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

281–290 of 363 posts

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

#281

Post by Nitramp »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #277
Nitramp wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). That's a very surprising take to me. Some more obvious problems with the US constitution are highly ambiguous clauses (right to bear arms vs militias), unclear powers assigned to parts of the government (could Pence have legally decided on the electors to make Trump win? what's t…

This is an extremely narrow perspective on contemporary issues. I think laws in harmony with the constitution would need to answer these questions. As I said, I don't believe it to be perfect, but I have severe doubts current powers could come up with something better. The question of the number of representatives by state is a political one. Look at the EU. Pretty much the same. Otherwise a union would not be possib…

> This is an extremely narrow perspective on contemporary issues.

Do you have specific reasons why you think that's the case? I did give concrete examples, some of which are indeed recent events, but all of these seem to hold in general outside the context of recent events.

> Still, the US constitution is pretty great. I don't know of one that is better.

What countries do you compare to here? And what would be the dimensions you're comparing them on?

> I don't believe the current political climate could improve it significantly.

I think that's true, but that might speak more to the political climate in the US than the inherent quality of the constitution.

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

#282

Post by christophilus »

zmmmmm wrote: post #145

I'm surprised that it doesn't come up in the article, but I would have thought those bail conditions substantially interfered with his ability to have a fair trial. How can he communicate with his lawyer in a secure manner if he can't use any kind of encryption and the police have all his phone passwords to look at any time? Are the the police going to read all his communications with his lawyer?

Presumably the same way suspects communicated with their lawyers before the advent of telephones?

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

#283

Post by jon_adler »

logicchains wrote: post #265
julianz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horseshit. A few nurses were stood down because they wouldn't get a vaccination in a pandemic. Good. Your take on the Three Waters reforms is just completely wronghewded, there is so much misinformation about those changes it's ridiculous. Water systems need fixing up in NZ and it makes no sense to let small local councils do it when larger bodies can borrow at better rates to get the infrastructure work done.

> Horseshit. A few nurses were stood down because they wouldn't get a vaccination in a pandemic. Good. A pandemic in which they were at the frontlines, observing both the effects of covid on patients and the effects of the vaccines, yet they were more afraid of the vaccines than covid. That should tell you something about how safe the vaccines are.

New Zealand nurses had virtually zero first hand experience of the effects of the virus (on the frontlines) because the government imposed isolation was so effective at keeping Covid out of the country. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves vaccination is considerably less dangerous than contracting the virus (especially for the over 60 age group), although in certain younger age groups it’s a bit inconclusive. Nurses can be as irrational as any other professionals.

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

#284

Post by christophilus »

partomniscient wrote: post #100
Panzer04 wrote: post #46

Pretty serious overstep of rights - hopefully these kinds of restrictions don't pass muster when they get challenged. It's ridiculous we can impose this on someone who hasn't even been found guilty. I wouldn't take this as representative of Australia as a whole though - In many other respects we have excellent institutions and strong rights.

It's presumably revenge for the police getting caught out being stupid in an earlier encounter. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/21/block... We also keep giving police 'temporary powers' that end up becoming permanent. We lost anything worthwhile when we lost the right to protest. The ludicrousness of thinking its acceptable to have to apply for a permit to protest is sheer insanity.

Temporary powers are (almost?) never a thing. This is why some of us lean libertarian / Liberal (in the classic sense). The government easily accretes power. It is much harder to reverse the process. It’s like technical debt in that sense.

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

#285

Post by nani8ot »

mgoetzke wrote: post #279
Aerroon wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same seems true here in Germany. I had to import Gears of War (1) from Austria because I wasn't allowed to buy it irrespective of Age.

The same is true for Quake 3 Arena. They didn't meet the requirements for USK-18 (similar to pegi) at the time.

But I don't think that's a thing anymore because there outdated policys have changed. Video games aren't "new" anymore for a long time.

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

#286

Post by cyphar »

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…

> Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions.

Australia and Canada both have constitutions (I don't know about the Canadian one, but the Australian one was definitely written by Australians), and while NZ doesn't have a codified constitution it does have several treaties and laws which effectively form a constitution in all but name (in particular they have the concept of entrenched laws which require more than a simple majority in parliament to amend -- though as far as I can tell, not all laws considered part of the New Zealand Constitution are entrenched). I don't know what gave you the impression we don't have a constitution.

> No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights.

In Australia it's even harder to change the constitution, so if that's something you like then you should love the Australian Constitution even more! You need a double majority of the public to vote in favour of the change in a nationwide referendum. In the US, the constitution can be changed without any public votes or input at all (since it only requires state legislatures to ratify the amendment).

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

#287

Post by cormacrelf »

baazaa wrote: post #280
EdwardDiego wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Austral…

Judicial review is much stronger in the US than NZ as well, due to parliamentary sovereignty you find in the Westminster system. Historically judicial review could only be used to review executive actions, not legislative bills. Now you have a weird bill of rights which is merely statutory, which I believe is a bit like Canada's in that the legislature can still pass whatever it wants with an intentional override? Of…

There’s a really important side problem with having the judiciary enforce quite deep and complex rights and limits on government. It is that the court develops into a really contentious institution making huge political choices that get infused by default with the hallmarks of legal necessity, and eventually the people wonder why the judges themselves aren’t politically accountable. And then they start electing politicians to put judges in who will decide their way. We do not have that problem in Australia, at least it is barely a speck in our history of judicial appointments. The US is presently in the throes of a judiciary rolling back rights that were thought to be set in stone, because people elected a president who promised to appoint judges to do just that. If you politicise a large part of the work of a court, you then open it up to populist capture. That’s when the courts start inventing theories to keep their benefactors in power.

You can complain about parliamentary sovereignty all you like (for us it’s only the states that have plenary legislative power though!) but damn, at least the people deciding about abortion rights etc on our behalf aren’t life appointments set to last 30+ years. If we don’t like what’s happening, we can change the government in 6 weeks start to finish.

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

#288

Post by [deleted] »

krapp wrote: post #261
golergka wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a very good thing until a populist President, who didn't even win the popular vote, comes into office and stacks the court with loyalists who repeal basic rights supported by the majority of voters. Then voters are reminded of how little their votes actually matter, directly or indirectly.

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by raxxorraxor »

Nitramp wrote: post #281
raxxorraxor wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely narrow perspective on contemporary issues. I think laws in harmony with the constitution would need to answer these questions. As I said, I don't believe it to be perfect, but I have severe doubts current powers could come up with something better. The question of the number of representatives by state is a political one. Look at the EU. Pretty much the same. Otherwise a union would not be possib…

> This is an extremely narrow perspective on contemporary issues. Do you have specific reasons why you think that's the case? I did give concrete examples, some of which are indeed recent events, but all of these seem to hold in general outside the context of recent events. > Still, the US constitution is pretty great. I don't know of one that is better. What countries do you compare to here? And what would be the di…

I don't think a constitution needs to have answers to these questions. Laws need to define these edge cases which are determined elected governments. They just have to be in harmony with the constitution.

For what would the US constitution be a liability for? It was designed to limit power. That some people might perceive that as limiting is probably for the better. It was imperative for the idea of checks and balances which today seem much more lacking in the US. And the nouveau critics of the constitution seem completely lost on that point.

As I said, it isn't perfect. I don't know the constitution of every country and there might be one that is indeed better. Do you have an example?

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

#290

Post by CodeSgt »

krapp wrote: post #252
macinjosh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Gay marriage isn't illegal in any state.
Post reply on HN