allows judicial overreach from one of the government staffers who helped draft it.
Re:Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to drag...
by amorphic on Monday December 17, 2018 @11:01PM
(#18704427)
"If the industry and government would reach a solution that would enable access that doesn't go to removing electronic protection, and doesn't attract that prohibition against systemic weaknesses and vulnerabilities, if the industry player was mindful to challenge that, there's a very robust judicial review process in Australia," Ingle said.
"They can very well go to the courts and determine that arguably this notice is not reasonable, proportionate, technically feasible, [or] practical, or say that it will introduce a systemic vulnerability, and is therefore unlawful."
That's fine for Google and Apple. Where is a bootstraped or VC-funded communications startup supposed to find the money for that particular legal battle?
The answer is that they avoid the whole scenario by not starting said startup in Australia or hiring any Australian employees.
Re:Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to drag...
by brokenmachine on Monday December 17, 2018 @10:23PM
(#18704310)
>We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us.
Re:Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to drag...
by gumby on Monday December 17, 2018 @12:59PM
(#18700657)
If that's the case there should be no problem changing the wording to assuage developers' fears, right?
I've been very seriously thinking of moving back (to the point of starting to dispose of things like my car) but now am wary. This is not what Australia needs.
So were fears of the NSA/Five Eyes dragnet, until the Snowden revelations proved that they could and were happening.
So, therefore, they are “highly unlikely”, simply because of the inherent infrequency of needing to dragoon a single individual as they fully exercise their desires to spy on us all.
Framing is everything.
>people who drafted the law
Pick one.
Whatever passes for tech journalism these days left ZDnet long ago.
It's kind of a joke to expect an objective take on whether or not this law allows judicial overreach from one of the government staffers who helped draft it.
"They can very well go to the courts and determine that arguably this notice is not reasonable, proportionate, technically feasible, [or] practical, or say that it will introduce a systemic vulnerability, and is therefore unlawful."
That's fine for Google and Apple. Where is a bootstraped or VC-funded communications startup supposed to find the money for that particular legal battle?
The answer is that they avoid the whole scenario by not starting said startup in Australia or hiring any Australian employees.
https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184?la...
Why not write them so secret dragooning is not possible then?
The answer to that question is painfully obvious.
I've been very seriously thinking of moving back (to the point of starting to dispose of things like my car) but now am wary. This is not what Australia needs.
Look up the Stansted 15 sometime.