Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
1–10 of 363 posts
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#2This seems incredibly Draconian for a climate protestor.
Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#3This seems incredibly Draconian for a climate protestor. Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?
Dude is a climate activist. I think other things preclude him from cryptocurrency.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#4Sounds like Australia to me.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#5This seems incredibly Draconian for a climate protestor. Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?
Not only that; this is before a guilty verdict!
> Mr Rolles has pled not guilty and is awaiting trial.
And it certainly seems extreme:
> Mr Davis said one of his clients had been pulled in by police after they reacted with a "thumbs up" emoji to Facebook comments shared by friends who were also allegedly part of Blockade Australia activities.
> "A thumbs up, it's not much in terms of communication," the activist told the ABC.
> "The fact that the state finds that threatening — people talking and sharing our ideas — is very telling."
> No breach of bail charges were ultimately pursued over the "likes".
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#6After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up.
One doesn't need to agree with the persons cause to recognize this is another extreme overstepping of authority on the part of that government to mandate that the people who communicate with the person subject to this order may also not protect their own commuications from interception, and that the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever data gets sent to him.
Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, I could forsee a new republican movement emerging in commonwealth countries, as it's pretty clear CAN/AUS/NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a "so sue me," approach to legislation and governance, as this stuff is just too stupid to be reasoned with. The language means nothing, the principles mean nothing. It's no longer about tech, it's about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#7I just checked that the right against self-incrimination exists in Australia, too. Isn't it a violation of this law to require someone to tell their passwords?
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#8I don't see how such a law even makes the phone/laptop itself safe to use, literally everything employs encryption now, it's built right in to the CPU and most websites you visit.
Would obfuscation be considered encryption?
And what about remote access? Is ssh or remote desktop considered off-limits? How could such usage even be policed when it's their own device with no tracking software installed?
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#9This seems incredibly Draconian for a climate protestor. Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?
Crypto is one thing, but what about his normal banking?
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#10[deleted]