The headline made me think he was a child pornographer. Holy shit, Australia does this for an illegal protest?
Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
21–30 of 363 posts
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#22After 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…
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.
As someone who matches exactly what your first clause says, I fully agree with this; especially since he apparently has not even been judged yet.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#23Exactly what happens when ignorant fools who are politicians and lawyers who are every bit as arrogant as they are ignorant. "..with a computer" just makes so many powerful peoples' brains fall out of their ears. "Skip all established market regulation, with a computer." Ok, I don't know how to think about this because computer. "Act like the stasi spying on people in ways they never agreed to with a the most massive…
I am think of the same thing. What if he type some random words, but police claim they are encrypted messages, how does he prove it is “meaningless”?
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#24Note these are bail conditions (so presumably an alternative to a much more constrained existence in prison) for a charge that indicates potential for inflicting severe economic damage after organization via communication devices. When compared to bail conditions for other charged crimes which may also be strict and context-related (eg. trackers or keeping distance from a victim of violence) it sounds tough (and righ…
The fact "causing economic damage" is a crime should be enough of a red flag by itself.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#25Democracy dies in darkness.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#26Can't wait untill they install obligatory mind readers in 8 years. What a joke of country has Australia gotten to?
I'll wait until those activists will start falling out of the windows. Should not take long with the way things are going. Same shit in Canada. All because we do not really have rights. They are bestowed on us by our masters and can be taken away.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#27I 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?
IMO, this is a key difference between AU and USA. In Australia the government gives you rights. But that means they can also revoke them in some situations since the rights are derived from the government itself. In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Our constitution says the government cannot violate these innate rights, not that the document/government gives us the righ…
By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? Your government permits you to to have those rights through extremely similar mechanisms to ours in Australia.
Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretations. Ie, your government is actively in the process of deciding how the legal system interacts with the citizens and the constitution, which is definitively your government giving you the rights. See, every 2A Supreme Court battle ever.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#28As soon as I saw the headline, figured it was Australia. It's a real stretch to call it a liberal democracy at this point.
Oh jog on,
While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety.
Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian.
This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, this is a key difference between AU and USA. In Australia the government gives you rights. But that means they can also revoke them in some situations since the rights are derived from the government itself. In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Our constitution says the government cannot violate these innate rights, not that the document/government gives us the righ…
By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? Your government permits you to to have those rights through extremely similar mechanisms to ours in Australia. Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretati…
>By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate?
The 2nd.
Edit: >definitively your government giving you the rights
Because we've gotten lazy and allowed it. Most of our legislative buildings have public balconies above the floors where laws are made. The architecture is sort of a reminder/implicit threat. Or it was, once upon a time. "We're watching you. Don't make any laws that are draconian".
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#30Exactly what happens when ignorant fools who are politicians and lawyers who are every bit as arrogant as they are ignorant. "..with a computer" just makes so many powerful peoples' brains fall out of their ears. "Skip all established market regulation, with a computer." Ok, I don't know how to think about this because computer. "Act like the stasi spying on people in ways they never agreed to with a the most massive…
[deleted]