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

Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 397 posts

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#191

Post by hutzlibu »

CyanBird wrote: post #162
hutzlibu wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence all the time anyway. So it is anyway about trust - and how to check reliable, if they deserve trust. This is how I would choose, which places to visit. Australia is still quite good on that list, as cases where the police officers for example - are the ones doing the kidnapping and ransoming and investigation about it all by themself, like it is common in other…

> Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence all the time anyway Yeah, they do, but that's illegal and NOT encoded in law So Aus has just made police tampering legal

Well, I did not read the law in detail, but I am pretty sure, that tampering with evidence is not included and still forbidden with the threat of criminal investigation for the officers doing it.

What is allowed here, is hacking for the police. That necessarily can include changing files on the target computers (e.g. deleting logs) - this is the way I read this. And I would see the point in it - if it really only get applied in serious crimes like terrorism to catch the whole network for example. (back to trust)

But yes, it maybe makes it more easy to tamper undetected with evidence in sneaky ways, but not if for example you would log the hacking activities by default of the police. In fact, I strongly believe that this should be done, but doubt, it will be.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#192

Post by throwawayswede »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #168
throwawayswede wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL Fastmail is an Australian company. I wonder if this bill applies to data hosted outside of Australia for international clients by a company based in Australia? I'd really like to know what they have to say about this.

As far as I know, Fastmail has been backdoored for a few years now by Australian government (and hence I assume the USA, too). It is Fastmail’s biggest disadvantage, in my opinion.

While that may be true (and I'm sort of disappointed to find this out), I don't think there's any server _at all_ that I'd trust if I'm worried about certain governments snooping in on my email. That level of communication would prompt me to use PGP.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#193

Post by simplify »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #112
eplanit wrote: post #68

There and New Zealand both. The responses (extreme lockdown) of both countries to Covid has been nothing short of insane.

New Zealand's (as you describe it) "extreme lockdown" has worked. When dealing with a pandemic you are supposed to limit potential exposure, and their actions did that. As a result NZ has had one of the lowest infection rates in the world. Also, those actions let them "return to normal" quicker then anywhere else. It worked. Perhaps you feel that the mid-evil practice of nailing the doors and windows shut and posting…

Can you explain how people were only "inconvenienced"? Is everyone in New Zealand a white collar worker? I don't know anything about it, I take it you live there?

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#194

Post by hammock »

cryptonector wrote: post #44
maerF0x0 wrote: post #23

Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts pol…

There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.

>There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself.

Correction: there is no legal defense.

There are other defenses, historically.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#195

Post by powerslacker »

citruscomputing wrote: post #80
crowbahr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because societies are built on rules and enforcement of the societal contract has always come, in some measure, by the government's ability to enforce the basically decent behavior that the majority wants. The fact that the majority has often historically been in the wrong doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of enforcement of the laws: Anarchy is not preferable to a well ordered…

Anarchy is not opposed to a well ordered peaceful society!

How so?

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#196

Post by slavboj »

One intention is for the Australian police to be able to fabricate evidence that can then be used to generate American warrants and prosecutions, very similar to the way the FBI and DNC fabricated the British Steele dossier in order to generate FISA warrants and prosecutions of various Trump staffers.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#197

Post by lotsofpulp »

throwawayswede wrote: post #192
lotsofpulp wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, Fastmail has been backdoored for a few years now by Australian government (and hence I assume the USA, too). It is Fastmail’s biggest disadvantage, in my opinion.

While that may be true (and I'm sort of disappointed to find this out), I don't think there's any server _at all_ that I'd trust if I'm worried about certain governments snooping in on my email. That level of communication would prompt me to use PGP.

Yes, that is is why I continue to be a Fastmail customer. I do not think there is a comparable alternative with no government snooping.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#198

Post by Frost1x »

conradfr wrote: post #155
rpmisms wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American's American (Guns and Liberty for everyone!) I really appreciate the French people's intolerance of government overreach. They say no, and they don't sit down.

Your overstimate what we protest for and the effectiveness of it. Also protests have been heavily repressed during Macron, it's becoming scary to actually go sometimes.

>Your overstimate what we protest for and the effectiveness of it.

I don't keep up with all the protests but it's a far more active middle finger against infringement than most countries where we sit around and watch our liberties erode away in the name of progress and security.

That erosion is really all a front in the US for increasing power of already concentrated power and we sit back idle and watch it happen as we struggle to stay afloat in a set of abstract rules we must follow to survive.

When I see France, I at least feel like your citizens haven't given up and are still trying to fight for their rights. How effective it is is another thing, but at least there's some will left. In the US we just bend over and say, "oh boy, this again..." We seem to have already given up the fight, are unaware, and/or simply don't care anymore. I'll take an ineffective attempt at retaining rights over complacency any day. It's not like we have more clever strategies that are more effective, we just don't participate at large, period.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#199

Post by bserge »

cryptonector wrote: post #44
maerF0x0 wrote: post #23

Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts pol…

There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.

They've limited themselves because people wanted it (often violently). Now the majority of people are complacent and that's when the "leaders" accumulate power.

In Europe for example, complacent with the police taking away the homeless, complacent with the laws slowly eroding everyone's freedoms, complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people.

It's the same old tired trope of "first they came for X, and I didn't speak out". In the end there will be no one to speak for the majority, either.

We have it coming and we'll get it.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#200

Post by lurquer »

worker767424 wrote: post #109
Mikeb85 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in France people will protest. Places like Australia, NZ and Canada have far too much trust in the government...

Regarding Australia's limits on protest during the Sydney covid lockdown, one official basically said "people can exercise their freedom of speech other ways, like writing a letter to the newpaper or sending an angry email" (paraphrased). I think he seriously thought these circular-filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front of government buildings.

> I think he seriously thought these circular-filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front of government buildings.

They do carry the same weight.

They are both useless.

Standing around holding signs and marching and chanting has never been effective.

Having the crowds filmed and broadcast, on the other hand, is effective. If the media isn’t making a story out of it, it means nothing.

In the 60s and 70s people began to believe marching and protesting en mass was effective. But, it was only effective because the media, for their own reasons and agendas, decided to broadcast the Freedom Marches and anti-war marches and all the rest.

I don’t believe that prior to the 60s, anyone would have considered milling around in front of govt buildings effective at all. To be sure, having mobs tearing down the buildings was effective and happened frequently.

You could assemble a million protestors in DC and, if it’s not shown in CNN, you might as well have stayed home.

Post reply on HN