EEVblog Tweet: Australia needs a #BillOfRights now, this has gone too far. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 am
content: This thread is in response to this tweet by Dave:https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1179343840735576064Now, I fully expect this thread to go off the rails with the Americans thinking this is absolutely ridiculous and the Chinese thinking "is that all?". But hear me out...Australia already has half-baked laws which "compel" serious criminals, facing serious charges to reveal their passwords. Those laws have largely failed, mainly because the penalties for non-compliance are far less than the penalties they would face if convicted of those other charges. So they just cop the lesser penalty. Honestly, it's a joke. Without going into any protected details, a lot of time and money is spent defeating 2FA and security on devices used by criminals when they refuse to provide passwords, because they have to. All things considered, law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world are pretty successful at this however all it does is delay the legal process.Now this article seems to be the other end of the spectrum. In terms of the proposed changes, personally, I have no issue with law enforcement and similar agencies doing this (for serious matters). I amnotincluding Border Force agencies in this. For trivial matters, further consultation is needed, perhaps only under a court order might that kind of thing be allowed.At the end of the day, don't deal in drugs, don't murder people, don't threaten to blow up buildings and don't exploit children for sexual gratification, if you do, then you deserve everything that's thrown at you.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 10:54:09 am
content: I want to tell you my password, but I forgot it!

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 10:59:09 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amYou mean, the proposed (or current?) Australian law allows the police to decideon their ownto demand a password, or hack someone's device?! No court order required??

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 11:08:49 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on October 02, 2019, 10:59:09 amCurrent legislation is that if the device is seized lawfully, then Police are entitled to do anything to extract data from that device, even if that means taking measures to crack or otherwise discover the password, or bypass security mechanisms entirely. If the data exists outside the device (i.e.: hosted somewhere on the internet) and the seizure does not relate to a search warrant, a court order or other legal authority is required.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 11:15:39 am
content: I don't care if it means some criminals don't get convicted, the individual has an absolute right to privacy. The police have the freedom to compel you to release the information, and the penalty for failing to do so could be similar to the charge in question, but that is as far as it should go.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 11:27:38 am
content: You guys mean: don't getaccusedof killing people or dealing drugs and all will be OK?I will try my best

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 11:44:35 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 02, 2019, 11:15:39 amEven if that person is among the worst human beings on earth? Would you be advocating for their right to privacy if they kill or molest a member of your family?The problem with sentencing to "similar" offences basically means they are being jailed for an offence they are being accused of (but not yet found guilty of).

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 11:53:46 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 11:44:35 amBasic rights apply to everyone which includes the most atrocious criminals. That's what basic rights mean.That most people would prefer to see the criminal who killed or molested a family member flogged or worse doesn't mean that flogging or worse are proper or effective punishments. We've moved beyond emotional and medieval punishment for a while now and that's a good thing.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 12:06:59 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 11:44:35 amYes, unfortunately.The police cannot demand to look at your encrypted data. That is your private right to prohibit the access to that.The police could charge someone on other offences. For example a child molester, could be found on the basis of witness testimony, rather than the information on his hard drive that may be encrypted. A judge would account for the unwillingness to provide access in their sentencing, which may go against the defendant.Basic rights apply to all, no exceptions, because as soon as you make exceptions, you're on a slippery slope to having your rights taken away.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 12:24:09 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 02, 2019, 12:06:59 pmAn unwillingness to provide access shouldn't be accounted for any more than an unwillingness to admit a crime. Suspects should have to right to not incriminate themselves.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 12:33:46 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 11:44:35 amYes, even then. What you are describing is just an emotional situation.Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amEven if there are examples where power agencies, governments or political figures did just that?The thing is, do not blindly trust the established power. Do not give up everybody's civil rights for an "what if" hypothetical "more safety".My grandpa was- born under a king- enrolled in WWII fighting on the Germany's side- then Romania changed sides, and now my grandpa was fighting in the same WWII against Germany- at some point he was literally buried alive in the trenches by an enemy tank- then the war ended and the communists took his land, his carriage and his 2 horses- then his cow give birth and my grandpa went to his former backyard, harvest about 40 pcs. of milk maze corn and feed the cow because he thought there was not enough milk for the newborn cattle- he was arrested, and convicted to prison for stealing corn from the communist property, and again, that corn was from his former land, still plowed and planted by his own hands- in the prison somebody cut his tongue, for speaking the truth- fast forward 50 years later, the communist regime felt, democracy and capitalism took over- all he worked and built again, this time as communist property, was sold for pennies or simply dismantled by liquidatorsI know anecdotal stories are not proofs.My point is, never blindly trust the power. Governments and power changes during a lifetime, and they'll just use you for whatever goal they have at the moment, pretending at all time they care about you.Never give up your civil rights.

author: CaptCrash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 12:34:24 pm
content: A couple of questions regarding how you have phrased your points.I think we are both in agreement that the existing and new proposed laws have gone too far.However I would like to understand, how you think the exceptions you have listed below are reasonable.The reason I ask this is not to create an argument or to attack you (sorry if my questions below are quite blunt and appear like I'm attacking your post, its not my intention, but I want to get the point across.).I'm asking so I can understand why you think in this manner (I have a couple of people who I work with who hold similar views and I find it very odd, so I'm taking the opportunity to ask).Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amHow is someone a serious criminal when they have mealy been accused of something?It concerns me that you have presented that these laws only apply to criminals.When in actuality the laws apply to everyone who is merely accused of a crime but they have yet to be found/plead guilty or acquitted.Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amThere again appears to be bias in your statement.The accused involved are not necessarily criminals at this point in time, they have merely been accused of something.If someone is charged with breaking a law and then found guilty/or plead guilty they are only guilty of that offense (eg. not providing passwords). Nothing else. I do not know if this is a criminal offense or not, so again the use of "criminals", is possibly misleading (or accurate as the case maybe).Assuming the law enforcement body has an appropriate court order to recover data, there is nothing stopping the law enforcement body to continue to attempt to recover data as well.The courts can and do grant the right (to search - Cybercrime Act 2001 No. 161, Items 12 and 28 and The Crimes Act), if sufficient cause can be provided. They are the appropriate body to have such a power, not the police or any other law enforcement body, the type of case has nothing to do with this and its very concerning to think that you consider the severity of accusation to change the protections/rights of the accused.I understand that your points above, are not exactly the opposite of mine. But I am interested in why you keep using the terminology of "criminal", when you are referring to someone accused of a crime, but not found guilty?Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amThat you are presenting the idea that the seriousness of the accusation has a bearing on an individuals rights/protections is very concerning.If someone is being accused of a crime it is not the same as being found guilty of a crime. These are two very different things and needs to be treated as such. There is no justification of a reduction in a persons rights/protections on the basis of an accusation.Why is it that you think the person accused of a crime not entitled to the same protections as everyone else?Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amAnd again, no matter the situation an accusation of a crime is not the same as being found guilty of a crime.A court is the only body that should be able to make this determination. It allows all parties involved to put forward their case, defense to be provided and a reasonable body (the court) to make a determination in all cases.Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amThis is the problem, right here, with the pretense that someone accused of a crime should be treated in a manner different to others.The issue is not about people who have been found guilty of dealing in drugs, murdering people, threatening to blow up buildings and exploiting children for sexual gratification. We are talking about people who are innocent of all of the charges at the time of the search event and you appear to be ok with having their rights/protections taken away before they are convicted of anything or a reasonable case can be put before a court to require the disclosure of information?I'm sorry that it comes across that I have cherry picked items from your post and somewhat questioned them out of context of the greater post you provided, but it all goes to my overall question.Why do you think "potential criminals" should be treated differently before they are found guilty?Thanks in advance, should you choose to respond.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 01:15:54 pm
content: Will Dave let you get away with a politics thread if it references his twitter feed? This is one way to find out.

author: rjp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 01:16:14 pm
content: The thing about bill of rights discussions is that they happen in a bipartisan way, across all the political spectrum, not just the small section of it that you personally like.In the current climate, the thread on this forum about SJW lunacy might end up covering the new bill of rights aswell.I dont trust much of Australias political class to come up with a decent list of rights and this particular one would only be championed by the weakest wing of the liberal party and some libertarian loons, I cant see it happening.so thats a "no" from me.

author: MyHeadHz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 01:36:13 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:46:06 amAs an American, thatisabsolutely ridiculous. However, the American ideals that everyone thinks about are just ideas, and America doesn't even follow them. The Constitution says we cannot be denied the enumerated rights 'without due process,' which has been interpreted to mean unless a judge says so- such as being held without charge, even though we have right to be freed within a set period of time unless actual charges are filed to be tried in court. There are people all over the US held "in contempt of court" indefinitely (sometimes years) without charge by judges' orders because they forgot passwords or similar things. In other words, guilty until proven innocent.Many are also unaware of the border exception. There are no rights to privacy or certain other protections in border areas. The problem is that the definition of border area is so huge it incorporates such things as pretty much the entire state of California, for example.So the US laws sound even worse than the law you mentioned. At least there are limits to the fines/punishment there.There are many other examples here. The US is not the righteous paradise it is in the marketing pamphlets. Worsening authoritarianism seems to be a natural progression of all governments, with no exceptions that I'm aware of.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 06:42:17 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 11:44:35 amPeople make mistakes - all the time and in all regards, especially if things get emotional, an accusation alone is a pretty low bar to cross and this always deserves a second thought what if it hits the wrong (innocent) person. Sometimes an investigation alone can ruin peoples careers. Some bureaucracies also tend to use even unjustified labeling to enable the use of such methods, just out of principle and as a means to an end - to work around themselves.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 08:22:22 pm
content: Quoteyouve not heard of ripa then? its not just the police who have the power to do this in the uk,but a whole host of other "public bodies"

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 08:30:28 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2019, 06:59:05 pmThere is an encryption called "one time pad", which is trivial, simply a XOR bit by bit between a true random key and the message. Both the sender and the receiver exchanged the same key before. The key is at least as long as the message.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_padSuch an encryption is unbreakable. The thing is, with such an encryption scheme ANY possible text (of the same length as the original message) can be reconstructed, not only the original message, by simply choosing a convenient key instead of the real key. In conclusion one might be accused of absolutely anything.I'm afraid other encryption schemes might fall into this category. I doubt encryption is a bijective function. Wrong keys might return other messages for other encryption schemes, too, same as seen with the one time pad, but I didn't studied this problem.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 09:05:03 pm
content: My concern was that, if brute force attacks are allowed as court evidence, then encrypted messages might be decoded into something else that one never said, thus one might be wrongly accused.For example one encrypts "Don't tell my boss I left the meeting earlier" and it can be decoded by brute force (intentionally or by mistake) as "The master password for all nukes is". Thus, one gets wrongly accused.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 10:41:48 pm
content: Quote from: CaptCrash on October 02, 2019, 12:34:24 pmThose who have previous convictions are criminals. Depending on their crimes and punishments, they relinquish certain rights or freedoms in society. Whether it be by way of bail conditions, electronic monitoring, inability to enter or live in certain areas, not being able to own or possess firearms etc... etc... This exists today.Quote from: CaptCrash on October 02, 2019, 12:34:24 pmIf you as an accused person goes and kills someone, you know what you've done. You know what the penalties are and you roll the dice or deliberately withhold information from investigators in hope that something that incriminates you doesn't see the light of day.Quote from: CaptCrash on October 02, 2019, 12:34:24 pmIt absolutely does. If someone is accused of a serious criminal offence then it is and should be handled different to someone who has stolen alcohol from a bottle shop or committed common assault on another person. You can't lump all crimes in the same bucket. This is why we have summary, indictable and serious indictable offences. There are laws in place in Australia, the UK and possibly the USA that whilst you have a right to silence, under certain circumstances if you exercise that right, it can damage any defense you give later in court.Quote from: CaptCrash on October 02, 2019, 12:34:24 pmBecause not all crimes are equal.I find it fascinating the differing views on this. I guess I'm in a unique position where I see the other side of humanity and the direct impact these laws have. 99% of people don't have the same perspective.I believe laws should be made for the greater good, if that means impinging on some individual rights to privacy, so be it. I appreciate everyone's opinions. There is no easy answer to this and it's a very careful balancing act. Absolute privacy or absolute openness don't work. There needs to be a compromise.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2019, 11:03:56 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 11:44:35 amAbsolutely. Better to let 1,000 guilty people walk free than to imprison one innocent person. Punishing the guilty is nice, but it's not nearly as important as protecting the innocent. Already we have too many problems with people being guilty until proven innocent by the general public.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 am
content: Quote from: james_s on October 02, 2019, 11:03:56 pmFortunately, it doesn't matter what the general public think, what matters is what the courts think and what the legislation allows. The number of innocent people being wrongfully found guilty of offences in countries like Australia is so minuscule, that I can't think of a single recent example.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 05:55:42 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 amWhat the general public think matters a lot. If some girl at work pass the word that the job applicant (being interviewed) wolf whistled at her when he first saw her, I bet you that applicant wont get the job regardless whether that really happened or not - and wolf whistle is perfectly legal.From various press and youtube clips from actors, if you are a conservative in Hollywood, you can pretty much expect to be unemployed. Regardless of whether you are a conservative or not, I suspect you would agree it is perfectly legal to be a conservative.So legality is one thing, what people think matters a great deal as well.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 07:28:51 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:41:48 pmYou are not alone in this belief. The government of China agrees with you. And the UK. And America. And probably a lot of other countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

author: krish2487
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 08:14:23 am
content: And there in lies the issue. "Good" is really subjective and conditional to who is sitting in the throne of power.Quote from: soldar onTodayat 07:28:51 am

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 08:49:25 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 amHow do you know? When no errors are detected you really have to worry about the detection.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 09:19:22 am
content: Oh man Halcyon you're getting torn the hell apart here.Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 amIf you cannot measure it, then you cannot see it, and you cannot quantify it. All you can do is guess, and saying everything is perfect when you have absolutely no way of knowing that is exactly the problem here. Authority should NEVER decide for itself when its effective, but that is exactly what you are doing here.Freedom and restriction always lives in a balance, one that will change based off where you go, and for different reasons. China operates on the exact principle of state knows best, and that while some may get hurt, so many more will end up benefiting. This mindset is why Hong Kong is currently in a state of on fire.This law (or extension thereof) creates a penalty for those who do not wish to incriminate themselves. The primary reason no citizen should be forced into incriminating themselves is because of the old legal adage /innocent until proven guilty/ in that it's no job of the cops to question or force information from the accused.The question that always needs to be asked with authority is that when we give them power, what is to stop them from abusing it? No police system in the world is checked and balanced enough to be ever excluded from the possibility of abuse, no matter what you may say. When you give the police the power to search, seize, and demand testimony under threat at will, especially without the need to accuse first before violating rights, then they have the power to do it to whoever they want.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 09:52:02 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2019, 06:59:05 pmPoliceman: -Tell me your password so I can imprison you for life! Or else I'll fine you $60K!Real criminal: -Thank you, officer. I'll take the fine.How do you comment the underlined words,Halcyon?How exactly the "password law" will help you with a real criminal?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 10:06:56 am
content: I absolutely expected this response from some people. At the end of the day, like I said, it's a fine balance and the answer isn't a simple one. Our laws don't work in every country, just like yours won't necessarily work in ours. At the end of the day, the proposed changes to legislation won't effect 99.9% of the community.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 10:21:16 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 10:06:56 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

author: rjp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 11:05:09 am
content: In reality if a govn brings in a crap law then its up to the opposition and the people to vote them out and repeal that law. If that process fails then a bill of rights would also be a failure.

author: mc172
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 11:57:36 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 02, 2019, 12:06:59 pmNot any more in the UK!

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 12:22:47 pm
content: Quote from: Ampera on October 03, 2019, 09:19:22 amNo need to ask. If anyone, state actor or private actor, has power that can be abused, itwillbe abused. Sooner rather than later. Forget about the state being there to protect you. They are there to protect themselves first, as a group and as individuals.Not only will information be abused deliberately. State bureaucracies are a bumbling lot of incompetent clowns who will ruin your life while claiming to be saving the state and the world. No thanks.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 02:22:25 pm
content: Quote from: rjp on October 03, 2019, 11:05:09 amThe idea with a bill of rights (or rather constitutional law) is that they are laws higher and more set in stone than regular law. It's /much/ harder to change the constitution in the US than it is to change a federal law by the number of people you need to agree with it. That's why it exists, such that so long as there isn't a massive sweeping change in party population, minor shifts in power can't cause huge changes.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 03:52:47 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 amIt really does matter quite a lot actually. I mean go tell that to someone who has been falsely accused of rape or some other crime of that nature. They are pretty much guilty until proven innocent and then forever suspicious. Good luck getting a real job, getting elected into any public service position or even living peacefully minding your own business in many areas.

author: jimdeane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 04:55:08 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2019, 08:41:28 pmDiffie and Hellman have a surprise for you.

author: Gribo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 05:42:55 pm
content: It doesn't have to be. It is enough to exchange another pair of symmetric keys immediately afterwards.

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 06:48:17 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 10:06:56 amIt will probably affect even fewer. But I bet if you somehow find yourself in that 0.1%, you might change your tune.Rights are easy to lose, but very difficult to regain.-Pat

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 07:39:33 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2019, 06:59:05 pmI'm not sure that that's practical, certainly not for the long run - if you make an encryption that is only crackable in a reasonable time by today's supercomputer, that means that it will be crackable by better workstations twenty years* from now on. Also, the computational power available for rent is mind-boggling, so for a really dedicated nefarious entity, it would be also possible to crack. And let's not forget the combined computational power of botnets or volunteer distributed computing. Or someone really dedicated makes their own ASIC. Or even a rival state with similar resources as the 'good guys'.An encryption that is purposefully designed to be crackable will be cracked by other entities than that it was designed for.You either change the encryption every few years** to keep it just barely out of the range of a lower class of criminal, or you simply accept that the system will be obsolete in a decade or two.* - This is an extremely rough guesstimate based on the fact that 20 years ago the top supercomputer of the top500 supercomputer list had a computational power of ~1TFLOPS, which is currently easily achievable by off the shelf hardware.** - this does not even include the fact that encrypted data can be collected and stored for later decryption by someone willing enough.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 07:49:19 pm
content: Blackstone's Ratio

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 08:19:36 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 02, 2019, 11:53:46 amUnfortunately homo sapiens still using medieval practicalities and emotions in their judgments on this planet and its increasing.Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 03, 2019, 10:21:16 amThe communists Bolsheviks did the same thing as Nazis and now liberal globalists trying to do the same.One totalitarian supremacists after another so it seams be a genetical or psychopathy problem.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 09:39:56 pm
content: Quote from: MT on October 03, 2019, 08:19:36 pm"Liberal globalists"? From where I stand it looks to me like it is a wave of authoritarian nationalism which is sweeping western countries.At any rate, people like to say they want and like freedom. It sounds nice but the truth is that before freedom they want safety and security. They want to have a job, raise their families and feel protected. And I can understand that.Quote

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 10:04:47 pm
content: Quote from: Cubdriver on October 03, 2019, 06:48:17 pmOh absolutely. But I'm not about to go out and commit serious crimes tomorrow. I enjoy my life too much.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2019, 10:27:01 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 10:04:47 pmThat's the thing though, we're not talking about people who have necessarily committed serious crimes, it's people who are suspected or accused of committing serious crimes. It might never happen to you, I hope it doesn't, but don't think for a moment that it couldn't.You could be framed, you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you could have data planted on one of your devices or that otherwise ends up on there without your knowledge. You could have material that is not illegal at all but may expose you as holding political, religious or other views deemed unacceptable by some. Like I said earlier, these rights exist to protect the innocent, to prevent a person from being punished or put through undue hardship before it has been proven that they have committed a crime. You might not ever realize how important the concept of innocent until proven guilty is until someone accuses you of something you haven't done and suddenly you're in the middle of it all. It happens frequently.

author: shakalnokturn
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 12:15:01 am
content: Vaguely on topic, just to point that here too, in the "country of human rights", you can be put in custody for whatever reason, justified or not, before any form of judgement.At that point the procedure is to submit the individual to having his DNA sampled (for the dangerous individuals file), he is allowed to refuse this step.By doing so, one defeats the police and puts themself in a situation where they can now be considered as an outlaw, even if there were no actual charges for being put in custody initially...

author: rjp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 12:15:34 am
content: Quote from: Ampera on October 03, 2019, 02:22:25 pmExcept Australia has never had one and just uses the regular to and fro of electing governments to achieve the same results, I know the theory of the American thing however the way government interprets those laws and the supreme court becomes politicised makes it a far less clear cut situation than some might portray.The critical point of this is for us to *get* a bill of rights it would require current politics, thusly - to get this law onto this list also requires horestraded acceptance of other dubious laws and its all being done by the *exact* group of politicians the law is going to protect us from.sometimes reality is different to theory.In America free speech is protected by the constitution, In Australia its protected by not having a bill of rights that contains laws about human dignity

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 12:43:36 am
content: Quote from: Ampera on October 03, 2019, 02:22:25 pmA constitution is only as good as the culture and the people implementing it. Some countries have beautiful constitutions which are just interpreted as needed or simply ignored.Some decades ago I used to ask: Would you rather live in a country with a constitution guaranteeing your right to work, a home, expression, etc. or would you rather live in a country with no constitution at all, where the government is free to do whatever it wants, plus there is a state endorsed religion, plus the entire government is organized and run on medieval customs? In other words, would you prefer to live in the Soviet Union or in the UK?If you have a constitution that based on technicalities is interpreted to not mean what it says then it is worthless. Just ask the prisoners at Guantanamo and others who have learned the true meaning of "Human Rights".If you have a culture of respect for individual rights and human rights then a constitution mandating that is not really necessary.If you have a culture of abuse and lack of respect for the laws, then a piece of paper is not going to fix anything.The best laid constitutions of mice and men... and all that jazz.

author: MyHeadHz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 03:23:42 am
content: Quote from: shakalnokturn on October 04, 2019, 12:15:01 amThe slide to totalitarianism knows no bounds.For example, our bill of rights (US) protects us from unwarranted searches and seizures without due process. However, here in California, everyonemust waive this rightin order to get a driver license (at least so far as while you are driving). Any cop can demand us to give a blood test because we have already agreed to it (if we have a CA driver license). This was challenged up through the federal court system and they said there was no constitutional issue because driving is a privilege, not a right- therefore you can simply not drive and your rights won't be abused. In other words, you chose to abuse yourself by taking part in the privilege of driving. A lot of good our bill of rights did, eh?There are many examples of similar BS. The latest trend is judges and agencies (esp the ATF) just suddenly "reinterpreting" long-established laws- effectively creating new retroactive laws with no warning or input. We have supposed protection against "ex post facto" laws as well. Guess what... these "reinterpretations" don't count as "new" laws, so the legislation is magically immune to the ex post facto law prohibitions.It has been a long time since we went through the process of actually amending the constitution. It's all about "reinterpretation" now. The constitution is all but irrelevant at this point.Don't get me wrong, I do like the ideas of constitutions and bills of rights. I think they are very valuable, but I would strongly recommend that other countries thinking about making a constitution should look very closely at where others have fallen short.Also, don't get too attached to your dog.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 05:10:47 am
content: Quote from: MyHeadHz on October 04, 2019, 03:23:42 amRegarding this "reinterpreting" bit, I assume you mean the agencies "reinterpreting" what the laws were and not the courts "reinterpreting" what the law means.Agencies like the ATF, or HHS, so forth, can issue regulations and those regulations has the power of law anyhow with our with reinterpreting existing law. So the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) can for example issues a regulation that no business establishment can do X. If you did X, they can enforce the regulation by having federal agents rush your house at 4am and take you to prison in chains. At that point, you need a good lawyer.That is why in my view the court should always interpret the law in its original meaning. So I consider myself a Strict Constructionist. Words' usage and meaning change over time. Judges who try to apply today's view and "it is a different time" should be doing that in a very limited manner if at all. So, if any agenct changes its interpretation into something that is not what the law means, one has the option to sue all the way to the supreme court if necessary (and money permitting).That said, I agree that driving is a privilege. Add to that, likely while driving you are on a public street rather than in your private property. So I concur with the judgement there. But no doubt give government an inch, they would take a whole yard and then some. The founders of the USA understood that. Hence, the Constitution is a also list of what the government cannot do. Important to note, it also enumerates what the Federal government's power are and limited the Federal Government to just that. Anything beyond that is off limit to the Federal Government. But as has been pointed out, we have not been as faithful to our Constitution as we should be. Why on earth (for example) should the Federal Government concern itself with credit card interest rate?I am in the school of thought that government should do as little as possible. Defend the nation, defend against all those intruding on others' rights, and that is that. Leave us to pursuit happiness our own way as long as we do not intrude on others' rights. The more you ask the government to do, the more right they take away.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 09:45:07 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 03, 2019, 07:49:19 pmQuoteI do agree with the presumption of innocence, but it's not that simple. What happens if the ten guilty persons who've escaped, harm more innocents?Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 10:04:47 pmYou missed the point: what if you were accused of a serious crime, you were innocent of? You wouldn't enjoy your life so much if you lost all the legal protections, you're advocating the abolishment of.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 11:11:15 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 04, 2019, 09:45:07 amIn that case we'd better lock up all innocents as no innocents would be harmed from then on. There's a massive difference between random suffering perpetrated by free criminals and institutionalised wrongdoings perpetrated against innocent people by the state even if the practical effect isn't that different.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 11:13:38 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 10:04:47 pmYou consistently imply only criminals get prosecuted and are subject to investigation which worries me a lot when it comes from someone who used to be part of the proverbial three letter agencies.

author: zl2wrw
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 12:15:14 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2019, 06:59:05 pmFrom my perspective, a few decades ago it used to be that strong encryption was mostly a geek / nerd novelty, something that "normal people" couldn't be bothered with, and due to the effort required to spy (physical tape recorders in analogue telephone exchanges, steaming open envelopes in the back room of the mail sorting centre, etc) not that many people got spied on (at least in this part of the world), and the ones that did tended to be the "big fish" who were involved in serious s#!t (ie the average Joe wasn't concerned because he wasn't up to anything bad enough to justify the effort required to spy on him).Now that pervasive mass surveillance is a thing (Snowden leaks, etc), some people are offended that their communications are being monitored, even though they are not involved in serious crime. So, the tech industry has responded by making strong encryption easy to use and in many cases the default (Buy our product - We protect your privacy!). To further put a fly in the ointment, many of the dominant industry players are multi-nationals, resulting in conflicts between different country's laws (eg US National Security Letter served on US office of a company where the data requested is held by their subsidiary in Ireland which is subject to the GDPR - Unless an appropriate warrant under Irish/EU law is obtained, the corporate has to break one nation's law in-order to comply with the other's)I think that this situation is very much like antibiotic resistance - if you use antibiotics willy-nilly (eg non-therapeutic dosing of livestock feed in CAFOs) then don't be surprised that bacteria develop resistance to those antibiotics. IMHO, if instead of pervasive mass surveillance we had a "pain in the backside" system (of having to actually get warrants on "probable cause" and serve them on providers) that was only used for those suspected criminals were it was worth the effort (think actual terrorism plots, murder, high-level organised crime, etc) then there would be little incentive for tech companies to go to the effort to make strong encryption the default for when "joe sixpack" sends a message to his friend asking him to score some weed for tomorrow night, and thus it would be easy to spy (in a targeted, specific manner) when required.eg I'll cite this situation:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_disputeGiven the serious nature of the allegations and the probable cause, I think that it would be entirely reasonable for a judge to give the FBI a warrant, and for the FBI to deliver said warrant and the device in question to Apple, and for Apple to then unlock the device and provide the suspect's data to the FBI.However, on the other hand, I think that it would be unreasonable for Apple to be required to give the FBI a "special unlock firmware" that the FBI (or others who may get hold of it) can use to unlock any compatible device, because this arguably eliminates the "pain the backside process" of first getting a warrant for each "target device" and serving each warrant on Apple...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 12:34:39 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 04, 2019, 11:11:15 amOr we could just let all criminals free, then there will be no institutionalised wrongdoings perpetuated against anyone by the state.I can see your point, but as I said, it's not straightforward. There's a balance between the two.On the one hand, the more serious the accusation, the greater level of protection the accused should have, as the penalty will be more severe. On the other hand, if someone who's guilty are freed, they will quite likely go on to harm others. If the authorities have failed to conduct a proper investigation, they will seen to be partly responsible due to their negligence, whether it be due to malpractice or the law not giving them enough power. This is why the law in most places does permit some level of action to be taken, by the authorities, against the accused in order to conduct their investigation. Someone might be arrested, detained for a period for questioning before being granted bail, during which they have to comply with certain conditions, such as not contacting the alleged victims' or their families. On aquittal, they should be released and appropriately compensated, if necessary.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 12:36:11 pm
content: Quote from: zl2wrw on October 04, 2019, 12:15:14 pmWe should remember that the widespread adoption of all kinds of encryption schemes has been a response of the public to revelations about agencies going through their data willy nilly and not the other way around. They had a situation where they could easily target suspects but leave the public at large alone but decided to abuse their powers instead. The situation we have today is the result of that. They blew the privilege they had and will now need to regain the trust instead of ask for more. We should also remind ourselves that intelligence was a very different game until very recently. Tracking someone and wiretapping them meant a significant physical effort only just 30 years ago whereas large groups of people can be automatically tracked from an office chair with ease today. "Going dark" is a bullshit excuse as there's never been more information on random citizens than ever before even with widespread encryption. It's the nature of agencies to want more and it's up to us to tell them to sod off.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 01:50:08 pm
content: Not giving the authorities the password to decrypt the data, could be deemed to be wilfully impeding the investigation, which is illegal in many jurisdictions. One could argue that if the accused is really innocent, then they have nothing to worry about by giving the authorities their password. The problem is they might have genuinely forgotten it or be unable to recall it at the time, due to anxiety, which can actually happen. What if they don't have the password, because the device isn't theirs or they share it with someone else?Suppose a couple have a portable hard drive with a porno on it, they've made together. It's encrypted and neither of them know the complete password. One of them knows the first five characters and the other, the remaining five. One of them is carrying the hard drive with them on a plain and gets stopped at the border, because they bear a slight resemblance to a known paedophile and the authorities suspect there's child porn on it. They demand the password, but the individual doesn't have it and won't believe their story that their partner has part of the password.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 02:00:02 pm
content: QuoteWith a properly implemented encryption scheme, it can be made impossible for even the manufacturer with total control of all of the sources, schematics and everything to access the data. Warrants don't beat math.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 02:56:02 pm
content: Quote from: MyHeadHz on October 04, 2019, 03:23:42 amWell, first, if you think you have it bad in the US, think again. It's still one of the rare countries where freedom is sort of protected. Yeah, sort of. Meaning, it's currently much worse in many other places in the world, including some that are supposed to be democracies.As to possible new constitutions, you sound pretty optimistic as to even the possibility of those points being considered in the future. The current trend pretty much everywhere in the world is certainly not towards more freedom, and it's likely that one of the first rights people are going to have in any future constitution is the "right" to be surveilled.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 03:04:57 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on October 04, 2019, 02:00:02 pmYup. This is why some encryption schemes are already illegal in some countries outside of military use. It's easy to "beat" math with laws. Then if authorities can't access data because of the encryption scheme, the suspects can simply be convicted by default.It's easy when you set the rules and have the power to enforce them. Even math and logic have no importance anymore in this case.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 03:54:48 pm
content: Encryption backdoors sounds like a reasonable idea. Here's why it isn't.

author: MyHeadHz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 04:02:17 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 04, 2019, 12:36:11 pmMany people may not remember what it was like before even that happened. It was presumed that basic protections for library privacy (for example) extended to the Internet. Many ISP's (all?) didn't generally log connections or track users on public networks for that reason, except for secure networks (like banks, payroll, etc), or when they had a valid and narrowly-tailored warrant to do so signed by a judge. Network credentials were not ubiquitous, unless it was for private data (like above). You would simply go to your local library, plug into the LAN or hop on the wifi and that's it, without the need to worry about tracking or privacy... so long as there was reason for the police to have a warrant for a tap. Then they would have to do their due police diligence to not abuse the rights of the innocents on the network with such warrants.That all changed around 2004-2005 (I can't remember exactly). There was a Supreme Court case that ruled a university could be held liable for music downloads because of copyright. In other words, corporate profits trumps the bill of rights. Other countries followed our precedent (sorry). Other knock-on effects included the ability for ISP's to throttle and censor web traffic. No warrant or due process needed.I suppose it isn't all bad, though. Encryption is a better way overall, even if it took 15 years to reach this point. The problem now is people "accidentally" (wink wink, nod nod) re-introducing old security vulnerabilities in GNU/Linux et al.

author: dnwheeler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 04:20:21 pm
content: There are many people who argue that the "slippery slope" argument is just a scare tactic and never really happens. This is a great example of a (very bad) slippery slope in process.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 04:27:58 pm
content: Reading through this thread I am struck by the remarkable worldwide similarity of the desired state. In spite of our many varied backgrounds we seem to think very much alike on privacy and related issues.I also want to point out the weakness of the Blackstone's ratio response. While there is general agreement that some additional chance of letting a bad person get away with their crime is an acceptable trade for preventing harm to an innocent party, there is only one way to totally prevent the chance of harm to an innocent person. It is to let everyone go. So to have any meaningful discussion on this area an agreement must be reached on acceptable ratio of harm. 10:1 is the ratio Blackstone used, james_s mentioned 1000:1. I know my personal comfort zone lies between those numbers, at least until I am the one in the crosshairs, but I can't really pick a number.

author: CaptCrash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 02, 2019, 10:41:48 pmThe proposed law is not only applicable to criminals, its applicable to everyone.So how about you answer the question without selectively choosing a group to try and target. Answer for the 99% you have referred too.Besides that, being accused does not make you a criminal. No matter what.If someone was convicted of something else, punished and has done their time/punishment then that’s done. So your guff above seems like a distraction

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 04:57:52 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on October 04, 2019, 04:27:58 pmWell, yes, but... You say "varied backgrounds", but the similarity looks to be confined mostly to people from western countries, unless I missed something... Would be interesting to hear about opinions from people from other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, etc.)

author: CaptCrash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 05:07:23 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 amIf you cannot think of examples, that just means you are not trying.Do the words “A dingos got my baby” mean anything to you. There’s two false convictions just there.Five minutes of searching for PERTH onlyThe Corryn Rayney caseThe Fazzari, Martinez and Pereiras caseThe Andrew Mallard caseThe Vincent Narkle caseThe John Button caseThe Mickelberg brothers CaseThe following link lists 11 cases including the 6 abovehttp://netk.net.au/WAHome.aspthat are all serious crimes where one or more people were falsely convicted.I’m not sure where you are from, so these particular cases may not be known to you, but they have been news in wa in the last few years.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 05:57:44 pm
content: Governments are full of people who are normal people from the general population, which means psycopaths, thieves, scammers, and, worst of all and greatest in numbers, bumbling, incompetent, useless fools. Whatever power they have they will abuse it and it is best they have as little power as possible. Information about individuals is something they should not have unless there is a dire need to know and confirmed by a judge.Snowden et al. have proven information is being abused and misused. Police illegally access information for their own private reasons. Anyone who trusts the government is a fool. The government is just an extortion protection scam and over our collective lifetimes will cause us more grief and pain than any terrorists ever could. And they try to make it moral by saying "well, we were elected". Not by me you weren't.Look at the bumbling mess in Australia where the government is demanding money erroneously.https://www.notmydebt.com.au/the-issuehttps://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/6305367/tasmanian-woman-fights-six-months-to-clear-29000-centrelink-debt/Your government can ruin your life and they don't care. They can do a lousy job or not do their job. They don't care. They don't have to. They are the government and you will pay their extortion whether you like it or not.I have been hurt by "the good guys" much more than by "the bad guys". I do not want them to have any more information about me than strictly necessary. And even that is too much.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 08:16:59 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 04, 2019, 09:45:07 amBy asking that question, it demonstrates that you either do not understand or disagree with one of the founding principles of Western Jurisprudence.Benjamin Franklin's famous quote also applies; "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 08:30:43 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 04, 2019, 08:16:59 pmI agree.Quote from: mtdoc on October 04, 2019, 08:16:59 pmThat quote, like plenty other famous quotes, has been taken out of context and initially meant the opposite of what we now think.https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-centuryAnother applicable quote:Quote

author: zl2wrw
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 08:50:27 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 04, 2019, 12:36:11 pmThanks Mr. Scram - That is exactly the point that I was trying to make

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 09:15:50 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on October 04, 2019, 08:30:43 pmI agree that the context of the quote is more nuanced that its common use butit was not the oppositeand the NPR article you cite does not say that.The important point is that as Mr Wittes in the interview states " maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties"

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 09:28:09 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 04, 2019, 09:15:50 pmI agree.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 10:21:43 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 04, 2019, 08:16:59 pmWhat the heck are you on about? Read my other posts. I fully understand the need for innocent until proven guilty. The accused need to have sufficient legal protection, otherwise all sorts of bad things happen. A classic example of this was operation Midland when one sick troublemaker threw accusations of child abuse and murder at high profile public figures. The police abused their power and ruined many lives in the process.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midland#Police_conduct_inquiryOn the other hand we can't have murders walking free, killing more people, hence the need to ask the question and find a balance.Actually I think it's equally important to compensate the falsely accused. Fortunately the UK doesn't have capital punishment, although it's no good if some of the accused died during the investigation, possibly with stress being a contributory factor.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2019, 10:42:46 pm
content: Quote from: CaptCrash on October 04, 2019, 05:07:23 pmNone of those cases you cited were as a result of access to or presentation of personal information from a digital device or service (the topic we're discussing here).No one is suggesting that Police should be free to access whatever they want or demand whatever they want. If your legal system allows the abuse of those powers, then they are being implemented incorrectly without proper checks and balances.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2019, 12:04:09 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 04, 2019, 10:42:46 pmNotruepoliceman would abuse his powers.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2019, 01:48:25 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 04, 2019, 10:42:46 pmQuote from: Halcyon on October 03, 2019, 02:57:51 amIf we're not talking about it, why are you talking about it? You said that, in general, Australia's false conviction rate is so low, you cannot think of a single example, and then went on to bash someone for providing you examples because they weren't the right kind of false conviction iny our mind.Quote from: Halcyon on October 04, 2019, 10:42:46 pmAs far as I understand, and after discussing it with you directly, I got the direct impression that the police could have their own reasons for demanding the release of information under threatfrom anyone without accusing them of a crime, in the absence of a lawyer, and without the permission of a court. If any of these are not true, please explain to the entire thread how.The issue here isn't with the police checking itself, because all authority checks itself, even corrupt authority. The issue is that the definition of what is unacceptable for authority to choose isoften not defined by the people, but by the authority themselves, thus providing a huge conflict of interest. The reason why authority should have their powers to control people limited by thepeople is exactly so that they cannot decide what is and is not acceptable behavior.I think the biggest issue is not so much the breach of privacy, or the power for the police to do so, but for the ability for police to independently extort potentially incriminating information fromprivate records people keep without the permission of a court or even the need to make a concrete accusation of crime. You may disagree, but I don't find threatening someone to give up theirphone much different to threatening someone to tell you what's in their mind. Both are locked away and very hard for police to get otherwise, the only difference being to get one is cryptography,and to get the other is torture or the technological invasion of one's ability to keep private thought.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2019, 05:32:43 am
content: Quote from: Tomorokoshi on October 05, 2019, 12:04:09 amIt is easy to tell true cops from the rest: they are the ones playing the bagpipes.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2019, 07:51:10 am
content: QuoteThey say they need it to catch child molesters which is the trigger word of the day. What a pile of BS. Governments that have abused private data and illegally spied on people. Governments that have been the cause of untold suffering by children and adults alike and who could not care less about human suffering need access to your Facebook because there might be an inappropriate photo of a little girl. They could add that there might be also some evidence that 30 years ago you inappropriately brushed the back of your hand up against a coworker's thigh.What a pile of BS. They just want to increase their power and control and will use whatever reasons might resonate more with the public. Hey, this will help us catch terrorists, child molesters, women abusers, those who use excessive amounts of plastic, ocean polluters, and those who are the cause of global warming. Isn't giving up your privacy a fair price to pay for all this good?Quote

author: DFC
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 05, 2019, 10:26:36 am
content: Quote from: soldar on October 04, 2019, 05:57:44 pmThis line made my day. Brilliant.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2019, 07:20:56 am
content: Quote from: Tomorokoshi on October 05, 2019, 12:04:09 amLanding in an airport in the UK you see signs posted saying you are obligated to provide on demand to the police passwords to your electronics or go to jail.Quote from: Tomorokoshi on October 05, 2019, 12:04:09 amThis is a joke. Right? Police abuse their power every day in every country in the world. Abuse of power is what humans do.And you can add mistakes and just bad practices.History is full of cases of corrupt or overzealous authorities ruining people's lives. I do not understand anyone who thinks it could not happen again.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2019, 07:23:47 am
content: Quote from: soldar on October 06, 2019, 07:20:56 amI believe that this was a humorous reference to the True Scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2019, 09:08:43 am
content: Quote from: daqq on October 06, 2019, 07:23:47 amYes, I got that and hence my earlier mention of bagpipes but I also wanted to give a serious answer.Don't trust the police. They are not out to protect anybody but themselves firstly and the state that pays them in second place.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2019, 10:13:07 am
content: I honestly don't believe that most of the police and government are out to get everyone. It's true there are crooks in the government and police force, but I doubt they represent the majority. Most of them want to do a good job and make the world a better place. It's true, average citizens need protection from the authorities, as giving people too much power inevitably results in some of them to abuse it, but they also need adequate power to do their jobs.This has already gone badly wrong in the UK. Operation Midland only happened because of the hysteria due to the Jimmy Saville scandal. There are countless accusations against Jimmy Saville during his lifetime but the police were too scare of being sued if they turned out to be false, so did nothing. After his death there was a huge public outcry: the victims must be believed! Unfortunately this changed the attitude to guilty, until proven innocent and the police abused their powers badly in operation Midland.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_SavileThe police don't need more powers. They need more resources.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2019, 02:13:55 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 06, 2019, 10:13:07 amI honestly don't believe anyone here has said they are all out to get anyone and everyone but it only takes one of them to ruin your day or your week or your year or your life. And it doesn't even have to be in bad faith, it can be blunder, incompetency, over zealousness...The worst cops are the ones who believe they are on a mission from God to clean the earth of evil. God save me from those who believe they know how to save the world. they are the ones who have done more evil in the history of the world.I can believe most people are relatively honest but I still lock my door and hide my valuables. I can believe most cops are mostly not bad but I still want them to have very limited power over me. Searches and seizures, if necessary and legal, should always be authorized by a judge.Quote from: Zero999 on October 06, 2019, 10:13:07 amThey need to leave me alone. That's what they need.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2019, 03:21:26 pm
content: Sadly I think this sort of crap is the future. Even in the US it's common for employers to ask your Facebook password for example or for various branches of government/authorities to ask you to unlock your phone etc. Here in Canada I'm sure it's a matter of time. We have bill C-51 which gives them virtually unlimited power when it comes to this sort of thing, it's just a matter of them doing it.

author: zl2wrw
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2019, 05:52:01 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on October 06, 2019, 07:20:56 amDoes that just mean that you have to unlock your device on request and let them look at the contents of the device? (including decrypting any files on your device - ie permitting them to search the data storage device that you are transporting across the border, just like you have to unlock a locked briefcase on request?)OrDoes that mean that you have to let them connect your device to the internet and log in to / allow them access to any online service that you hold credentials for, even if that online service is hosted in another country? (ie not under UK jurisdiction)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 12:47:36 am
content: Quote from: Tomorokoshi on October 05, 2019, 12:04:09 amWell, no *good* policeman (or woman) would abuse their powers, but police officers are human and there will always be a few bad apples no matter what we do. This is one reason that protections are necessary, checks & balances, the police should not have too much power on their own.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 12:50:13 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on October 07, 2019, 03:21:26 pmAs someone who has no social media presence to speak of in the traditional sense, I dread having to deal with something like this. I mean technically I do have a facebook account but I abandoned it years ago and have no idea what the password is, assuming the account is still active. I'm also not sure what the point is because it's trivial to have multiple social media accounts, so anyone doing something sketchy could easily just share their family-friendly or whatever account.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 12:58:38 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on October 07, 2019, 03:21:26 pmReally?I think, at least for now, this would be completely illegal over here.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 01:40:34 am
content: In Australia, citizens over 18 are forced to vote at local, state and federal elections. Don't vote, you can get fined. Don't pay the fine and you can be imprisoned. A Bill of Rights should include the right to not have to vote. The Bill of Rights should include the right for citizens to opt-out of having politicians and unions harassing citizens with robocalls.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 02:52:05 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on October 08, 2019, 01:40:34 amThe world needs your last sentence. And won't get it, because guess who passes the laws.

author: zl2wrw
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 05:16:06 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on October 08, 2019, 01:40:34 amYou still have a secret ballot over there don't you? In which case you should be able get away with something like the following:Show up to the polling site, collect your voting paper, take it to the booth, write something like "NO CONFIDENCE" on it, fold it in half, and put it in the ballot box.Of course you still have to actually show up at a polling site on the day to do this...

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 07:00:16 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on October 08, 2019, 01:40:34 amI agree. I do not understand forcing people to vote. It strikes me as forcing people to participate in a religion. I should have the freedom to not participate.I do not vote in Spain and I make a point of telling people the reason for this is that I consider the entire process has been perverted and corrupted. That is my political view and choice and it should be legal.Now, when called to form part of a voting table then the law does force people to do so. I have never been called but I kind of have a deep masochist desire that they would call me and I would be thrown in jail. In my dreams reporters would flock to hear my opinions on how corrupt and perverted the system is.What is ironic is that these measures that infringe on the privacy and liberty of the individual are happening in Anglo countries which are supposed to be the most protective of individual rights.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 03:33:40 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on October 08, 2019, 07:00:16 amThere is nothing ironic if you can see the immediate reasons why they need to crack down on civil liberty and pull your head out of sand and admit that they existEven less surprising if you can bring yourself to acknowledge the way in which their ultraliberal ideology created the problem in the first place

author: Leiothrix
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 10:14:08 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on October 08, 2019, 07:00:16 amIt's called democracy.By forcing people to turn up, most people will give a passing consideration to their choice and make one.If there was no need to turn up the only people who would vote are those with an axe to grind or nothing better to do.It means you get a reasonably fair polling of the population rather than just students, pensioners, lobbyists and crazies.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 10:30:40 pm
content: Quote from: Leiothrix on October 08, 2019, 10:14:08 pmIt has nothing to do with democracy. AUS is an exception. Most democracies do not force people to vote.IMHO democracy is a tool, not an end. Freedom is an end I aspire to and democracy is only a tool towards that end. We are not here to serve democracy, as many people seem to think. Democracy should serve us.If voting were compulsory in my country I'd be protesting. And maybe looking into paper that mysteriously self-ignites after a while. Or turns into goo.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2019, 10:31:13 pm
content: Quote from: Leiothrix on October 08, 2019, 10:14:08 pmIt's more likely the opposite is true. By forcing people to vote the quality of the decision making inevitably suffers and the results do too. It's like forcing people to have fun. It just doesn't work. You can't even stop people from turning up and handing in an empty voting ballot or invalidating it some other way. People can get very creative in ways not very useful to the democracy.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 08:54:16 am
content: Quote from: Leiothrix on October 08, 2019, 10:14:08 pmMaybe there is a method to that madness. I suppose you can always write "don't care" or "hate you all" on the ballot. Maybe somebody even tolls all the diferent alternative votesQuote from: Mr. Scram on October 08, 2019, 10:31:13 pmYou don't need to force anyone to have them vote. Just promise free stuff or threaten that the other guy is devil incarnate

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 08:56:47 am
content: Quote from: soldar on October 08, 2019, 10:30:40 pmJust to clarify, whilst Australia has "mandatory voting", there is no law which states you must vote. Anyone can get their name marked off the list and walk right out the door again. Submitting an invalid or blank vote either in person or via mail isn't unlawful.I think it's stupid... but how else do you get the dole bludgers off their butts to vote (or draw cock and balls on their ballot papers)?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 12:06:21 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on October 09, 2019, 08:56:47 amI disagree with such law. I believe it is trying to impose a conformity with which I do not agree. What would you say if there was an obligation to go to church or mosque? You just have to "go". You do not have to believe or pray. Just go.No. I do not agree with that. It is politicians imposing on us their game. If you like their game then you can go vote voluntarily but if you think the game is rigged or simply not worth playing you should be allowed to stay home or go do something else. Forcing people to vote is an imposition I do not agree with.If I am asked whether I would rather be sodomized by A or by B I do not think I want to play that game. Especially since both will just take turns anyway. I do not want to even pretend I agree with the system and it should be my right to not go along.Maybe if they came up with more interesting questions like "shall we all go shit on the grave of A's mother or on the grave of B's mother?" Should A eat B's shit or should B eat A's shit? Both? Ok then.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 12:30:11 pm
content: Why does every single discussion here end up about cock, balls, sodomy, shit etc?Being forced to go to the polling station is daft and a complete waste of money, which should be spent elsewhere or given back to the people, in the form of tax cuts. Does anyone have any idea of how much money is wasted pursuing those who fail to turn up to the poll? There must be hundreds of perfectly valid reasons why a certain person may be unavailable on polling day and I find it hard to believe they actually would waste money investigating whether they're valid or not.Generally having as fewer laws, which prohibit or compel people to do things is a good thing and is essential for a free society. As the number if retarded laws increases, not only do people become less free, but the cost of enforcing them rises to the point when it just isn't economical to deal with the number of lawbreakers. At some point, the authorities start turning a blind eye to things, because it's not possible to prosecute so many people. This is what happens in dictatorships: everyone ends up breaking the law at some point and the authorities only bother to go after those who have upset them.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 02:14:17 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 09, 2019, 12:30:11 pmFully agree.As I often say, freedom can't be enforced. That's just nonsense, and never works. I guess sovietic communism was made to free people from capitalism. They used a lot of force to get there. Were people more "free" then? It doesn't really look like it. They just got enslaved to something else, and arguably, it looked a lot worse.Forcing people to vote in a democracy is an essential nonsense as well, if you think about it. A democracy is supposed to give the people full power. Including, obviously, the power not to vote.An obligation to vote would just be on the verge of a subtle, but real dictatorship.All you can reasonably do to free people is to create the conditions for more freedom, not force it.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 07:45:27 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on October 09, 2019, 12:06:21 pmI totally agree with you. I don't think Australia should have mandatory voting at all. Leave politics for those who are interested, rather than making it a popularity contest.

author: Leiothrix
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 08:52:50 pm
content: I think it's pretty interesting that there are people that are literally dying for the opportunity to vote; yet there are people saying they would protest if they had to vote.Non-mandatory voting is how Trump got elected. There were widespread protests/riots after he was sworn in, I'll bet that most of those complaining didn't vote. There was a 55% turnout in that election; and if you break that down to demographics there are whole segments of the population effectively missing.In contrast Australia has a roughly 92% voter turnout with roughly a 5%informal vote rate, which is mostly made up of mistakes rather than deliberate "donkey" voting. (Source,Source)If they were forced to show up to a polling booth, most of them would have castavote; and most of them would have put at least a few minutes thought into it.From reading some of the posters other posts I think it's more in the way of a "I want to be told what to do" anti-authoritarian stance. Sure authority shouldn't be blindly trusted, but sometimes it actually is for your own good.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2019, 10:51:28 pm
content: Quote from: Leiothrix on October 09, 2019, 08:52:50 pmAnd mandatory voting is what brings about the topic of this thread: having to reveal your passwords to police on demand.The notion that the people always get it right is not borne out by history.QuoteQuote from: Leiothrix on October 09, 2019, 08:52:50 pmI don't like half measures. If they are going to force me to vote I hope they will fill in the ballot for me and deposit it in the box. Much better that way.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2019, 01:05:04 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on October 04, 2019, 05:10:47 amUpon seeingtoday's order signingnews conference, I need to update my earlier reply a bit. The orders are directly related to the two above replies (mine, and the one I quoted).What was said in those replies are likely no longer valid once the orders kick in.Two new Executive Orders were signed today (10/9/2019) regarding regulations issued by federal agencies. They are titled under "Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication"In a nutshell, any change in regulation would be more transparent and "all [regulations will be] on an internet searchable website. What is not on the website is rescinded." (Quoted as best I can recall from the chair of OMB who spoke next to Trump just before Trump signed the orders.) Trump also emphasized the need for agencies to work with people instead of just throwing mega-buck fines at folks they want to close down. Three victims of such sudden/hidden regulation were invited to speak.Link to the order:https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-rule-law-transparency-fairness-civil-administrative-enforcement-adjudication/