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

Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#111

Post by ta5665fgggv »

Datenstrom wrote: post #49
_jal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They look different to me. Australia is flexing its anti-speech authority, asserting the power to control what its subjects are allowed to talk about. My hometown cops are engaged in a much more quotidian abuse of power. Which is not to say ransacking Carmody's place wasn't egregious - it was. Watching the circular firing squad composed of the Mayor, the police chief and the cop-union attack dog just leaves me rootin…

> Our cops are criminals I spent a year working as a cop and I can assure you that cops are in fact normal people. Like any organization or group there is a tribal aspect to it and they will certainly close ranks and attempt to protect their own; however, that is organizational not individual. There is a larger cultural issue involved that drives such misguided organizational behavior.

It seems obvious to me that senior officials should actively lead the organization into not being hostile to the public interest - which this heavy handedness certainly is.

They are meant to serve us, not themselves or the current political party.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#112

Post by aussiecorrector »

Paraesthetic wrote: post #108

Just for any international friends. The ABC is a cesspit of communist propaganda and leftist journalism unresearched or based in any science. Also they are owned by the government, so the government can effectively do what they want in this regard, they own it.

Neither part of the above comment is accurate. I’m on mobile at work but feel it’s important to clarify that not only is the ABC independently rated as highly factual, the government does not have direct editorial control. The comment or above is also stating that the ABC is a communist cesspit at the behest of a conservative government - i.e. nonsense.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#113

Post by SuperNinjaCat »

peterkelly wrote: post #80

What we saw today was a very real, very visual, and very public display of the power the AFP (Australian Federal Police) are prepared to use to intimidate journalists and their brave sources who worked to expose war crimes. They did this by walking into a building and demanding access to sensitive information held by a news organisation, which had no choice but to comply with the warrant. But that's not what scares m…

I'm quite sure there was a bill passed by parliament allowing federal police and/or security services to "to add, copy, delete or alter other data" when carrying out investigations (and I think this was before the Assisted Access bill was passed to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong though).

This struck me as strange since this goes against the very fundamentals of how people are trained to carry out digital forensics on an individuals devices. I remember studying forensics a little and remember lecturers stating how damn careful they must be, as the data they collect must not be contaminated in any way for it to be admissible in court.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#114

Post by mdpopescu »

adventured wrote: post #89
jonny_eh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NVM Assange, look within our own borders: https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war... https://reason.com/2019/06/04/san-francisco-police-got-a-war...

Implying that one illegal example in San Francisco by local police, means that it is a common procedure in the US that is being applied "within our own borders," is absurd. A given unit of police can do any given illegal thing, that doesn't make it common or mean that it's going to become common.

Were they immediately arrested?

If not, that means it's "unofficial" (wink, wink) de-facto policy.

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#115

Post by cyphar »

djsumdog wrote: post #41
cyphar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, Australia has no bill of rights. The State of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights, but I don't think it's binding. Australia courts have held up freedoms of protest and press in the past, but technically the Crown does control all communication. New Zealand has an official office of censor.

The High Court (of Australia) has made a fair few great decisions that are related to implied rights within the constitution, but it's pretty clear that they've already stretched the wording very considerably. They can't just enshrine rights which we take for granted in our everyday lives as being constitutional, because that would invalidate their authority as being the final source of truth for constitutional questions.

There is a research paper published in 1998 by the Australian Parliament which outlines the many arguments why we need stronger constitutional rights[1]. Unfortunately, we have had a referendum on this topic before and it was categorically refused[2] (though the constitutional amendment being proposed was incredibly weak and that might've been the reason it was refused).

[1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rig...

Re: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster

#116

Post by squarefoot »

skissane wrote: post #104
electrograv wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criminals are in fact normal people. Could you elaborate more on this claim? In an ideal world, criminal behavior is supposed to be defined as abnormal and unwanted behavior. * Is my definition of “criminal” for an ideal world way off target? * Or, are you mostly critiquing how non-ideal our current world is, and the injustice of many laws currently on the books? * Something else?

Read Alex Kozinski and Misha Tseytlin's classic essay "You're (Probably) a Federal Criminal" – http://alex.kozinski.com/articles/Youre_Probably_a_Federal_C... - in the US, there are so many federal crimes, so expansively defined, that almost every adult has probably committed at least one, and the only thing keeping them from prison is that they aren't on some prosecutor's hitlist. And I don't think this is an exclus…

It serves the side effect|purpose of making people actionable literally from birth. That is, if some day you become an inconvenient someone for people in power, it's just a matter of finding something you did in the past that can ruin your life Cardinal Richelieu style.
Post reply on HN