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

31–40 of 363 posts

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

#31

Post by markmark »

palmetieri2000 wrote: post #28
pilgrimfff wrote: post #20

As soon as I saw the headline, figured it was Australia. It's a real stretch to call it a liberal democracy at this point.

Oh jog on, While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety. Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian. This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.

Exactly, they could have just refused this guy bail and nobody on hacker news would have ever heard of it or cared if they did. But mention the word encryption and the world is falling down.

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

#32

Post by moggi »

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?

Even in the US the case law around self-incrimination due to forced password disclosure does not seem to be settled. There have been multiple cases were judges have considered passwords foregone conclusions, e.g. [1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/us-supreme-court-nixe...

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

#33

Post by soraminazuki »

harry8 wrote: post #16

Exactly what happens when ignorant fools who are politicians and lawyers who are every bit as arrogant as they are ignorant. "..with a computer" just makes so many powerful peoples' brains fall out of their ears. "Skip all established market regulation, with a computer." Ok, I don't know how to think about this because computer. "Act like the stasi spying on people in ways they never agreed to with a the most massive…

Politicians definitely don't push invasive laws out of ignorance. They do that if they're able to get away with it.

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

#34

Post by zaptheimpaler »

palmetieri2000 wrote: post #28
pilgrimfff wrote: post #20

As soon as I saw the headline, figured it was Australia. It's a real stretch to call it a liberal democracy at this point.

Oh jog on, While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety. Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian. This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.

The conditions of his arrest sound ridiculous in the first place.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/24/i-neve...

https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qdc/2020/331

He was charged for "interfering with a railway" because of a tripod suspended over a rail line? It sounds like he was basically pissed off some powerful coal people, got thrown in jail for that, and now his phone is police property..

Coming from a country thats not all that democratic in the first place, i think its important to at least understand that the appearance of "due process" e.g being charged with something or having a bail condition imposed does not by itself mean anything.. even Russia makes up some official charge before arresting someone.

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

#35

Post by joshuaissac »

motohagiography wrote: post #6

After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…

> Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, I could forsee a new republican movement emerging in commonwealth countries

How exactly would that lead to increased republican sentiments? It is not as if the queen is making these elected governments act in this way.

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

#37

Post by nyokodo »

joshuaissac wrote: post #35
motohagiography wrote: post #6

After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…

> Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, I could forsee a new republican movement emerging in commonwealth countries How exactly would that lead to increased republican sentiments? It is not as if the queen is making these elected governments act in this way.

> It is not as if the queen is making these elected governments act in this way.

Not to mention the same class making these gross oversteps of government authority would be the ones to write any republican constitution.

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

#38

Post by soraminazuki »

markmark wrote: post #31
palmetieri2000 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh jog on, While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety. Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian. This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.

Exactly, they could have just refused this guy bail and nobody on hacker news would have ever heard of it or cared if they did. But mention the word encryption and the world is falling down.

People do care. The criminal justice system is a common topic on HN.

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

#39

Post by Fargoan »

markmark wrote: post #31
palmetieri2000 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh jog on, While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety. Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian. This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.

Exactly, they could have just refused this guy bail and nobody on hacker news would have ever heard of it or cared if they did. But mention the word encryption and the world is falling down.

Refusing him bail for a non-violent crime would be insane

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

#40

Post by robocat »

motohagiography wrote: post #6

After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…

> it's pretty clear [NZ has] a "so sue me," approach to legislation and governance

NEw Zealander here: I honestly don’t understand what you are talking about. The culture of “sue”ing doesn’t really exist here. I wouldn’t guess there was a lot in common between NZ and Ozzie: we laugh or cry about what happens over in Oz. No idea about Canada.

Post reply on HN