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

171–180 of 363 posts

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

#171

Post by refurb »

drc500free wrote: post #114
p1necone wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which largely exist because American health costs for an injury are life destroying, so few people can just eat the hospital bill.

I mean, not really. Plenty of people get sued in Canada for personal injury (my friend specializes in it) and they have universal healthcare.

I don't know of any country that has a social safety net that 100% reimburses you for a life-altering injury where you can no longer work. Sure you'll get a disability pension, public healthcare and maybe a bit more, but it's usually "barely enough to live on" support.

If you're a doctor making $200,000 per year and you can't work again, suing is usually the only way to recoup things like lost-wages.

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

#172

Post by refurb »

moistly wrote: post #79
macinjosh wrote: post #13

Earlier 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…

> In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. Not to mention that once your security apparatus gets involved, your rights are as ephemeral as gossamer. Cross the wrong cop and you’ll find that your rights are terminated. Permanently and with extreme prejudice. The Constitution isn…

The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet.

Clearly not true when you consider how many cases the government itself loses.

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

#173

Post by ehnto »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #167
ehnto wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say freedom but it sounds like you already have some viewpoints you don't think should be allowed, so freedom for you but not for others?

It is. Not all of are relativists. Freedom and anarchy aren't synonyms. Contrary to popular belief, the fundamental freedoms many of us desire are not bestowed upon us by God or something. They are upheld at gun point, by threat of violence, and by borders.

I edited my comment potentially while you were writing your reply, sorry for that, hopefully not so much that your feel you replied to a different comment.

I am in agreeance, however I don't think picking how you identify would count as anarchy, which is the part of the OPs comment I was alluding to. We still very much pick our fundamental freedoms, and decide where to draw lines, those are up to the community to decide upon. It's an odd place to draw the line, for a country that has decided ideological freedom and individualism is a value it wanted to protect.

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

#174

Post by zaarn »

Vecr wrote: post #91
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are aware that the government can just drone strike you, right? Or have a cop gun you down (with qualified immunity, they won't even get any punishment!)

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

#175

Post by moistly »

refurb wrote: post #172
moistly wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. Not to mention that once your security apparatus gets involved, your rights are as ephemeral as gossamer. Cross the wrong cop and you’ll find that your rights are terminated. Permanently and with extreme prejudice. The Constitution isn…

The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet. Clearly not true when you consider how many cases the government itself loses.

We apparently have differing understandings about “inalienable.”

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

#176

Post by calsy »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #54
redact207 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's so trivial when you gridlock major cities REPEATEDLY to spread a 'message' that could be told in a million other ways. Its trivial to worry about things like 'the economy' that provides a means to put a roof over your head and the ability to feed yourself and your family. Only someone who has little to no responsibilities could find it trivial.

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

#178

Post by calsy »

watwut wrote: post #168
calsy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The anto masks protests were not for mandate to use stronger masks. They were usually against any masks at all.

Nothing to do with strong masks. Knowing the cheap masks you bought from the chemist are useless, why must we be forced to wear them? Why not mandate that everyone needs to wear a wig, they are just as useless as stopping covid.

We can all play pretend and think they work. But is that cheap mask thats been re-used, continually adjusted or worn incorrectly really helping?

In Australia we had mask mandates during summer where temperatures would be over 35 degrees during the day. How well does a sweaty cotton mask work to stop covid?

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

#180

Post by Kostchei »

denkmoon wrote: post #146
EdwardDiego wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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')

Started with the Rum Corps and never left. As an Australian I am horrified by the power our police have and the reek of corruption.

What is interesting, having worked from the inside of police for 15 years, is the difference between the different state (and federal) police- some are "forces" some are services. But in all forces or services, the level of corruption can be "eyeballed" by looking at how long since they had a "Royal Commission" in to corruption. Anything longer than 25 years ie a generation, is too long.

And it's not just about bad practices- one of the things that happens in such a royal commission /bloodbath, is that police have to get off their high horse and get treated like everyone else. You know, being "joe public", humble.

Police will say - after such a public flogging "the public stopped fearing us, we had to ask people to do things instead of telling them" .. to which my quiet internal response was- of course you fool, you are a public servant, not an overlord..

once every 25 years, minimum, with some sort of independent body in-between - as what to do in those colonies that threw out the whole system and don't know what a royal commission is? (such as the USA)- I have no idea, good luck.

Post reply on HN