Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Vecr » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:51 AM UTC

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #49

boppo1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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".

i dont know man, as a non-american, why do you consider your constitution with so much regard as being bulletproof? cant your government just change it? like any other governments do? whats so sacrosanct about it?

If your government tries to change it without the approval of the states, etc. (see constitutional amendments in the US), you kill the government. That's what the second amendment is for. To be pedantic, they are not the actual government anymore when they don't follow the constitution, but they have to be killed all the same to clear space for the new legitimate government.

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

#92

Post by EdwardDiego » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

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…

Kiwi here, we have? What are you referring to?

We have a rather dim outlook of Australian federal/state government overreach too, and some of their populist policies that discriminate against us, often with racist origins.

And we've often enjoyed a TV drama or three recounting horrendous corruption in various Australian police forces. (I highly recommend the Underbelly series')

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

#93

Post by calsy » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

pnw wrote: post #60

Australia has always been somewhat of a prison colony with extensive censorship of media and the Internet and almost no constitutional rights as Americans understand them.

What extensive censorship of media? Australian's have plenty of 'constitutional rights', the right to vote, the right to property, the right to trial by jury, freedom of religion.

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

#94

Post by EdwardDiego » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

andrewchambers wrote: post #50

robocat wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well they did block free movement in the country for a few months, not really sure how legal that was tbh.

If it wasn't legal, you'd see the government in court over it. As happened when the first lockdown wasn't implemented correctly.

https://adls.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=453

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

#95

Post by parallel » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

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…

Agreed, you don't have access to a phone at all while in remand. Bail conditions can restrict who you live with, where you live, interstate travel etc. These are all huge losses of liberty that we accept as a society the same way we accept prison as a loss of liberty.

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

#96

Post by calsy » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

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.

Yeah because everyone has the right to impede on others freedoms. Would you prefer,

1) Limited access to electronic devices or 2) Incarceration?

They got a pretty good deal wouldn't you say?

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

#97

Post by calsy » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

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.

Yes those anti-mask nut jobs complaining about how spare rags fashioned into a mask don't stop the spread of covid. Wow thats crazy talk!

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

#98

Post by baazaa » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

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…

The entire tradition of thought around natural law and limits on the legitimate scope of the state have simply disappeared in Australia so far as I can tell. Everyone just accepts that the state has absolute sovereignty and it can pass any laws it wants.

Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, minimal parliamentary autonomy (i.e. everyone votes on the party line), and no ideological constraints on how state power is used or abused.

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

#99

Post by gsk22 » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #49

boppo1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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".

i dont know man, as a non-american, why do you consider your constitution with so much regard as being bulletproof? cant your government just change it? like any other governments do? whats so sacrosanct about it?

> cant your government just change it?

Short answer: no. The federal government (Congress) can propose amendments, but ratification requires the approval of a 2/3 majority of the 50 states' legislatures (38/50).

And remember that in the US, the governments of each state are not just sub-divisions of the federal government, but totally distinct entities with their own constitutions, legislatures, elections, etc. The federal government has no direct control over the states, and thus can not force them to approve an amendment.

So, to change the US Constitution, 39 separate governments need to agree, and that's a pretty high bar.

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

#100

Post by partomniscient » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:08 AM UTC

Panzer04 wrote: post #46

Pretty serious overstep of rights - hopefully these kinds of restrictions don't pass muster when they get challenged. It's ridiculous we can impose this on someone who hasn't even been found guilty. I wouldn't take this as representative of Australia as a whole though - In many other respects we have excellent institutions and strong rights.

It's presumably revenge for the police getting caught out being stupid in an earlier encounter.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/21/block...

We also keep giving police 'temporary powers' that end up becoming permanent.

We lost anything worthwhile when we lost the right to protest. The ludicrousness of thinking its acceptable to have to apply for a permit to protest is sheer insanity.