15 ms·

After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to

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'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. 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's pretty clear CAN/AUS/NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a "so sue me," 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's no longer about tech, it's about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves.

contingencies 4y ago
It's pretty clear CAN/AUS/NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a "so sue me," 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's no longer about tech, it's about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves. Well articulated. Exhibit A: Successive Australian governments allowing Assange's imprisonment. Exhibit B: Australia not allowing its own citizens to leave the country during COVID without first requesting permission. Exhibit C: Steadily increasing internet and mobile surveillance and censorship.
userbinator 4y ago
One doesn'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. As someone who matches exactly what your first clause says, I fully agree with this; especially since he apparently has not even been judged yet.
joshuaissac 4y ago
> 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.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > 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.
- motohagiography 4y ago
  The Queen's representative, the Governor General is the head of a government that is not mitigated by explicit inaliable freedoms that act as a check on it, or divide its powers in a way to prevent it being converted to a classic tyranny. It would require a whole new constitution to remove the powers that these governments have evolved to abuse. Hence it seems predictable that a popular movement toward new constitutional republics could rise. Without a means to defend your basic freedoms from the people who eventually rise to make up a government, a constitution and a charter of rights are just conventions. These parliamentary democracies are in a co-ordinated transition to something else.
  - femto 4y ago
    If anything such overreach will lead to a loss of support for republicanism. As it is I think Australians generally see the Queen (and Governor General to a lesser extent) as being outside politics. There is a deep cynicism in the electorate that it will be possible to select a head of state in a manner that will not be politicised, leading to a loss of independence of the head of state.
robocat 4y ago
> 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.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  As I understand it: No one in law or government has any attachment to the idea of freedom so they view restrictions on it as costless solutions to their problems. Thus “Well, if you don’t like it, sue us.” Us being the government.
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    I'm guessing that you're using some hyperbole here. If you can refine that a bit we might get an interesting discussion.
- andrewchambers 4y ago
  Well they did block free movement in the country for a few months, not really sure how legal that was tbh.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    If it wasn't legal, you'd see the government in court over it. As happened when the first lockdown wasn't implemented correctly. https://adls.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=453 https://adls.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=453
- novok 4y ago
  It's an idiom, suing isn't that common in Canada either. Basically "just try to stop me, because I know you can't, neeneer neeneer". "I really don't care if you are offended or put off by what I said or did. The hyperbolic threat is meant to undermine how much importance another person is or may be giving something one did or said." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/So%2c+sue+me https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/So%2c+sue+me!
helloooooooo 4y ago
Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, Examples? You can’t just make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32299244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32299244
  - helloooooooo 4y ago
    You mean bail conditions? It’s very common to have your communications be restricted with certain people and you may be restricted from entering certain geographical areas. How is this overreach?
- refurb 4y ago
  Canada used the Emergency Act, which suspended some Charter rights, to break up the Trucker Convoy. When challenged in court a week later, the government recinded it (so the court case was dropped). A formal inquiry requested cabinet minutes on the decision to use the Emergency Act which was denied until very recently (when it was challenged in court and the media). https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/public-inquiry-emergencies-act-cabinet-confidence-waived-1.6504646 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/public-inquiry-emergencies-... It's very much a "we will do what we want and you can go ahead and sue us", but of course by then, the damage is done in the sense that infringement of our rights just got a little bit easier. No doubt the inquiry will raise concerns, but not until next year when it'll get minimal attention in the news cycle and the Prime Minister will say "At the time it was the right decision...we only take away rights when there is no other option...democracy is safe..."
- godmode2019 4y ago
  I read a story of a NZ man who groped a woman's breast out on a walk. He was banned from using a device that can access the Internet.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Is “principle of fundamental Justice” related to the concept of everyone being reasonable and acting in good faith, not forcing the legal system to evaluate every possibility? Eg. The Republicans won’t stop passing manifestly unconstitutional legislation at state level. They force the thing to be played out rather than accepting what’s obvious and not attempting it to begin with.
- senorrib 4y ago
  Not only Republicans. Both parties act the same way when the Constitution becomes an inconvenience.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    I’m actually quite curious, in good faith, examples of manifestly unconstitutional legislation the Democrats have passed. Not an American so I haven’t the detailed history. Though this is rather off topic so maybe we should leave it there.
p1necone 4y ago
Don't lump NZ in with Aus, different government, different laws. Afaik the trying to outlaw encryption stuff hasn't hopped the ditch yet.
- tjpnz 4y ago
  While they haven't been as outspoken on encryption It's still an offense to refuse to unlock a device. If you're visiting NZ it's best not to travel with a laptop and to take reasonable precautions with your mobile devices.
- godmode2019 4y ago
  NZ is legally speaking a few years behind Australia. Just take a look at up coming legislation, I think its the MMP system that slows down these laws. They will still happen just at a slower pace and with better timed PR.
pyuser583 4y ago
Is there any current support for this fundamental rights/free speech movement? As an American, I can tell you just because a movement should exist doesn’t mean it will.
EdwardDiego 4y ago
Kiwi here, we have? What are you referring to? We have a rather dim outlook of Australian federal/state government overreach too, and some of their populist policies that discriminate against us, often with racist origins. And we've often enjoyed a TV drama or three recounting horrendous corruption in various Australian police forces. (I highly recommend the Underbelly series')
- nojvek 4y ago
  Underbelly is a great series. Really enjoyed that.
- gardnr 4y ago
  Not quite as bad as Australia, yet. You can join the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties if you want to support their legal work to keep it that way. > The law applies to both foreign visitors and returning New Zealand citizens: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/5/new-zealand-orders-tourists-to-hand-over-phone-password-at-border https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/5/new-zealand-orders-...
- denkmoon 4y ago
  Started with the Rum Corps and never left. As an Australian I am horrified by the power our police have and the reek of corruption.
  - Kostchei 4y ago
    What is interesting, having worked from the inside of police for 15 years, is the difference between the different state (and federal) police- some are "forces" some are services. But in all forces or services, the level of corruption can be "eyeballed" by looking at how long since they had a "Royal Commission" in to corruption. Anything longer than 25 years ie a generation, is too long. And it's not just about bad practices- one of the things that happens in such a royal commission /bloodbath, is that police have to get off their high horse and get treated like everyone else. You know, being "joe public", humble. Police will say - after such a public flogging "the public stopped fearing us, we had to ask people to do things instead of telling them" .. to which my quiet internal response was- of course you fool, you are a public servant, not an overlord.. once every 25 years, minimum, with some sort of independent body in-between - as what to do in those colonies that threw out the whole system and don't know what a royal commission is? (such as the USA)- I have no idea, good luck.
baazaa 4y ago
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. Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM'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.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  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 "machine" of bureaucracy has overtaken or subsumed democratic politics. It is not only in Australia. Chuck Schumer's grave warning sums it up well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc An elected president who is head of the executive and armed forces which include these intelligence agencies, would be foolish to "take them on", because they would "get back at him". 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'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's not really the PM's office the holds the real power.
  - shydwoo 4y ago
    The swamp cannot be drained. Get over it.
- defrost 4y ago
  > Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, Not especially applicable to border lockdowns within Australia. The biggest case that hit the Federal Court was the border closure by the State of Western Australia (population ~ 2 million, land area 3x Texas) which was in effect the local citizens of W.Australia being damn near 100% in lockstep with their elected local representatives in saying we have no desire to see free movement of people across our State border during the time of the pandemic. They were in opposition to the Federal Government and the PM's office and held their ground .. .. despite the alleged "immense power concentrated in the PM's offices". Free trade of goods continued via rail, road, and shipping so their was no issue with that part of the Consttitution, and the lockdown was in keeping with earlier (2005 etc) biosecurity ammendments in both State and Federal law.
openfuture 4y ago
Hey man, you are right, the legitimacy of many coordinators is at an all time low. The simple way to move on is to just move on. Please help me: datalisp.is.
Gareth321 4y ago
When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." 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. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their power to an unacceptable degree.
- mantas 4y ago
  There are ways around Constitution. Constitutional courts do fun things to accommodate sitting governments. But at least it makes the process very difficult and prolong it enough to give public some glimpse. Well, in most cases.
- jgardner100 4y ago
  Each of those countries you list already has a constitution. The Australian constitution requires both the majority of the people and the majority of the states to all votes yes in a referendum to the change. It isn't easy to modify.
- YPPH 4y ago
  The US Constitution is not much to be jealous about. In Australia, if people are unhappy with laws, they can change the government, who in turn can change the laws. Meanwhile, in the US, the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents. The US has the highly undesirable situation of (1) the possibility of a deadlocked President (because Congress does not support them) (2) the possibility of a deadlocked legislature (because SCOTUS doesn't support them). The Australian Constitution completely sidesteps these conundrums. A bad PM can be ousted in a day. The High Court avoids getting into Constitutional rights disputes except in limited circumstances, such as undue burdens upon the implied freedom of political communication. I consider this significantly more desirable and the US offers nothing to be jealous of.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    >A bad PM can be ousted in a day. By whom? The parliament that confirmed him as PM? The parliament where the PM's party almost always holds the most seats? A parliamentary system essentially combines the executive and legislative powers to one party.
olalonde 4y ago
I agree that the bail conditions seem excessive but the US also sets bail conditions, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure I've heard of cases where bail was flat out denied or where no Internet/computer use was imposed as a condition (which is effectively a ban on encrypted apps).
nicoburns 4y ago
It’s not really an absolute right in America either. Specifically this seems pretty similar to the restrictions put on prisoner’s communications in the US.
bitwize 4y ago
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 the most powerful person in this country and I say you're all going on strict lockdown. And how many Kiwis died? Like a few hundred? Of course most of those deaths have been since the NZ government relaxed restrictions and "let the plague ships back in" as Aurynn Shaw put it. The government can do whatever it wants to you because it's the government. This is true even in the USA. They can spy on you, lie to you, set you up to take the fall for a crime you didn't commit. Obviously these are bad things, but my point is the government has near-infinite resources and ultimate authority among the people; appeals to limit government power through constitutionalism and republicanism obviously aren't going to work very well, even in the most constitutional-republic-ass country on the planet, the USA. So the only question is, how do we ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that government's absolute, sovereign power is applied to the greater good?
- jaza 4y ago
  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!
- motohagiography 4y ago
  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.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
> too stupid to be reasoned with Indeed and I wouldn't recommend any debate anymore. That ship has sailed 2 decades ago at least. While it shouldn't be that way the only option is technology. Technology made encryption a reality for many people and many governments didn't like that at all. I have no faith in the judiciary to set sensible rules for executive overreach so letting technology make safe communication a reality is necessary. So we should always make sure to supply technology that allows for encryption and that the knowledge and development stays open enough so that it can be replicated. In the end this will costs those governments massively in the long run.
dotancohen 4y ago
> the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever > data gets sent to him Can we find his address? I'd like to send to him some encrypted messages. Maybe to the local police department, or its detectives, as well. Of course, I'll retain the decryption key so they'll have no way to decrypt it. Maybe spam finally has a use! If a case could be made that all - or any - spam contains a steganographic message, then there is plausible deniability that the recipient would not have the means to decode any - or all - messages sent to him. Though I'm sure that the law has tools to contend with technically contrived examples such as this, somebody versed in the relevant law could probably stretch the idea to a murkier legal area and apply it.
rabite 4y ago

contingencies 4y ago

It's pretty clear CAN/AUS/NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a "so sue me," 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's no longer about tech, it's about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves. Well articulated. Exhibit A: Successive Australian governments allowing Assange's imprisonment. Exhibit B: Australia not allowing its own citizens to leave the country during COVID without first requesting permission. Exhibit C: Steadily increasing internet and mobile surveillance and censorship.

userbinator 4y ago

One doesn'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. As someone who matches exactly what your first clause says, I fully agree with this; especially since he apparently has not even been judged yet.

joshuaissac 4y ago

> 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.

nyokodo 4y ago
> 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.
motohagiography 4y ago
The Queen's representative, the Governor General is the head of a government that is not mitigated by explicit inaliable freedoms that act as a check on it, or divide its powers in a way to prevent it being converted to a classic tyranny. It would require a whole new constitution to remove the powers that these governments have evolved to abuse. Hence it seems predictable that a popular movement toward new constitutional republics could rise. Without a means to defend your basic freedoms from the people who eventually rise to make up a government, a constitution and a charter of rights are just conventions. These parliamentary democracies are in a co-ordinated transition to something else.
- femto 4y ago
  If anything such overreach will lead to a loss of support for republicanism. As it is I think Australians generally see the Queen (and Governor General to a lesser extent) as being outside politics. There is a deep cynicism in the electorate that it will be possible to select a head of state in a manner that will not be politicised, leading to a loss of independence of the head of state.

robocat 4y ago

> 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.

barry-cotter 4y ago
As I understand it: No one in law or government has any attachment to the idea of freedom so they view restrictions on it as costless solutions to their problems. Thus “Well, if you don’t like it, sue us.” Us being the government.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  I'm guessing that you're using some hyperbole here. If you can refine that a bit we might get an interesting discussion.
andrewchambers 4y ago
Well they did block free movement in the country for a few months, not really sure how legal that was tbh.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  If it wasn't legal, you'd see the government in court over it. As happened when the first lockdown wasn't implemented correctly. https://adls.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=453 https://adls.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=453
novok 4y ago
It's an idiom, suing isn't that common in Canada either. Basically "just try to stop me, because I know you can't, neeneer neeneer". "I really don't care if you are offended or put off by what I said or did. The hyperbolic threat is meant to undermine how much importance another person is or may be giving something one did or said." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/So%2c+sue+me https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/So%2c+sue+me!

helloooooooo 4y ago

Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, Examples? You can’t just make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

tpoacher 4y ago
Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32299244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32299244
- helloooooooo 4y ago
  You mean bail conditions? It’s very common to have your communications be restricted with certain people and you may be restricted from entering certain geographical areas. How is this overreach?
refurb 4y ago
Canada used the Emergency Act, which suspended some Charter rights, to break up the Trucker Convoy. When challenged in court a week later, the government recinded it (so the court case was dropped). A formal inquiry requested cabinet minutes on the decision to use the Emergency Act which was denied until very recently (when it was challenged in court and the media). https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/public-inquiry-emergencies-act-cabinet-confidence-waived-1.6504646 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/public-inquiry-emergencies-... It's very much a "we will do what we want and you can go ahead and sue us", but of course by then, the damage is done in the sense that infringement of our rights just got a little bit easier. No doubt the inquiry will raise concerns, but not until next year when it'll get minimal attention in the news cycle and the Prime Minister will say "At the time it was the right decision...we only take away rights when there is no other option...democracy is safe..."
godmode2019 4y ago
I read a story of a NZ man who groped a woman's breast out on a walk. He was banned from using a device that can access the Internet.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Is “principle of fundamental Justice” related to the concept of everyone being reasonable and acting in good faith, not forcing the legal system to evaluate every possibility? Eg. The Republicans won’t stop passing manifestly unconstitutional legislation at state level. They force the thing to be played out rather than accepting what’s obvious and not attempting it to begin with.

senorrib 4y ago
Not only Republicans. Both parties act the same way when the Constitution becomes an inconvenience.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  I’m actually quite curious, in good faith, examples of manifestly unconstitutional legislation the Democrats have passed. Not an American so I haven’t the detailed history. Though this is rather off topic so maybe we should leave it there.

p1necone 4y ago

Don't lump NZ in with Aus, different government, different laws. Afaik the trying to outlaw encryption stuff hasn't hopped the ditch yet.

tjpnz 4y ago
While they haven't been as outspoken on encryption It's still an offense to refuse to unlock a device. If you're visiting NZ it's best not to travel with a laptop and to take reasonable precautions with your mobile devices.
godmode2019 4y ago
NZ is legally speaking a few years behind Australia. Just take a look at up coming legislation, I think its the MMP system that slows down these laws. They will still happen just at a slower pace and with better timed PR.

pyuser583 4y ago

Is there any current support for this fundamental rights/free speech movement? As an American, I can tell you just because a movement should exist doesn’t mean it will.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Kiwi here, we have? What are you referring to? We have a rather dim outlook of Australian federal/state government overreach too, and some of their populist policies that discriminate against us, often with racist origins. And we've often enjoyed a TV drama or three recounting horrendous corruption in various Australian police forces. (I highly recommend the Underbelly series')

nojvek 4y ago
Underbelly is a great series. Really enjoyed that.
gardnr 4y ago
Not quite as bad as Australia, yet. You can join the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties if you want to support their legal work to keep it that way. > The law applies to both foreign visitors and returning New Zealand citizens: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/5/new-zealand-orders-tourists-to-hand-over-phone-password-at-border https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/5/new-zealand-orders-...
denkmoon 4y ago
Started with the Rum Corps and never left. As an Australian I am horrified by the power our police have and the reek of corruption.
- Kostchei 4y ago
  What is interesting, having worked from the inside of police for 15 years, is the difference between the different state (and federal) police- some are "forces" some are services. But in all forces or services, the level of corruption can be "eyeballed" by looking at how long since they had a "Royal Commission" in to corruption. Anything longer than 25 years ie a generation, is too long. And it's not just about bad practices- one of the things that happens in such a royal commission /bloodbath, is that police have to get off their high horse and get treated like everyone else. You know, being "joe public", humble. Police will say - after such a public flogging "the public stopped fearing us, we had to ask people to do things instead of telling them" .. to which my quiet internal response was- of course you fool, you are a public servant, not an overlord.. once every 25 years, minimum, with some sort of independent body in-between - as what to do in those colonies that threw out the whole system and don't know what a royal commission is? (such as the USA)- I have no idea, good luck.

baazaa 4y ago

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. Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM'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.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
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 "machine" of bureaucracy has overtaken or subsumed democratic politics. It is not only in Australia. Chuck Schumer's grave warning sums it up well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc An elected president who is head of the executive and armed forces which include these intelligence agencies, would be foolish to "take them on", because they would "get back at him". 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'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's not really the PM's office the holds the real power.
- shydwoo 4y ago
  The swamp cannot be drained. Get over it.
defrost 4y ago
> Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, Not especially applicable to border lockdowns within Australia. The biggest case that hit the Federal Court was the border closure by the State of Western Australia (population ~ 2 million, land area 3x Texas) which was in effect the local citizens of W.Australia being damn near 100% in lockstep with their elected local representatives in saying we have no desire to see free movement of people across our State border during the time of the pandemic. They were in opposition to the Federal Government and the PM's office and held their ground .. .. despite the alleged "immense power concentrated in the PM's offices". Free trade of goods continued via rail, road, and shipping so their was no issue with that part of the Consttitution, and the lockdown was in keeping with earlier (2005 etc) biosecurity ammendments in both State and Federal law.

openfuture 4y ago

Hey man, you are right, the legitimacy of many coordinators is at an all time low. The simple way to move on is to just move on. Please help me: datalisp.is.

Gareth321 4y ago

When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." 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. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their power to an unacceptable degree.

mantas 4y ago
There are ways around Constitution. Constitutional courts do fun things to accommodate sitting governments. But at least it makes the process very difficult and prolong it enough to give public some glimpse. Well, in most cases.
jgardner100 4y ago
Each of those countries you list already has a constitution. The Australian constitution requires both the majority of the people and the majority of the states to all votes yes in a referendum to the change. It isn't easy to modify.
YPPH 4y ago
The US Constitution is not much to be jealous about. In Australia, if people are unhappy with laws, they can change the government, who in turn can change the laws. Meanwhile, in the US, the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents. The US has the highly undesirable situation of (1) the possibility of a deadlocked President (because Congress does not support them) (2) the possibility of a deadlocked legislature (because SCOTUS doesn't support them). The Australian Constitution completely sidesteps these conundrums. A bad PM can be ousted in a day. The High Court avoids getting into Constitutional rights disputes except in limited circumstances, such as undue burdens upon the implied freedom of political communication. I consider this significantly more desirable and the US offers nothing to be jealous of.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  >A bad PM can be ousted in a day. By whom? The parliament that confirmed him as PM? The parliament where the PM's party almost always holds the most seats? A parliamentary system essentially combines the executive and legislative powers to one party.

olalonde 4y ago

I agree that the bail conditions seem excessive but the US also sets bail conditions, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure I've heard of cases where bail was flat out denied or where no Internet/computer use was imposed as a condition (which is effectively a ban on encrypted apps).

nicoburns 4y ago

It’s not really an absolute right in America either. Specifically this seems pretty similar to the restrictions put on prisoner’s communications in the US.

bitwize 4y ago

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 the most powerful person in this country and I say you're all going on strict lockdown. And how many Kiwis died? Like a few hundred? Of course most of those deaths have been since the NZ government relaxed restrictions and "let the plague ships back in" as Aurynn Shaw put it. The government can do whatever it wants to you because it's the government. This is true even in the USA. They can spy on you, lie to you, set you up to take the fall for a crime you didn't commit. Obviously these are bad things, but my point is the government has near-infinite resources and ultimate authority among the people; appeals to limit government power through constitutionalism and republicanism obviously aren't going to work very well, even in the most constitutional-republic-ass country on the planet, the USA. So the only question is, how do we ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that government's absolute, sovereign power is applied to the greater good?

jaza 4y ago
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!
motohagiography 4y ago
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.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

> too stupid to be reasoned with Indeed and I wouldn't recommend any debate anymore. That ship has sailed 2 decades ago at least. While it shouldn't be that way the only option is technology. Technology made encryption a reality for many people and many governments didn't like that at all. I have no faith in the judiciary to set sensible rules for executive overreach so letting technology make safe communication a reality is necessary. So we should always make sure to supply technology that allows for encryption and that the knowledge and development stays open enough so that it can be replicated. In the end this will costs those governments massively in the long run.

dotancohen 4y ago

> the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever > data gets sent to him Can we find his address? I'd like to send to him some encrypted messages. Maybe to the local police department, or its detectives, as well. Of course, I'll retain the decryption key so they'll have no way to decrypt it. Maybe spam finally has a use! If a case could be made that all - or any - spam contains a steganographic message, then there is plausible deniability that the recipient would not have the means to decode any - or all - messages sent to him. Though I'm sure that the law has tools to contend with technically contrived examples such as this, somebody versed in the relevant law could probably stretch the idea to a murkier legal area and apply it.

rabite 4y ago