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

71–80 of 363 posts

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

#71

Post by BLKNSLVR »

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.

Refused bail for non-violent protest might just stir up some conversation here on HN...

(I believe) Australia is used by the US as a western testing ground for some of the more draconian freedom-restriction laws, especially vis-a-vis encryption. What gets accepted here will find its way over there.

She'll be right mate...

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

#72

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #57
anothernewdude wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude is a climate activist. I think other things preclude him from cryptocurrency.

Cryptocurrency != bitcoin. Plenty of cryptocurrencies that don't rely on PoW

which?

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

#73

Post by BLKNSLVR »

russelg wrote: post #56
EastSmith wrote: post #11

Can't wait untill they install obligatory mind readers in 8 years. What a joke of country has Australia gotten to?

This is a state level ruling, not federal. Blame the NSW government, not Australia as a whole. I'm not saying the feds are innocent either but this was not their doing.

You're not wrong but, with the previous Federal government at least, it was a very short line to draw between the two.

Fingers crossed the government change undoes at least some of the last decade of damage - already dropped the case against Bernard Collaery, which is at least a little ray of sunshine following a cloudy winter.

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

#74

Post by BLKNSLVR »

Fargoan wrote: post #41

I love Australia but their government is shit

Our weather and bountiful minerals make us lazy and stupid and blissfully unaware of the effort required to protect all of that from short-term exploitation. It's horribly unfortunate.

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

#76

Post by palmetieri2000 »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #34
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.

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 propert…

I agree with you! My issue isn't with the criticism of the bail conditions or his arrest, both of which are absurd.

My issue is the incredibly broad statements about the political situation in Australia. Variations of this became commonplace during COVID lockdowns (which the overwhelming majority of Australians supported) and always seems to come up in relation to firearm regulation discussion. Australia has many many many problems, but to say it is not a liberal democracy is just false.

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

#77

Post by wil421 »

robocat wrote: post #40
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.

I have no idea about New Zealand’s government but surely you have a court system where someone can seek legal recourse. Suing in this context means taking the government to court.

How does NZ solve civil matters?

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

#78

Post by m-p-3 »

smeagull wrote: post #62
mellosouls wrote: post #18

Note these are bail conditions (so presumably an alternative to a much more constrained existence in prison) for a charge that indicates potential for inflicting severe economic damage after organization via communication devices. When compared to bail conditions for other charged crimes which may also be strict and context-related (eg. trackers or keeping distance from a victim of violence) it sounds tough (and righ…

When will they arrest the heads of oil companies for inflicting severe economic damage?

Or the government itself?

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

#79

Post by moistly »

macinjosh wrote: post #13
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?

IMO, this is a key difference between AU and USA. In Australia the government gives you rights. But that means they can also revoke them in some situations since the rights are derived from the government itself. In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Our constitution says the government cannot violate these innate rights, not that the document/government gives us the righ…

> In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist.

Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy.

Not to mention that once your security apparatus gets involved, your rights are as ephemeral as gossamer. Cross the wrong cop and you’ll find that your rights are terminated. Permanently and with extreme prejudice.

The Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on once you attract the attention of the government and it’s forces. Same as any citizen in every country on this planet.

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

#80

Post by palmetieri2000 »

mbg721 wrote: post #61
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dont know man, as a non-american, why do you consider your constitution with so much regard as being bulletproof? cant your government just change it? like any other governments do? whats so sacrosanct about it?

There's a specific method for amending it that requires a very high level of agreement among both houses of Congress and the various state legislatures. In theory Congress or the executive branch could just ignore that and go do whatever they want as long as the judiciary didn't stop them, or the Supreme Court could use weasel-words to make the Constitution mean something other than what it says. Both of those things…

Australia has constitutional referendum as well, these require a 'double majority' (from the public) to pass as well as an absolute majority in both House of Parliament. Which means it needs a national majority of voters AND a majority of voters in a majority of states and territories.
Post reply on HN