Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by philpem on Thursday March 28, 2019 @09:12AM
(#19511811)
That could lead to some interesting court cases.
Employee gets fired for introducing a backdoor, but "may or may not have been" subject to one of these assistance notes (the Government won't comment either way, the employee insists they had a Technical Assistance Note). Employee sues the employer for wrongful dismissal because of the alleged unprovable TAN.
I wonder which way that court case would go... sounds like a recipe for deadlock.
Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by JoshTriplett on Thursday March 28, 2019 @10:28AM
(#19512505)
Even better: employee gets criminally prosecuted in a (slightly) more sensible jurisdiction for having intentionally introduced the backdoor.
Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by mises on Thursday March 28, 2019 @09:46AM
(#19512117)
Another possible concern is that the employee sues for wrongful termination, alleging they were "just following the law" (which they would have been). The employee shouldn't lose his job for following the law, the company shouldn't have such problems for trying to protect its users, and this whole mess was caused by government intervention.
But yes, it will be interesting to see how the courts rule. Not familiar with Australian law, so if anybody has thoughts about this, please feel free to enlighten me.
Quit making me laugh, buddy. Unfortunately, I think we all know that once they get their office, they do very little to serve the people. Not sure about the case with Australia, but you can't sue the American government unless it lets you. Otherwise, it just claims sovereign immunity. Wrong as that is, it's a very good defense as it keeps them out of court. This might lead the employee to sue the employer ("I was complying with a lawful government order; you can't fire me for that!"), making Australians even more of a liability.