Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#21

Post by baylisscg »

tananaev wrote: post #3

It seems like they are just making it more explicit that companies must cooperate with the police. Isn't it already the case anyway if there is an appropriate court order? At least they are not suggesting to compromise or limit encryption in any way. What I fail to understand is how all this would help fighting crime. Criminals and terrorists can easily use end-to-end encryption for the communication. There is plenty…

IIRC you're allowed to use any crypto you like and fix flaws that are found but you're also required to add flaws if asked to. Well they call it a "technical capability notice" but it includes such things as "Installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment given to a provider by an agency." and "Removing a form of electronic protection applied by the provider, if the provider has an existing capability to remove this protection". You don't have to compromise your crypto you just need to install this black box library that does … something.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#22

Post by adrianratnapala »

sanderjd wrote: post #14
davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

Without knowing much about the Australian system, I suspect the protections in the Constitution are equivalent, but not those in "common law and other legislation". In the US, the protections in the Constitution + Bill of Rights are considered much more fundamental than our common law and other legislation because it requires an amendment to override those protections, and amendments require an enormous level of nati…

> I suspect the protections in the Constitution are equivalent,

No, Australia has nothing like the Bill of rights, even if some bits of the constitution cover the same ground very partially.

To give a flavour of this, our constitution prohibits an established church using language very similar to the US 1st Amendment. But the silence about freedom of speech is deafening.

In the '90s the High Court decided there had to be an implied right to freedom of speech inherent in the political system which is itself implied by the constitution. But since it is not explicit, they still restrict it to only political speech. And (since it really did require a strong judicial activism) many in our legal community are against even this much enforcement of fundamental rights.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#23

Post by cyphar »

roenxi wrote: post #19
sanderjd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing much about the Australian system, I suspect the protections in the Constitution are equivalent, but not those in "common law and other legislation". In the US, the protections in the Constitution + Bill of Rights are considered much more fundamental than our common law and other legislation because it requires an amendment to override those protections, and amendments require an enormous level of nati…

But even so, having something in the constitution is of relatively little protection if the judiciary and government are in favour of an idea. For example, the bill of rights talks about "right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" and yet asset forfeiture is still a legal option. Actual practices surrounding plea bargains also look to run counter to the spirit of the BoR, but I m…

In Australia (unlike the US), constitutional amendments are decided by both a majority vote in both houses of parliament and by referendum where the public votes and a double majority (majority of people in the majority of states, and the majority of people in the country) must vote YES in order for a referendum to pass. And in Australia voting is compulsory so there's no question about election turnout spoiling the result.

So in Australia it is very hard to get a constitutional amendment to pass, and politicians have very little say in whether the amendment will pass (they can block it by voting against it but they cannot force it to pass). Only 8 (out of 44) have passed in the past 117 years that we have been a country.

As for Australia having a bill of rights, I think it would be an improvement (especially if it was anything like the Swiss constitution) but I don't know whether our bill of rights would be ridiculously watered down (not to mention that the US bill of rights is like the 10 commandments -- many people know a couple but don't know all of them and forget that the majority of them are not really relevant today).

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#24

Post by acutesoftware »

I came across this video that shows the potential issues with this bill https://youtu.be/eW-OMR-iWOE

What is concerning is I am building a information management system that focuses on privacy and this sort of bill makes a mockery of the entire concept.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#25

Post by basicplus2 »

skissane wrote: post #12
davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison. > whilst others are parts of common law…

True, but once you introduce a bill of rights all your commom law protections go out the window.. including stuff you didnt know you had

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#26

Post by oldandtired »

skissane wrote: post #12
davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison. > whilst others are parts of common law…

That may be true. However, in Australia, all interrogations have to be filmed completely. Law enforcement cannot lie to the interviewees, kidnapping of targets is not allowed. If Any law enforcement fails to do the correct thing in these areas, courts here will throw out the case. We had a relatively high profile "terror" case here which was thrown out for incorrect procedural actions (starting with the kidnapping of the defendant by ASIO).

I also know of cases where law enforcement improprieties have led the police prosecutors to come down on the side of the defendant in question and the improprieties being dealt with by the judge.

So though we do not have constitutional protections a la USA constitution, we do have other protocols in place.

Mind you, irrespective of any specific political affiliation, most of our politicians are all for higher surveillance and control of the population. It has taken cooperation of both government benches and opposition benches to pass the more draconian legislation in recent years. It has been interesting to watch parliament and see that there are very few there who are willing to grow a backbone and actively protect the rights of the citizens of this nation.

None of the draconian terror related legislation has actually been needed as all such activity is covered by normal criminal and civil legislation previously brought into existence. At least one of the draconian pieces of legislation does not require changes to the legislation to have the targets of that legislation changed at whim. All it requires is an administrative change of definition to change the legislative definition of terrorist. Smart work on the part of those who framed the legislation. A new government can designate any group they don't like as terrorists without going before parliament.

So any citizen of Australia that just wants to mind their own business can be easily caught up in the entire mess.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#27

Post by lucb1e »

NoPicklez wrote: post #2

For those that would like more reading here is the explanatory bill: https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh Three important things to note technical assistance requests, technical assistance notice and technical capability notice.

No need to use URL shorteners on HN, it's not as if there is a character limit... Here is the full URL: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/expla...

Protip for those playing along at home: add a + to a bitly URL to view info, such as the target URL without having to go there.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#28

Post by geggam »

basicplus2 wrote: post #25
skissane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison. > whilst others are parts of common law…

True, but once you introduce a bill of rights all your commom law protections go out the window.. including stuff you didnt know you had

The US bill of rights doesnt define the rights. The bill of rights calls out special rights that the govt shall not touch.

The rights are granted to us by our creator aka natural law. The same law used to declare our independence from the crown and an inherent part of the fabric of the US.

Not sure if this is clearly stated yet.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#29

Post by twblalock »

basicplus2 wrote: post #25
skissane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison. > whilst others are parts of common law…

True, but once you introduce a bill of rights all your commom law protections go out the window.. including stuff you didnt know you had

Not really -- your bill of rights can explicitly say that it does not cancel out other rights that it did not mention. That's the purpose of the 11th Amendment to the United States constitution.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#30

Post by steve_taylor »

NoPicklez wrote: post #2

For those that would like more reading here is the explanatory bill: https://bit.ly/2NR4tTh Three important things to note technical assistance requests, technical assistance notice and technical capability notice.

They keep insisting they're not asking for backdoors. Here's what the explanatory bill says:

The type of assistance that may be requested or required under the above powers include (amongst other things):

* Removing a form of electronic protection applied by the provider, if the provider has an existing capability to remove this protection.

* Providing technical information like the design specifications of a device or the characteristics of a service.

* Installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment given to a provider by an agency.

* Formatting information obtained under a warrant.

* Facilitating access to devices or services.

* Helping agencies test or develop their own systems and capabilities.

* Notifying agencies of major changes to their systems, productions or services that are relevant to the effective execution of a warrant or authorisation.

* Modifying or substituting a target service.

* Concealing the fact that agencies have undertaken a covert operation

Post reply on HN