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

#331

Post by HeckFeck » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #313

sbaiddn wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the Talmud. Then proceed to read the Church Fathers through to the scholastics. Add Justinian for good measure. The roots of (real) liberalism are all there in these largely theological treatises including the inalienable right of the people to revolt against the state when it becomes tyrannical (see Juan de Mariana).

thanks for the reply, its appreciated but as someone who has only passing familiarity with those, is it possible to provide a list (for example) without having to read all those first?

Yeah seconded. I've been lucky enough to know the names from religious education, but if someone has actually done research to show how they eventually helped make British liberalism, I'd like to read that too.

But what I recall was the general idea that God alone was perfect, man is sinful and corrupt, therefore we should limit the power of the state as much as we can because of the extra powers it has over everyone else. The divine law being above worldly law, so even rulers have a ruler, and shouldn't become tyrants over their people. Those ideas, while not applied perfectly, must've had some influence.

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

#332

Post by salawat » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

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.

Roe v. Wade was judicial fiat from the time it was laid. The Judiciary carved it out as precedent, for the duration of that particular set of Justices in the Court. It's as ephemeral in a sense as an executive order.

The way the system is intended to work is that such things should be enacted through the legislature or a Constitutional convention. If it is universally desired to elevate something above reproach (and shoddy prevention that is given the treatment of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments in general), it'd make it into the Federal Constitution to clarify it. Interestingly however, the 10th Amendment explicitly makes implicit that any freedom not explicitly carved out in either a State or Federal Constitution is granted to the People. So somewhere along the way we've seriously lost sight of how things were intended to work.

The American Constitution was intended to primarily enumerate limits on Government, not on those of the People. Therefore, positive assertions or explicit "People have X right" is actually in a sense a form of regression from what the document was intended to embody. Which again, is primarily "no government, no matter how much easier it'd make your existence, thou shalt not go there", and "no States, we all talked about this, you shan't go there either".

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

#333

Post by Nitramp » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:39 PM UTC

raxxorraxor wrote: post #289

Nitramp wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 balanc…

If you're interested in this topic, the thing to Google for is "constitutional theory".

Constitutions do not just limit power. They prescribe how a society organizes itself, including how to exert power (not just how to limit it). A major goal for democratic constitutions is enabling a society to make collective decisions.

E.g. the US congress is famously struggling to make decisions. An interesting question then is how the US constitution prescribes decisions must be made, and whether that framework of decision making is successful along certain criteria (e.g. representing voter will, protecting fundamental rights).

If you're interested in comparing to other constitutions, a good way might be researching countries that "score well", e.g. that have stable governments, non-violent transitions of power, successful decision making, score well on the human development index, etc. - or countries where things are going particularly poor. I find that the positive example is often more interesting, because the poor outcomes often have major negative factors that might not apply in other countries and might not relate to their respective constitution.

Countries that come to mind would be the likes of Sweden, Japan, Botswana, New Zealand, but your mileage may vary depending on what you consider to be positive outcomes for a society.

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

#334

Post by ch4s3 » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

boffinAudio wrote: post #325

ch4s3 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd that many of our recent presidents were not in the military, and that top generals are regularly fired by civilian government. The whole vote on everything all the time, even dog catch, thing seems like a real waste of time for a Junta.

The Junta has a trillion dollars a year to do whatever evils it wishes to the world. I don't think any of the generals are going to be butt-hurt about being fired, especially when the revolving door between the CFR and the JCoS is so well-greased with the blood of innocent people across the globe. The goal isn't local power, that is a done deal - the purpose of the junta is the projection of global power. The proof i…

A Junta is an oligarchy lead by a military council. The US literally has civilian rule, you're misapplying the term. Myanmar has a junta, the US does not.

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

#335

Post by drc500free » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

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…

That's fair, I meant cases where the hospital bill is more life altering than the injury. An ambulance ride and some stitches is going to absorb several years savings for a lot of people.

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

#336

Post by boppo1 » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #174

Vecr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your government tries to change it without the approval of the states, etc. (see constitutional amendments in the US), you kill the government. That's what the second amendment is for. To be pedantic, they are not the actual government anymore when they don't follow the constitution, but they have to be killed all the same to clear space for the new legitimate government.

You are aware that the government can just drone strike you, right? Or have a cop gun you down (with qualified immunity, they won't even get any punishment!)

Yes. But that's a far-cry from where we are now. There are americans in positions of authority who would happily wield that type of violence against other americans. There are also americans in positions of authority who would be unhappy about it.

Imagine telling a bunch of 20 year olds in the national guard they're going to kill some dangerous domestic terrorists. Imagine What happens if they don't think those people are really dangerous.

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

#337

Post by mrkstu » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

cormacrelf wrote: post #287

baazaa wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 polit…

In this case it has become /more/ like the parliamentary countries- i.e. the court removed itself from deciding abortion rights and sent it back to legislatures, where it had been originally before an earlier court had decided to overturn precedence by creating new rights not filled rooted in the text.

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

#338

Post by jimmydorry » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #243

thaumasiotes wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not GP but SA essentially has a single party that took control, with the opposition and minor parties not even able to hold a candle to the power the primary party wields. This primary party with control installed well-connected, but completely useless party members as heads of all government departments and state owned entities. And since coming into power, most of its members have stolen as much as possible.

The only way such a government could come to power and remain in power anywhere else in the world would be in a conquered state. I can see the parallels that the GP has drawn by calling SA such.

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

#339

Post by jimmydorry » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

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…

The constitution delineates the limits of government power. It is a red herring to insist that a constitutional ammendment is not required, when a clear "government may not deny any persons right to bodily autonamy or sexual preference" would ideally stamp out any government interference in such matters.

You are right that all rights are retained by the people, but what has people mad / worried is the states legislating against the will of the majority (specifically because there is nothing stopping them from doing so at a federal or constitutional level).

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

#340

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

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.

Fwiw, it seems to be true in UK that people without legal training think most of what they see in the media about "the law" relates to them. Things like Miranda rights. I assume that's just because most of our A-tier media comes from USA.