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

101–110 of 363 posts

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

#101

Post by senorrib »

Waterluvian wrote: post #81
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.

Not only Republicans. Both parties act the same way when the Constitution becomes an inconvenience.

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

#102

Post by jasongi »

calsy wrote: post #93
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.

"constitutional rights as Americans understand them" I assume is referring to the bill of rights. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights and most of our "rights" mentioned above are not "constituional" (in the sense that the constitution guarentees them) and are either conferred via common law, legislation, or not at all.

And to be honest, I am OK with this. A lot of negative change in the US seems to be coming from a SCOTUS that nobody voted for and that the regular population cannot overrule without a constitutional amendment.

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

#104

Post by senorrib »

calsy wrote: post #93
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.

You missed the “ as Americans understand them” part. Those are rights, but not constitutional.

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

#105

Post by nojvek »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #92
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')

Underbelly is a great series. Really enjoyed that.

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

#106

Post by synicalx »

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?

The same government that sicced anti-terror police on a comedian who was making fun of a now obviously corrupt politician.

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

#107

Post by enasterosophes »

calsy wrote: post #93
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.

No post body was provided.

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

#108

Post by calsy »

enasterosophes wrote: post #107
calsy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#109

Post by motohagiography »

joshuaissac wrote: post #35
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…

> 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 How exactly would that lead to increased republican sentiments? It is not as if the queen is making these elected governments act in this way.

The Queen's representative, the Governor General is the head of a government that is not mitigated by explicit inaliable freedoms that act as a check on it, or divide its powers in a way to prevent it being converted to a classic tyranny. It would require a whole new constitution to remove the powers that these governments have evolved to abuse.

Hence it seems predictable that a popular movement toward new constitutional republics could rise. Without a means to defend your basic freedoms from the people who eventually rise to make up a government, a constitution and a charter of rights are just conventions. These parliamentary democracies are in a co-ordinated transition to something else.

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

#110

Post by p1necone »

PostOnce wrote: post #82
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.

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…

Sure, but when people talk about the USAs suing culture they are primarily talking about personal injury suits and ambulance chasers aren't they?
Post reply on HN