Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to dragoon employees in secret(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to dragoon employees in secret
https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-encryption-laws-are-highly-unlikely-to-dragoon-employees-in-secret/
10 コメント
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
> These fears are largely unfounded, say experts.
So were fears of the NSA/Five Eyes dragnet, until the Snowden revelations proved that they could and were happening.
So were fears of the NSA/Five Eyes dragnet, until the Snowden revelations proved that they could and were happening.
Say the people who passed the law.
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.
Framing is everything.
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.
[deleted]
"Don't worry, we can't force you add a backdoor into your software. We'd rather talk to your CEO instead."
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.
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.
History is littered with laws that “would never be abused” that... er... were.
Look up the Stansted 15 sometime.
Look up the Stansted 15 sometime.
"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.