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

#251

Post by boffinAudio » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:26 AM UTC

vosper wrote: post #232

Varqu wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like Australia is close to China not only geographically but also by the censorship practices.

Except that, in practice, they are miles apart in what actually gets censored.

Not really. You can't discuss Australian war crimes openly in the media - this will get you shut down quite rapidly.

Something most people don't understand is that Australias' sovereign, the Queen, is used to keep embarassing state secrets well and truly out of the public eye. This is an intolerable state of affairs that will hopefully get addressed when she dies, and the Australian Republic movement gets fresh air under its wings ..

Australia has secret prisons, and a star court for the things it doesn't want the world to know. Witness J, K, L, M, &etc.

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

#252

Post by krapp » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

macinjosh wrote: post #247

bitwize wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>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.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth Amendment

Gay marriage, abortion and the right to bodily autonomy that underpin them are inalienable rights retained by the people, and states only have authority to regulate those rights with the consent of the people. This is not "left to the states" any more than any other unenumerated right is.

And note - gay marriage and abortion have majority support among the American populace, and in many states where they have currently been outlawed.

Calling for a Constitutional Amendment for this is a red herring, as rights do not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. The Constitution doesn't even support the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.

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

#253

Post by EdwardDiego » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:33 AM UTC

baazaa wrote: post #216

defrost wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, Not especially applicable to border lockdowns within Australia. The biggest case that hit the Federal Court was the border closure by the State of Western Australia (population ~ 2 million, land area 3x Texas) which was in effect the local citizens of W.Australia being damn near 100% i…

I originally had written premiers and PM's offices, not sure why I edited it. It wasn't a statement about federalism but about where power was located within each level of government. Obviously the judiciary is much less powerful here than the US, but my point was how power has been stripped away from party members, legislatures, the civil service, and most of the political executive. Even senior ministers have effec…

> Obviously the judiciary is much less powerful here than the US

How do you define "power" exactly? Like the Supreme Court just flipping constitutional law precedent? Or that the government isn't being held to account in front of an independent judiciary?

Because we see that reasonably often in NZ, government gets taken to the High Court, loses, formally apologises, tries to get it right. If that's missing in Australia, that really explains a lot of us on the other side of the ditch have seen the federal government getting up to.

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

#254

Post by calsy » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:33 AM UTC

dekelpilli wrote: post #209

calsy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it’s called being out on bail. Lets pretend to be horrified that these people have had certain restrictions placed on them as a part of their bail conditions.

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

#255

Post by boffinAudio » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:34 AM UTC

shapefrog wrote: post #218

Aerroon wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> A bad PM can be ousted in a day 1 person, appointed by the Queen. In this case it isnt a "slippery slope" where technically it could happen etc it happened. "The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr." https://e…

>There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time.

This was when Australians lost their sovereignty and became a puppet state of US corporations and intelligence agencies.

Just like Germany.

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

#256

Post by schoolornot » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:35 AM UTC

ivanb wrote: post #154

Is there a decent country left in the world? One that values privacy, family values, private property and freedoms, knows a man from a woman and is not at war?

Sweden

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

#257

Post by implements » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:42 AM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #237

iam-TJ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same has been the case in the UK for at least the last 20 years with games requiring BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) or VSC (Video Standards Council) [0] ratings. As of 27th July 2012 [1] UK enacted a Statutory Instrument "The Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 2012" [2] ... > From today, it is a criminal offence to sell video games with a “12” rating to those younger than that age. ... manadate…

Is the outcome ever a refusal to classify them at all though? I think even when some films (e.g. Clockwork Orange at first I believe?) were banned they were still rated by the BBFC, it was councils that banned cinemas from showing them locally?

The BBFC is a non-government organisation nevertheless required by the government to view and rate all films. Councils licence cinemas (originally for fire safety) and require cinemas to only show rated material to the public, but they also have a discretionary power to rate and therefore ban films themselves.

As an example, Life of Brian (1979) was only an “AA” (14 years+) but a moral panic made 28 councils raise to an “X” (18+) and 11 actually banned it completely.

(For clarity, a film is de facto banned when either the BBFC or a local council refuses to rate it. It can still be shown privately (eg at a film society) provided it doesn’t contain illegal material (ie it’s not obscene))

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

#258

Post by golergka » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:45 AM UTC

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…

> the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents

Which means that these people are actually indirectly selected by voters, but are changed in a much slower way and will not be a series of populists who rewrite everything every time a political climate changes a bit.

This sounds like a very good thing.

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

#259

Post by boygobbo » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:48 AM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #237

iam-TJ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same has been the case in the UK for at least the last 20 years with games requiring BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) or VSC (Video Standards Council) [0] ratings. As of 27th July 2012 [1] UK enacted a Statutory Instrument "The Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 2012" [2] ... > From today, it is a criminal offence to sell video games with a “12” rating to those younger than that age. ... manadate…

Is the outcome ever a refusal to classify them at all though? I think even when some films (e.g. Clockwork Orange at first I believe?) were banned they were still rated by the BBFC, it was councils that banned cinemas from showing them locally?

It wasn't banned in the UK & the BBFC passed it uncut. Stanley Kubrick himself requested it be withdrawn from distribution after some copycat incidents.

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

#260

Post by SiempreViernes » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 10:58 AM UTC

Gasp0de wrote: post #227

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…

How is "blocking a road" a crime that inflicts severe economic damage?

If the road carries trade and blocking it prevents that trade, like for example if they block the only access road to a coal mine. How it would happen in a city where you can just go around I don't know.

But here I think they got nabbed on a city road protest and charged for the blocking of coal transport. Though it sounds like blocking the coal exports actually happened before the new law was in force, meaning the new charges are basically vindictive.