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

Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 363 posts

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#51

Post by helloooooooo »

tpoacher wrote: post #44
helloooooooo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, Examples? You can’t just make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32299244

You mean bail conditions? It’s very common to have your communications be restricted with certain people and you may be restricted from entering certain geographical areas. How is this overreach?

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#52

Post by tpoacher »

macinjosh wrote: post #13
kgeist wrote: post #7

I 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…

In principle I agree, and will admit that for a second I marvelled at the wisdom of your forefathers.

In practice, I fully expect that those rights are only a jedi mind-trick "Your rights are not being violated" away in any case where it is of actual consequence (e.g. Assange)

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#53

Post by novok »

robocat wrote: post #40
motohagiography wrote: post #6

After 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…

> it's pretty clear [NZ has] a "so sue me," approach to legislation and governance NEw Zealander here: I honestly don’t understand what you are talking about. The culture of “sue”ing doesn’t really exist here. I wouldn’t guess there was a lot in common between NZ and Ozzie: we laugh or cry about what happens over in Oz. No idea about Canada.

It's an idiom, suing isn't that common in Canada either. Basically "just try to stop me, because I know you can't, neeneer neeneer".

"I really don't care if you are offended or put off by what I said or did. The hyperbolic threat is meant to undermine how much importance another person is or may be giving something one did or said." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/So%2c+sue+me!

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#54

Post by BLKNSLVR »

redact207 wrote: post #36
pilgrimfff wrote: post #20

As soon as I saw the headline, figured it was Australia. It's a real stretch to call it a liberal democracy at this point.

Quoted post unavailable.

My thoughts were along similar lines in terms of "if this group, then why not them, and them, and them, and them, and them" where pretty much every single "them" I can think of is a much greater blight on society than climate protesters.

I'm a supporter of Australia's gun laws, but not a supporter of this kind of over-the-top restrictions for, what I consider to be (and that's the rub), the trivial / minor offense of protesting.

The protection of "the economy" is paranoia-level, which doesn't bode well. Corruption is a transaction that encourages more transactions, whilst protest is only ever a restriction, therefore if the economy is the priority then protest is a worse crime than corruption.

No wonder there are climate protesters...

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#55

Post by yoloyoloyoloa »

All these WEF friendly counties are going down hill especialy Australia and Canada when it comes to human rights. I am happy living in South Africa far away from Justin Castro or whatever the pm is Australia cant even remember his name all I rber is he is a coward and a liar with no backbone.

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#56

Post by russelg »

EastSmith wrote: post #11

Can't wait untill they install obligatory mind readers in 8 years. What a joke of country has Australia gotten to?

This is a state level ruling, not federal. Blame the NSW government, not Australia as a whole. I'm not saying the feds are innocent either but this was not their doing.

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#57

Post by _Algernon_ »

anothernewdude wrote: post #3
deathgripsss wrote: post #2

This 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.

Cryptocurrency != bitcoin. Plenty of cryptocurrencies that don't rely on PoW

Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone

#59

Post by [deleted] »

causality0 wrote: post #24
mellosouls wrote: post #18

Note 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN