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

241–250 of 363 posts

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

#241

Post by raxxorraxor »

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…

> too stupid to be reasoned with

Indeed and I wouldn't recommend any debate anymore. That ship has sailed 2 decades ago at least. While it shouldn't be that way the only option is technology. Technology made encryption a reality for many people and many governments didn't like that at all. I have no faith in the judiciary to set sensible rules for executive overreach so letting technology make safe communication a reality is necessary.

So we should always make sure to supply technology that allows for encryption and that the knowledge and development stays open enough so that it can be replicated.

In the end this will costs those governments massively in the long run.

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

#242

Post by dotancohen »

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 person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever
  > data gets sent to him
Can we find his address? I'd like to send to him some encrypted messages. Maybe to the local police department, or its detectives, as well. Of course, I'll retain the decryption key so they'll have no way to decrypt it.

Maybe spam finally has a use! If a case could be made that all - or any - spam contains a steganographic message, then there is plausible deniability that the recipient would not have the means to decode any - or all - messages sent to him.

Though I'm sure that the law has tools to contend with technically contrived examples such as this, somebody versed in the relevant law could probably stretch the idea to a murkier legal area and apply it.

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

#243

Post by dotancohen »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #240
beAbU wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies Not all commonwealth nations. Some have devolved into banana republic failed state kleptocracies. Spend a day reading up on what's happening in South Africa's politics and see for yourself. We are either so ahead of the times that SA is a model for what's coming for countries like CAD/AUS/NZ, or we skipped the functional-but-overstepping…

> Spend a day reading up on what's happening in South Africa's politics and see for yourself. South Africa is less analogous to an internal devolution and more analogous to one country being conquered by another country.

In what possible way? To which change of power are you referring to here, I can think of at least two but neither match your description so far I understand.

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

#244

Post by andyferris »

bitwize wrote: post #224
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…

> No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. And yet, Roe was overturned. Gay rights are next.

I’m still confused why the legislature didn’t deal with this issue. I have a theory that in the absence of the Roe ruling, publicity of outcomes would have forced the politicians to create somewhat appropriate rules.

E.g. in Australia we recently reached the situation that both abortion and euthanasia are permitted by all states. I never considered it something the courts should weigh in on - progressive governments allowed members bills and conscience votes.

It’s possible there are US states where the ruling politicians don’t get rotated (voted) out like they are guaranteed to here (eventually) and the legislature is always conservative, but there’s always the possibility of federal laws.

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

#245

Post by raxxorraxor »

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…

> Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution.

It isn't perfect at all and maybe fallen out of time a bit, but it is better than that of any other country I know (I am not for the US).

But even today you have idiots trying to undermine it (for example in regards to the right to bear arms). I can live without arms and think it has many advantages, but the sleazy lawyer militia arguments brought forward are signs of mental inhibition. With such people a constitution like that would never have been possible.

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

#246

Post by andyferris »

refurb wrote: post #171
drc500free wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

I think the point is in NZ there is basically no possibility to sue for the outcomes of a personal injury. The doctor will have to live a more modest life. Period.

In NZ people can still sue over business contracts and participate in legal cases against the government culminating in legislation being ruled unconstitutional, like other Anglo, common-law countries.

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

#247

Post by macinjosh »

bitwize wrote: post #224
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…

> No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. And yet, Roe was overturned. Gay rights are next.

Neither gay rights nor abortion are enumerated as rights in the US Constitution. Sure, some appointed judges have found ways to reason those rights out of the text. But the fact is that rights not enumerated there are left up to the states to decide on. We may not like it but if we want to protect these basic rights we need to go through the established Democratic processes to update the US constitution.

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

#248

Post by veeti »

merek wrote: post #150
ioseph wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot's of videogames have had to be modified to be released here, in recent memory Hotline Miami 2, Stick of Truth, Fallout 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_...

From your link: > Stick of Truth: Banned because of a scene of sexual violence involving minors. Sounds to me like the censors are doing a good job.

I'm sorry you hate your freedoms. Just for some context, this horrifying clip of child sexual abuse seems to be freely available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1NiMzlDBO8

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

#249

Post by veeti »

calsy wrote: post #185
ioseph wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot's of videogames have had to be modified to be released here, in recent memory Hotline Miami 2, Stick of Truth, Fallout 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_...

Yes there was no R rating for a long time, and the ASRB still takes a negative view of illicit drug use in games. But is 'cant use illicit drugs in games' the definition of excessive media censorship?

Absolutely? Sounds like some Saudi Arabia tier shit. Australia: you are in good company.

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

#250

Post by calsy »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #193
calsy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are these people protesting non-existent mandates? Thats like protesting against wearing a fake moustache when there is no mandate to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/w07q53/another_s... Every Saturday, to this day, there is an antivax protest through the streets of Melbourne despite the fact that there have been no domestic covid restrictions since around this time last year, and international borders have been open since Jan. It's basically now just a social event for the Q crowd that leaves them feeling important and the rest of us fe…

I’m talking about masks not vaccines. There are also a lot of assumptions about who you think the people in the crowd are. You don’t know it’s a social event for the Q crowd. Why is it strange that people have different opinions, right or wrong? What’s perplexing is believing every single person should agree on something.
Post reply on HN