Probably an idea to throw Australia on that list -
https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-actually-in-australias-e...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-actually-in-australias-e...
After having this discussion with my manager and colleagues (the conversation with my manager was in my interview process where I bluntly stated if I was asked to comply with anything from this law, I'd immediately resign, my manager also agreed). Everyone I've spoken to agreed we'd immediately resign since it was the only potential option to protect our selves as employees and our employers.
Edit: I'll need to spend a little more time looking into the Assistance and Access Laws. The following article attempts to downplay some of these concerns:
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
You are assuming that is actually an option. There is nothing to suggest the current Australian government would not prevent you from resigning until the task had been completed. This is the same government currently attempting to make it illegal to boycott businesses that are damaging to the environment.
Also, the proposed anti-boycott rules have been widely criticized as unconstitutional, unworkable and ludicrously against the conservatives free speech pronouncements. Unlikely they would get support from Senate cross bench.
That's the good(ish) news - the bad is that restraints on the passing of bad law are generally pretty weak in the absence of a hostile Senate. This is particularly true with the current feeble opposition, and even more so given the general atmosphere of cowering obeisance that the major parties have allowed (or encouraged) to develop around any legislation involving the word 'security'.
The problem is not really that you couldn't resign -- it is that the company would hire replacements that would get the job done. The company executive would be compelled to.
Albanese (and his forgettable deputy Marles) have so far been a disaster for the ALP.
There needs to be a more effective response than Hari Kiri.
Sure, it would be, especially for companies located in neutral countries, but since US influence is so strong everywhere almost all over the world that's also practically impossible. "Every animal is equal but some animals are more equal than others"
https://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Digitale-Welt...
China and Russia obviously have their own systems, but many other countries some some element of national control which is less obvious. Japan certainly has a mature native cloud capability, although it would be highly disruptive to move everything to it.
Its like plans to be 'cloud agile', it doesn't work unless you deploy to both every time, and you probably just double your cost and bugs for deployment ops. So the tendency will be towards cloud balkanization. Which could really suck, or it could force a path away from proprietary APIs towards standards, which will suck in a different way.
I think it's just the usual "Australians not realizing they live in a bubble", and kindly warning the rest of the world about laws or practices that have already been in place in our countries for twenty years.
(2) In English, both hari kari and hara kiri are accepted spellings (the word came into English before modern, maybe even standardized, transliteration, and the source language doesn't natively use the Latin alphabet.)
(3) But, in any case, you are right that it is misspelled.
I'm also an Australian living overseas, have worked on many sensitive projects that would be of interest to the Australian government and its masters, and I'm quite prepared to give up my nationality over this issue.
Australians will never be afforded an opportunity to overthrow their government, nor will we get the revolutions our demonstrations hope for.
In the case of Chinese-based employees the assumption is that anything they did would go through Chinese Government controlled networks (there's VPN ban even for foreign businesses) and likely result in your intellectual property being shared with your Chinese-based competitors. Not to mention their access being potentially compromised and used.
If an Australian-based employee complied with a letter, they could destroy your business reputation when it got out, even if you threw them under the bus. Probably the main reason Australian employees are still given latitude is that committing compromised code into the codebase would require involving everyone who could possibly see that code change.