<story><title>Australian activist can&apos;t use encrypted apps, must let police access phone</title><url>https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-08-01/blockade-australia-technology-bail-conditions-encrypted-apps/101277038</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>baazaa</author><text>The entire tradition of thought around natural law and limits on the legitimate scope of the state have simply disappeared in Australia so far as I can tell. Everyone just accepts that the state has absolute sovereignty and it can pass any laws it wants.&lt;p&gt;Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM&amp;#x27;s offices, minimal parliamentary autonomy (i.e. everyone votes on the party line), and no ideological constraints on how state power is used or abused.</text></item><item><author>motohagiography</author><text>After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the &amp;quot;presumption of innocence&amp;quot; that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what&amp;#x27;s known in legal circles as a &amp;quot;principle of fundamental justice,&amp;quot; and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up.&lt;p&gt;One doesn&amp;#x27;t need to agree with the persons cause to recognize this is another extreme overstepping of authority on the part of that government to mandate that the people who communicate with the person subject to this order may also not protect their own commuications from interception, and that the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever data gets sent to him.&lt;p&gt;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, as it&amp;#x27;s pretty clear CAN&amp;#x2F;AUS&amp;#x2F;NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a &amp;quot;so sue me,&amp;quot; approach to legislation and governance, as this stuff is just too stupid to be reasoned with. The language means nothing, the principles mean nothing. It&amp;#x27;s no longer about tech, it&amp;#x27;s about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Aerroon</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m surprised that this is surprising to many people. Australia is a country that has had active media censorship going on for a long time.&lt;p&gt;Eg games work based on a whitelist. You need to get the government&amp;#x27;s permission to be able to publish your game in Australia.&lt;p&gt;Australians accept this. It&amp;#x27;s no wonder to me that they will accept even further concessions on their freedoms.</text></comment>
<story><title>Australian activist can&apos;t use encrypted apps, must let police access phone</title><url>https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-08-01/blockade-australia-technology-bail-conditions-encrypted-apps/101277038</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>baazaa</author><text>The entire tradition of thought around natural law and limits on the legitimate scope of the state have simply disappeared in Australia so far as I can tell. Everyone just accepts that the state has absolute sovereignty and it can pass any laws it wants.&lt;p&gt;Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM&amp;#x27;s offices, minimal parliamentary autonomy (i.e. everyone votes on the party line), and no ideological constraints on how state power is used or abused.</text></item><item><author>motohagiography</author><text>After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the &amp;quot;presumption of innocence&amp;quot; that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what&amp;#x27;s known in legal circles as a &amp;quot;principle of fundamental justice,&amp;quot; and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up.&lt;p&gt;One doesn&amp;#x27;t need to agree with the persons cause to recognize this is another extreme overstepping of authority on the part of that government to mandate that the people who communicate with the person subject to this order may also not protect their own commuications from interception, and that the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever data gets sent to him.&lt;p&gt;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, as it&amp;#x27;s pretty clear CAN&amp;#x2F;AUS&amp;#x2F;NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a &amp;quot;so sue me,&amp;quot; approach to legislation and governance, as this stuff is just too stupid to be reasoned with. The language means nothing, the principles mean nothing. It&amp;#x27;s no longer about tech, it&amp;#x27;s about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>throwawaylinux</author><text>The state exists to perpetuate itself and its power, unless an outside force acts on it. That used to be the people, but increasingly the &amp;quot;machine&amp;quot; of bureaucracy has overtaken or subsumed democratic politics. It is not only in Australia. Chuck Schumer&amp;#x27;s grave warning sums it up well:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;An elected president who is head of the executive and armed forces which include these intelligence agencies, would be foolish to &amp;quot;take them on&amp;quot;, because they would &amp;quot;get back at him&amp;quot;. The people no longer have the power to determine the way in which they are governed by democratic means (maybe they never did, but I&amp;#x27;m lead to believe that elected politicians used to hold a bit more power a century or two ago). I expect it is a similar situation in Australia, it&amp;#x27;s not really the PM&amp;#x27;s office the holds the real power.</text></comment>