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

#361

Post by CodeSgt » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #360

CodeSgt wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery was also historically legal but isn't any longer. I don't get what interracial marriage being illegal once upon a time has to do with anything.

interracial marriage was illegal in many states up until the late 60's -hardly once upon a time- and i might add that republicans are known recently to say they are after interracial marriage as well [1] [1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-inter...

Doesn't sound like they're after interracial marriage, sounds like they want it to be left to the states to decide, as Republicans tend to feel on most issues.

Stop acting like there's some mainstream Republican movement to ban gay and interracial marriage, it's obviously not true when you have to sensationalize the titles of your own linked articles.

Edit:

And it's not even "they" want it to be left to the states. It's a single individual who even mentioned anything about it, and even they "backpeddled" (i.e clarified what they said after the media twisted their words for sensationalism).

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

#362

Post by orestarod » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 10:43 PM UTC

SilverBirch wrote: post #303

orestarod wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are guilty of property theft. You forcibly took away something that belonged to another entity. The fundamental issue is property. No "economic damage" slips into the argument. If that was the case, market competition would be illegal as you cause economic damage to your competitors. Advocating for veganism would be illegal because you cause economic damage to meat sellers. Inventing new technologies would be ill…

The basis of the law disagrees with you - the likely consequence of me stealing something is being forced to compensate you for it. It's redress the economic harm. I'm not saying all economic damage is illegitimate, but I'm saying economic damage can be a legitimate cause for something to be illegal.

It's the way of the economic damage that matters, similarly to other offenses. It is not illegal to tarnish your reputation, for example. What is illegal is to do so through lies. Damaging a fellow human is not, in any of our current sociopolitical systems at least, a crime in itself. It is only a crime if you damage a fellow human outside the agreed upon rules, which also vary.

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

#363

Post by andrekandre » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 11:31 PM UTC

CodeSgt wrote: post #361

andrekandre wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

interracial marriage was illegal in many states up until the late 60's -hardly once upon a time- and i might add that republicans are known recently to say they are after interracial marriage as well [1] [1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/braun-supreme-court-inter...

Doesn't sound like they're after interracial marriage, sounds like they want it to be left to the states to decide, as Republicans tend to feel on most issues. Stop acting like there's some mainstream Republican movement to ban gay and interracial marriage, it's obviously not true when you have to sensationalize the titles of your own linked articles. Edit: And it's not even "they" want it to be left to the states. I…

  > they want it to be left to the states

this is a dog-whistle for "we want to ban it in our red states", just like abortion... once obergefell is overturned, expect same-sex marriage bans to follow soon-after (probably starting with texas, florida)

and republicans are already changing their platforms to include even stronger anti-gay platforms [1] as has been historically (ill just link to their platform directly) [2]

[1] https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/20...

---

[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-pa...

  Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a "judicial Putsch" — full of "silly extravagances" — that reduced "the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie." In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.