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

81–90 of 363 posts

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

#81

Post by Waterluvian »

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…

Is “principle of fundamental Justice” related to the concept of everyone being reasonable and acting in good faith, not forcing the legal system to evaluate every possibility?

Eg. The Republicans won’t stop passing manifestly unconstitutional legislation at state level. They force the thing to be played out rather than accepting what’s obvious and not attempting it to begin with.

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

#82

Post by PostOnce »

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.

In NZ we like to claim we don't have a culture of suing, when this is mostly only because personal injury suits and ambulance-chasers don't exist here, largely because the ACC precludes that particular avenue for litigation.

All kinds of other tort suits exist, it's just that people without any money don't know it, they have no lawyer and nothing to sue or be sued for. So we go around saying "we don't have a culture of suing, that's so American".

In actual fact, wealthy people here are just as litigious as anywhere else... as you are when you have something to gain or to lose.

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

#83

Post by mr_toad »

deathgripsss wrote: post #2

This seems incredibly Draconian for a climate protestor. Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?

> Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?

Taken literally he wouldn’t be able to do online banking or access any encrypted website.

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

#84

Post by p1necone »

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…

Don't lump NZ in with Aus, different government, different laws. Afaik the trying to outlaw encryption stuff hasn't hopped the ditch yet.

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

#85

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by tomc1985 »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#88

Post by inkyoto »

joshka wrote: post #47
Fargoan wrote: post #41

I love Australia but their government is shit

It's the NSW government that passed the shitty authoritarian laws that caused this. Any guess which party runs that state?

You don't remember the late Stephen Conroy of the Labour Party who is responsible for single-handedly imposing sweeping Internet censorship laws onto the Australian public and mandatory ISP level filtering with the public not having the right to know what has been blacklisted?

From the horse's mouth – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...:

> In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million "cybersafety plan" _which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision_. This ISP-based filter aims to stop adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess in Australia, such as child pornography or materials related to terrorism.

> In March 2009, Stephen Conroy dismissed suggestions that the Government would use the filter to crack down on political dissent as "conspiracy theories". He stated that the filter would only be used to remove "refused classification" (RC) content, using the same rationale as existing television, radio and print publications, and that the Senate could be relied upon to provide rigorous assessment of any proposed legislation.

> On 9 November 2012, Stephen Conroy shelved the proposed mandatory filter legislation in favour of existing legislation, touting that _it was successful in compelling the largest ISPs to adopt a filter. As a result, 90% of Australian Internet users are censored from accessing some web-based content_.

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

#89

Post by pyuser583 »

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…

Is there any current support for this fundamental rights/free speech movement?

As an American, I can tell you just because a movement should exist doesn’t mean it will.

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

#90

Post by pyuser583 »

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.

The phrase “so sue me” basically means “with whose army” or “what are you going to do about it”.

It’s not to be taken literally, although in this context it’s a bit confusing.

Post reply on HN