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

311–320 of 363 posts

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

#311

Post by OJFord »

alexwlchan wrote: post #278
OJFord wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but what I'm saying is do they ever refuse to rate a film? Life of Brian was another example I was thinking of, and as you say, same as I described there - rated, then banned.

Apparently so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_... I’m surprised by how long the list is; I thought it was much rarer and more exceptional. The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.

Huh, thanks for that. I had heard about requesting cuts now you mention it. (And this is also done to target a rating, if they want to get a 12A but as-is it's a 15 for example.)

I wonder if the ones never released are just because they didn't want to cut enough, preferring to abandon the project though.

> The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.

Porn, or rather it somehow going too far, seems to be a big one based on a lot of the titles there.

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

#312

Post by andrekandre »

CodeSgt wrote: post #290
krapp wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Gay marriage isn't illegal in any state.

not yet, but interracial marriage historically was [0], so why should it be any different for gay marriage? (genuinely curious)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Un...

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

#313

Post by andrekandre »

sbaiddn wrote: post #310
andrekandre wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For ages the source was obvious in "the West" - it was God all mighty armed with the Bible. which inalienable rights come from the bible?

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?

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

#314

Post by jaza »

bitwize wrote: post #236
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…

COVID-19, and in particular New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern's response during the early days of the pandemic, has made me rethink the idea of absolute freedom and a constitutional federated republic. Over a million Americans are dead now because of some combination of "muh freedoms", "the economy", and "that's really a state issue, there's nothing we can do at the federal level". In contrast, Ardern was like no, I am t…

It was Australia's copying of NZ's strict Covid policies that saved so many lives here too. Although Jacinda took the lead every time, and Scummo inevitably followed in her footsteps a few days / weeks later, and it was always a crappy imitation, and it was made significantly crappier with bickering and inconsistency between Federal and State / Territory governments.

Re: how do we ensure that the government's Executive power is used for good? We can't ensure it. But not voting for an utter imbecile like Trump sure as hell is a good way to make it more likely!

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

#315

Post by nobody9999 »

andyferris wrote: post #244
bitwize wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. And yet, Roe was overturned. Gay rights are next.

I’m still confused why the legislature didn’t deal with this issue. I have a theory that in the absence of the Roe ruling, publicity of outcomes would have forced the politicians to create somewhat appropriate rules. E.g. in Australia we recently reached the situation that both abortion and euthanasia are permitted by all states. I never considered it something the courts should weigh in on - progressive governments…

>I’m still confused why the legislature didn’t deal with this issue. I have a theory that in the absence of the Roe ruling, publicity of outcomes would have forced the politicians to create somewhat appropriate rules.

As an American of a certain age, I'd say that it's because culture changes slowly.

While it was obvious to me decades ago that sentient beings should have bodily autonomy and that it was cruel to deny those same beings the right to love who and how they need to do so, that wasn't the case across most of the US.

In fact, the opposition to stuff like bodily autonomy, basic marriage rights, and a raft of other issues weren't (as it is now) concentrated in a single political party as it is today.

And that's why Roe v. Wade was never codified by statute, at least not at the Federal level (note that each state has its own laws regarding bodily autonomy).

Which is a huge mistake IMHO. Bodily autonomy isn't something that should be legislated by any government. Full stop.

Before the age of the 24/7 news cycle (amped up by orders of magnitude with the advent of "social" media), political discourse was generally more local and more amenable to compromise at the national level.

There are numerous reasons for the political and geographical "sorting" that's gone on for the last 40 years or so, but the upshot has been that folks have become more reactionary, more intolerant and more likely to demonize those with whom they disagree.

In fact, in many cases political operatives in the US don't even pretend to address issues. Rather they just demonize the political "other," refuse to cooperate to create positive change and leave it at that.

And the bodily autonomy issue is part and parcel of that trend. There have always been busybodies who want to control what others do, say or think. And a small group of religious extremists hijacked one of the major parties (because that party had continued to lose power and influence because of their anti-liberty, anti-working class stances) that recently culminated in the recent SCOTUS decision[4].

It's really sad. Not because things were so much better 40 years ago. In fact, in many respects, things are better for minority and under-represented groups.

Back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s[5], the death of a black man at the hands of police[0] (or a civilian[1] for that matter) was almost always just shrugged off.

Today, folks go to jail[2][3] for that sort of thing.

Is the US the inclusive, free society that we claim to be? No. Are we better than we used to be? Yes.

Does more need to be done? Definitely.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Healt...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...

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

#316

Post by motohagiography »

bitwize wrote: post #236
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…

COVID-19, and in particular New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern's response during the early days of the pandemic, has made me rethink the idea of absolute freedom and a constitutional federated republic. Over a million Americans are dead now because of some combination of "muh freedoms", "the economy", and "that's really a state issue, there's nothing we can do at the federal level". In contrast, Ardern was like no, I am t…

If you believe as you asserted, that 1m americans died because they just weren't compliant enough, I'd be interested in other examples in history where among non-government members, it was the compliant who have both survived and prevailed. They have not, they are subjects, and america became the only nation with guaranteed freedoms and rights.

The wisdom of the american system was either you remove its absolute sovereignty and actively maintain the separation and manage it as the bounded dynamic of a growth engine, or it ossifies and becomes corrupt. The american experiement is yielding pretty much what the framers of its constitution predicted, and its enemies have had an instruction manual on how to do it from the beginning. The contempt I read that some people have for freedom is like listening to the inmates of a prison competing over who can be more compliant with the guards, and who reserve their rage for those who inadvertently humiliate them by comparison just by demonstrating some basic human dignity. Someone who sincerely uses epithets like "muh freedoms," by definition is not a peer or equal, and their upside is to become just somebody's liability or pet. It's an entirely relative ontology, and from the perspective of a mob. Corrupt the people, and their government becomes an afterthought.

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

#317

Post by bearmode »

partomniscient wrote: post #100
Panzer04 wrote: post #46

Pretty serious overstep of rights - hopefully these kinds of restrictions don't pass muster when they get challenged. It's ridiculous we can impose this on someone who hasn't even been found guilty. I wouldn't take this as representative of Australia as a whole though - In many other respects we have excellent institutions and strong rights.

It's presumably revenge for the police getting caught out being stupid in an earlier encounter. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/21/block... We also keep giving police 'temporary powers' that end up becoming permanent. We lost anything worthwhile when we lost the right to protest. The ludicrousness of thinking its acceptable to have to apply for a permit to protest is sheer insanity.

Consistent reminder that the police will spend a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy surveilling and attempting to break up left-wing groups, whilst literal neo-nazi groups are left to grow their numbers. The police are working to curb threats to capital, they aren't there for us.

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

#318

Post by account42 »

mgoetzke wrote: post #279
Aerroon wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure! https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/wha... > Every film and computer game has to be classified before it can be legally made available to the Australian public, unless it is exempt or is being shown at a registered event. If they refuse classification then it is banned.

Same seems true here in Germany. I had to import Gears of War (1) from Austria because I wasn't allowed to buy it irrespective of Age.

AFAICT Gears of War was not banned but rather not allowed to be sold OR ADVERTISED to minors as is/was the case with most "violent" games. Only a few (e.g. the uncut version of Left 4 Dead) were ever banned from sale entirely. Of course the distinction is mostly theoretical as no store is willing to sell either games even with age verification.

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

#319

Post by matheusmoreira »

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.

> at least we don’t have conservative judges running the country.

Oh we have that here as well, though I'm not sure about "conservative". Where I live, the supreme federal court is the legislative power. People vote representatives to propose laws but the judges of the supreme court are the ones who ultimately define what the law means in practice it and they use that power to legislate in what has been termed "judicial activism".

I've seen cases where the judges openly acknowledged in writing that according to the law the defendant was innocent, then proceeded to condemn them anyway because what they did offended their personal morals and therefore "deserved repression".

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

#320

Post by implements »

OJFord wrote: post #311
alexwlchan wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_... I’m surprised by how long the list is; I thought it was much rarer and more exceptional. The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.

Huh, thanks for that. I had heard about requesting cuts now you mention it. (And this is also done to target a rating, if they want to get a 12A but as-is it's a 15 for example.) I wonder if the ones never released are just because they didn't want to cut enough, preferring to abandon the project though. > The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess ther…

Some films are so grim that if they cut out all the unacceptable stuff there’d be no film left worth seeing. Porn gets an R18 rating - provided it’s not dangerous, violent, illegal or obscene - and can shown at specially licensed sex cinemas.
Post reply on HN