Oh, and it's probably worth noting that you need not even be an Australian citizen to be covered, you simply need to have users in Australia. Of course, whether Australia can enforce these laws against non-citizens is another matter.

However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at:

https://cryptome.org/2018/11/5-Eyes-Crypto.pdf

Five Eyes just wanted this legislation pushed through somewhere and targeted Australia because we:

- lack a bill of rights

- are constantly distracted by politicians backstabbing each other, and

- there's a strong 'think of the children' sentiment in Australia that can be (and has been) used to push through all sorts of egregious bills.

You can't force non-citizens, obviously, since non-citizens are not under Australian jurisdiction.

If they could, then this would create a problem of national security for other countries.

But yes, the Five Eyes countries can use Australia for their wiretapping.

It wouldn't be the first time someone would be extradited to a country they've never even visited.

Jurisdiction sets no limits to itself, but to other jurisdictions. Australia can request extradition of anyone from anywhere, then it's up to that jurisdiction to decide whether to comply, which may or may not be situational. If the country believes it's a problem, then it would deny the request.

>However, this legislation was specifically put together with co-operation of all members of the five eyes, so there's a reasonable possibility of extradition. The Department of Home Affairs even made a public statement confirming as much. It seems to have since been pulled from their website, but is available at: [PDF link]

I read the PDF and didn't notice any mention of extradition. Am I missing something?

Don't know anything about extradition but the law specifically mentions putting in backdoors to aid foreign nations at their request.

It also notes that this can be for economic espionage too and isn't limited to national security (for the people who like to pretend that's not what their intelligence agencies are doing)

Sorry for the ambiguity. The reference I provided was with regard to the fact the Australian Government has collaborated with other five eyes countries with this legislation, or at least the 'need' for this legislation.

This is why I simply wrote there's a reasonable possibility of extradition, rather than anything definite.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

> the person provides an electronic service that has one or more end-users in Australia

I don’t think this particular clause covers an individual working for a corporation as an employee, as in that case the employee isn’t providing the service the employer is.

It reads to me like that clause is intended to cover people who produce software as sole operators of their business, or perhaps a group of people in a business partnership.

I haven’t read the rest of the act, so maybe there is a stronger clause targeting employees?

If the government can compel a company to do a thing that doesn’t necessarily mean they can compel any particular individual.

You could refuse / quit / abandon the project. Maybe they’ll just find somebody else to do it?

Then the government threaten to sue, many will compel. If the government say they will get 5 year jail for telling anybody, how can they get help?

Remember AU have no bill of rights.

in the definition part of the law:

> contracted service provider, in relation to a designated

> communications provider, means a person who performs services

> for or on behalf of the provider, but does not include a person who

> performs such services in the capacity of an employee of the

> provider.

The statute here is always talking about a contracted service provider who has to comply with the compelled "assistance". So as an employee, you do not have to worry about being jailed for non-compliance, as an employee cannot be a "contracted service provider". But you may be fired for non-compliance by your employer (if they choose to fire you because of it), but that's between you and your employer.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, so absolutely may have misinterpreted.

However, what I've quoted above is referring to the definition for a designated communications provider, as opposed to a 'contracted service provider' - the latter of which makes sense not to include employees as they're not 'contractors'. However, technical assistance notices (which are compulsory, as opposed to 'technical assistance requests') can be served to designated communications providers, as covered by 317L.

So the fact employees aren't considered a 'contracted service provider' is therefore not relevant?

Again, just reiterating, not at all a lawyer, however at this moment in time, this is my interpretation of the legislation.

It is completely relevant, since the OP mentions that you as an australian working for a company could be compelled directly as a communications provider.

I'm saying that if you are in the employ of a communications provider or a contracted service provider, you do not have to worry about being compelled directly. I take "the person" to mean an actual person, or a legal person, but the employee of the communications provider is not a person (IANAL, so don't use me as legal advice).