Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster • Hacker News Board

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#51

Post by chrisseaton » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

johneth wrote: post #46

chrisseaton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it stopped them. I know it's possible for them to do it. I said they should stop doing it. It's completely impossible to be even remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious?

You said they "should let other people report on stories that involve them", implying that somehow they could stop that. Bit of a blurry sentence. > It's completely impossible to be even remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious? No. It depends on the organisation. In the BBC's case, I'd say the opposite is true.

‘Should let them’ as in ‘leave it to them’ not ‘should permit them.’

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#52

Post by shusson » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

mwill wrote: post #48

The raid was being live tweeted by an ABC editor, the tweet that stood out the most to me was this:[0] AFP: I’m still staggered by the power of this warrant. It allows the AFP to “add, copy, delete or alter” material in the ABC’s computers. All Australians, please think about that: as of this moment, the AFP has the power to delete material in the ABC’s computers. Australia 2019. [0] https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/s…

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#53

Post by chrisseaton » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

r3bl wrote: post #37

chrisseaton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the BBC should give any political opinion on any news story, ever. But if they want to, why don't they report the story and include their opinion straightforwardly? Why do they resort to the mental gymnastics of issuing an opinion and then reporting on that opinion as a new story as if it's a separate thing? Makes me think they know it's wrong so they contort themselves like this to do it.

That's because you don't understand what "opinions" are (at least, in this context). News stories should be brief and answer "5W" questions (who, what, when, where, why). As such, they're supposed to be based on the facts alone, and others should draw their own conclusions from them. Opinions, on the other hand, are used to put the news stories into context. Journalists are supposed to have more background to the sto…

Bottom line for me is - I know the BBC have already made up their mind that this is an attack on press freedoms rather than a legitimate investigation, so I’m now not going to be holding my breath for them to report any developments that are contrary to that view.

That’s why it’s a shame they choose to do this.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#54

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #11

jMyles wrote: post #4

Reminds me of this crazy clusterfuck unfolding in San Francisco: https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war...

Wow. How is this not bigger news? I'm on the East Coast and it's the first I'm hearing of it but perhaps someone nearer to SF can comment on whether it's being widely discussed?

It's very widely covered;

NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/us/california-san-francis...

WaPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/14/how-police-...

(Each have written more than 15 pieces that I can ID, I just posted a few examples)

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#55

Post by EliRivers » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #15

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #3

Reminds me of the Guradian being intimidated over the Snowden leaks by being forced to drill through their harddrives: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

To be fair, working at a medical billing company standard practice was zero out drive, then drill. It was far less secret than that too

I think the point in the Guardian drive-drilling episode is that they weren't destroying the data. The data was already in numerous copies in other places, and everyone involved knew it, including the people doing the drilling and the people who had ordered it.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#56

Post by NedIsakoff » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

cyphar wrote: post #21

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #8

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack…

Australia does not have any constitutional protections of press freedom (or freedom of speech for that matter). So draconian laws limiting press freedom can be passed without any recourse for the public. Being able to forcefully disclose a journalists sources would not be permitted anywhere else in the world. We need reforms, not cow-towing to these disgusting authoritarian tactics. Not to mention that this is clearl…

"Being able to forcefully disclose a journalists sources would not be permitted anywhere else in the world." -- China would like to have a word with you, prehaps..

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#57

Post by matthewmacleod » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #33

johneth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC reporting on stories about itself doesn't stop other people from also reporting on stories about the BBC. Isn't that obvious?

I didn't say it stopped them. I know it's possible for them to do it. I said they should stop doing it. It's completely impossible to be even remotely impartial reporting yourself. Isn't that obvious?

No, it’s totally non-obvious to me that this would be the case. It seems frankly ridiculous that you would think they shouldn’t - particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest partiality in this case.

The BBC news organisation often reports on statements or events affecting themselves or other parts of the organisation. Most high-quality news sources do the same. If anything, I’d actually expect them to be taking even more care than normal to avoid bias when they do so.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#58

Post by wccrawford » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

shusson wrote: post #52

mwill wrote: post #48

The raid was being live tweeted by an ABC editor, the tweet that stood out the most to me was this:[0] AFP: I’m still staggered by the power of this warrant. It allows the AFP to “add, copy, delete or alter” material in the ABC’s computers. All Australians, please think about that: as of this moment, the AFP has the power to delete material in the ABC’s computers. Australia 2019. [0] https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/s…

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Perhaps they had a ruling in the past that during accessing a computer, things got changed, like the logs. And so now they have to have that in the warrant so that they don't lose their case.

It sounds stupid, but I could see it happening.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#59

Post by ben_jones » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

shusson wrote: post #52

mwill wrote: post #48

The raid was being live tweeted by an ABC editor, the tweet that stood out the most to me was this:[0] AFP: I’m still staggered by the power of this warrant. It allows the AFP to “add, copy, delete or alter” material in the ABC’s computers. All Australians, please think about that: as of this moment, the AFP has the power to delete material in the ABC’s computers. Australia 2019. [0] https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/s…

Yes this stood out to me too. I don't really understand why a warrant would enable alteration. Copying I can wrap my head around, but alteration without oversight seems awful. Hopefully the warrant has more fine print than the journalist implied.

Probably legal completeness. Think about it, log in to a windows computer there is probably an event log that gets updated. While checking browser history the history may be altered. Installing surveillance applications would modify the machine. Etc.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#60

Post by NedIsakoff » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

cyphar wrote: post #45

sonnyblarney wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world, into which millions are trying to migrate because of this ... is now a 'right wing authoritarian state'? I think we need to look at the specific information in question. FYI here's a summary of Australia shield laws [1] (sorry, it's not very good) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-jour...

> Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world I'm not sure what Australia you live in. We are currently torturing asylum seekers, with unlimited detention periods (the only nation on earth who allows this). A recent whistleblower that showed corruption within the ATO (to Americans: the IRS) is facing charges that would land him with 160 years in prison. We've neglected and abused the native pop…

"We are currently torturing asylum seekers, with unlimited detention periods (the only nation on earth who allows this)." - China would love a word with you..