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

291–300 of 363 posts

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

#291

Post by Waterluvian »

senorrib wrote: post #101
Waterluvian wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is “principle of fundamental Justice” related to the concept of everyone being reasonable and acting in good faith, not forcing the legal system to evaluate every possibility? Eg. The Republicans won’t stop passing manifestly unconstitutional legislation at state level. They force the thing to be played out rather than accepting what’s obvious and not attempting it to begin with.

Not only Republicans. Both parties act the same way when the Constitution becomes an inconvenience.

I’m actually quite curious, in good faith, examples of manifestly unconstitutional legislation the Democrats have passed. Not an American so I haven’t the detailed history.

Though this is rather off topic so maybe we should leave it there.

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

#292

Post by PeterisP »

andyferris wrote: post #244
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.

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…

The legislature has dealt with this issue by passing strong, specific laws regarding abortion in many of the states - with quite opposite conditions depending on the state. And it's not because of lack of "rotating" politicians, quite a few of them got elected on because they promised to prohibit abortions, getting votes from the state majority of conservative voters who considered a strict prohibition entirely appropriate.

The federal legislature, on the other hand has it a bit trickier, because despite the much grown influence of federal government using the commerce clause, it does technically seem that this kind of policy is something that according to USA constitutional principles gets to be decided on a state level.

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

#293

Post by PeterisP »

kgeist wrote: post #7

I just checked that the right against self-incrimination exists in Australia, too. Isn't it a violation of this law to require someone to tell their passwords?

Technically he's not required to tell anyone his passwords - this surveillance is part of the conditions for his temporary bail, and he can refuse them at any time; however, then the default conditions (i.e. going back to incarceration) would apply.

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

#294

Post by selfhoster11 »

bamboozled wrote: post #147
pnw wrote: post #60

Australia has always been somewhat of a prison colony with extensive censorship of media and the Internet and almost no constitutional rights as Americans understand them.

Most Australians assume they have the same rights as Americans.

It's almost like people think that they should be entitled to rights, or something. Perhaps the government should give them some rights, in that case.

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

#295

Post by BirAdam »

tomc1985 wrote: post #87
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

This attitude speaks to a rather severe amount of privilege that not all enjoy. If you “cause economic damage” that then raises prices, you hurt the poorest in rather large ways.

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

#296

Post by bamboozled »

Varqu wrote: post #217
bamboozled wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Australians assume they have the same rights as Americans.

Are you living in Australia? Just curious to understand where is this belief coming from.

I lived there for a long time. Australia is just so politically aligned with the USA that most Australians just think they’re entitled to most of the same freedoms by default.

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

#298

Post by peeters »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #205
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…

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

Canada has had a Bill of Rights enshrined in its constitution since 1982, it's just called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

The most controversial thing about Canada's Charter isn't the language of the rights itself, it's that to get the support of the provinces it included what's known as the "notwithstanding clause", whereby a province can choose to expressly ignore parts of the charter in laws it enacts.

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

#299

Post by AbrahamParangi »

boffinAudio wrote: post #271
fao_ wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. So does america. I'm not sure how a republic movement could save australia from having these things when one of the largest republics in the world also has, e.g. hundreds of thousands of censored warcrimes on wikileaks and guantanamo bay

The US is a military junta masquerading as a republic. Presumably Australia's republic movement will address the issue of the corruption of the republic, eventually.

Pretty weird military junta that gives its opponents executive power every 4-8 years

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

#300

Post by michaelscott »

hestefisk wrote: post #273
matheusmoreira wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Me too. In my country we've got politicians proposing amendments to the constitution every other day like it was nothing, it happens frequently enough for there to be jargon and acronyms for it: Constitutional Amendment Proposals. USA at least has a solid ideological…

Roe v Wade much? I’m Australian and, whilst the we have huge issues with lack of a “bill of rights”, at least we don’t have conservative judges running the country.

It's about the underlying structure of the legal system, not one particular law or political leaning you don't agree with. The checks and balances system in the US is definitely far more resilient than any of the commonwealth countries, Roe v Wade notwithstanding.
Post reply on HN