Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#11

Post by throw2016 »

Its interesting to think back when Saudi Arabia and the UAE tried to force Blackberry to fall in line there was global outrage including here about the 'backwardness' of these countries and values of democracy and freedom.

Now just a decade later this 'backward' behavior is now 'normalized'.

This is evidence things are moving too fast for us to fully comprehend or contemplate how far down the slippery slope we may be at the current time and how 'values' and definitions change in just a decade.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#12

Post by skissane »

davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution

The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison.

> whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation.

Anything in common law or legislation isn't worth much, since a single ordinary Act of Parliament is all it takes to cancel them out.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#13

Post by gumby »

I don't know why the Five Eyes countries issued a joint statement the other day (tellingly, via the Aussie government's web site). Modus Operandi for each Five Eyes country since forever is to ship their secrets to another partner so they could claim not to be spying on their own people. All they need is for AUS to have the backdoor and then all data could be channeled that way.

I appreciate that the author mentioned the gross incompetence of our intelligence operation which I presume doesn't get much mention outside the country.

PS: nice original Mac illustration for that article!

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#14

Post by sanderjd »

davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

Without knowing much about the Australian system, I suspect the protections in the Constitution are equivalent, but not those in "common law and other legislation". In the US, the protections in the Constitution + Bill of Rights are considered much more fundamental than our common law and other legislation because it requires an amendment to override those protections, and amendments require an enormous level of national consensus to pass.

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#15

Post by femto »

mrmondo wrote: post #7

Digital Rights Watch has more information and a submission system to help people write their feedback to the government: https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/2018/08/19/defend-encrypti...

What the parent doesn't explicitly mention is that there is a government inquiry open RIGHT NOW. You have to get your submissions in by 10th of September (5 days time). Every Australian here needs to make a submission (please).

The parent's link, allows you to post a boilerplate submission with a single click. Far better to write and email your own submission, as form letters tend to get aggregated into one during evaluation. Your own submission only has to be a few lines, even if it just paraphrases a form submission. Uniqueness counts over bulk submissions.

The page for the inquiry is:

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistanc...

The email address for submissions is:

AssistanceBill.Consultation@homeaffairs.gov.au

Less time critically, you also need to write to or call your federal MP, but I'd suggest that a personal submission to the inquiry is the most "bang for buck".

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#17

Post by valtism »

I feel like the linked article on ABC has a much more detailed and balanced description of the bill [1].

The Government says that "systemic" weaknesses cannot be demanded. That said, the third part of the demands that can be made, the "technical capability notice", seems ripe for abuse.

At the very least, the acceptance of a bill like this will erode trust in app stores. I would expect to see some sort of checksum verification by users becoming commonplace as people become wary of potential targeted attacks.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-08-20/tech-surveilla...

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#18

Post by freedomben »

The headline is a little misleading. It's much more terrifying than that. It isn't just Australia. It is the US, Australia, Canada, UK, and New Zealand all together (known as the "Five Eyes")[1]. Australia is just the country that put the memo together.

> The "Five Eyes", often abbreviated as "FVEY", refer to an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

Re: Australia Wants to Take Government Surveillance to the Next Level

#19

Post by roenxi »

sanderjd wrote: post #14
davidklemke wrote: post #4

The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation. The conclusion they draw from that is right however; a lot of laws can be introduced to our parliament that might not get off the ground elsewhere. It's why we've fervently fought…

Without knowing much about the Australian system, I suspect the protections in the Constitution are equivalent, but not those in "common law and other legislation". In the US, the protections in the Constitution + Bill of Rights are considered much more fundamental than our common law and other legislation because it requires an amendment to override those protections, and amendments require an enormous level of nati…

But even so, having something in the constitution is of relatively little protection if the judiciary and government are in favour of an idea.

For example, the bill of rights talks about "right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" and yet asset forfeiture is still a legal option. Actual practices surrounding plea bargains also look to run counter to the spirit of the BoR, but I mean what do I know.

I don't see how having a bill of rights helps. The only matter of import, and the only protection, is an engaged and motivated voting public. Constitutional amendment might provide a thin layer of protection against short-term rogue actors, but the creeping surveillance state is not rogue by any means, it seems to be a point of international consensus over many decades.

Post reply on HN