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

201–210 of 363 posts

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

#201

Post by Barrin92 »

baazaa wrote: post #98
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…

>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

Natural rights and an absolute sovereign aren't contradictory in the Anglo school of thought, see one of its most famous representatives, Thomas Hobbes. (There's no such thing as natural law, which is always a contractual human affair between the governor and the governed).

The particular American, Lockean version of liberalism you're talking about never had much sway in the Commonwealth, and Australia derives its traditions if anything from Britain, not the US.

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

#202

Post by yes_really »

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…

> Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy.

You are more than a century late. The government has prohibited people from putting drugs in their bodies for a long time. Alcohol, illegal drugs, pharmaceutical drugs rejected by the FDA... There is no serious interpretation of "body autonomy" that gives the government the right to ban alcohol/drugs but doesn't give it the right to stop women from killing fetuses.

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

#203

Post by Aerroon »

YPPH wrote: post #194
Gareth321 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their p…

The US Constitution is not much to be jealous about. In Australia, if people are unhappy with laws, they can change the government, who in turn can change the laws. Meanwhile, in the US, the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents. The US has the highly undesirable situation of (1) the possibility of a deadlocked President (because Congress does not suppo…

>A bad PM can be ousted in a day.

By whom? The parliament that confirmed him as PM? The parliament where the PM's party almost always holds the most seats?

A parliamentary system essentially combines the executive and legislative powers to one party.

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

#204

Post by josephg »

Aerroon wrote: post #200
baazaa wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm surprised that this is surprising to many people. Australia is a country that has had active media censorship going on for a long time. Eg games work based on a whitelist. You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia. Australians accept this. It's no wonder to me that they will accept even further concessions on their freedoms.

> You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia.

That sounds weird. I'm Australian and I've never heard of that. Can you share some links so I can learn more about that?

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

#205

Post by cookie_monsta »

Gareth321 wrote: post #182
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…

When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their p…

I think you might be thinking of the Bill of Rights, which is the thing that really sets the US apart from those other countries you mentioned. Even the most demonic de facto dictatorships can have constitutions

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

#206

Post by Aerroon »

josephg wrote: post #204
Aerroon wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised that this is surprising to many people. Australia is a country that has had active media censorship going on for a long time. Eg games work based on a whitelist. You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia. Australians accept this. It's no wonder to me that they will accept even further concessions on their freedoms.

> You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia. That sounds weird. I'm Australian and I've never heard of that. Can you share some links so I can learn more about that?

Sure!

https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/wha...

>Every film and computer game has to be classified before it can be legally made available to the Australian public, unless it is exempt or is being shown at a registered event.

If they refuse classification then it is banned.

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

#207

Post by cookie_monsta »

josephg wrote: post #204
Aerroon wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised that this is surprising to many people. Australia is a country that has had active media censorship going on for a long time. Eg games work based on a whitelist. You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia. Australians accept this. It's no wonder to me that they will accept even further concessions on their freedoms.

> You need to get the government's permission to be able to publish your game in Australia. That sounds weird. I'm Australian and I've never heard of that. Can you share some links so I can learn more about that?

Not OP but I think this is about classification which is done by the same office that gives movie ratings, etc. The way I understand it unclassified versions can't be sold via retail. The biggest stink was what happened to GTA with the Hot Coffee minigame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_...

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

#208

Post by tgv »

jdkee wrote: post #142

Too bad Australia, Canada and the EU don't have the 4th and 5th Amendments.

First: the EU is not a judicial unity, and the power of the "EU" (or its organs) does not extend to the judicial system (cf. the fight with Poland).

Second: All jurisdictions in the EU have "ne bis in idem" (which is part of the 5th, right?), and in the ones I know of, the suspect/defendant cannot be made to reply. Where I live, e.g. passwords are also under this doctrine, but not under all conditions. The 4th amendment is common too, although there are concerns that some member states aren't too concerned with a suspect's rights.

Australia's problems don't automatically apply to the EU, not even from a USA-centric point of view.

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

#209

Post by dekelpilli »

calsy wrote: post #96
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?

Hardly, given they're still awaiting trial.

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

#210

Post by Jedd »

Aerroon wrote: post #203
YPPH wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Constitution is not much to be jealous about. In Australia, if people are unhappy with laws, they can change the government, who in turn can change the laws. Meanwhile, in the US, the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents. The US has the highly undesirable situation of (1) the possibility of a deadlocked President (because Congress does not suppo…

> A bad PM can be ousted in a day. By whom? The parliament that confirmed him as PM? The parliament where the PM's party almost always holds the most seats? A parliamentary system essentially combines the executive and legislative powers to one party.

By the House (of Representatives), or in extraordinary circumstances by the head of state (currently the regent of the Commonwealth) but typically that requires the former to formally seek such a remedy from the latter.

I believe by convention the deputy PM in Australia is necessarily a member of this group (also called the Lower House), though our PM could in theory be a member of the upper house (aka the Senate). I don't believe that's ever been the case, though.

Fascinatingly our constitution mentions the role of Prime Minister precisely zero times -- it was assumed to be understood.

Post reply on HN