
Australia's encryption laws are 'highly unlikely' to dragoon employees in secret - LinuxBender
https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-encryption-laws-are-highly-unlikely-to-dragoon-employees-in-secret/
======
AdmiralAsshat
> 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.

------
floatingatoll
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.

------
Tehchops
>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.

------
amorphic
"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.

------
brokenmachine
_> 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...](https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184?lang=en)

Why not write them so secret dragooning is not possible then?

The answer to that question is painfully obvious.

------
gumby
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.

------
moomin
History is littered with laws that “would never be abused” that... er... were.

Look up the Stansted 15 sometime.

------
DFXLuna
"Don't worry, we can't force you add a backdoor into your software. We'd
rather talk to your CEO instead."

------
mtgx
Say the people who passed the law.

