> The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime.
How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts police testimony over accused
States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it.
Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.
And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions.
Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri...
EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer"
People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I think he wrote that book in part because he was frustrated by the lack of nuance in his presentation and the fact that it sort of "went viral". 13 million views for a lecture about law is pretty astonishing.
Professor Duane has a video on that topic.
Just out of curiosity - are you possibly confusing civil vs. criminal cases? The 5th amendment does apply in civil cases to the extent that you cannot be compelled to testify - but a judge can interpret your lack of response in a negative light in a civil setting. This differs from criminal cases where the lack of testimony is not admissible nor can it be considered in determination or sentencing.
Just thought I'd help clarify where I was coming from. That trial does seem to fit the scenario though.
But in the real world, unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. Even the idea that there are only a short list of things that a government can do is a foreign concept to most folks.
Correction: there is no legal defense.
There are other defenses, historically.
Indeed. Revolution, rebellion. None of these *have* to be violent per se. The Pax French have handled massive changes in gov without armed conflict in the 20th Century (not counting WWII and Nazis occupation.) It will be very interesting to see how well their democracy will counter this.
In Europe for example, complacent with the police taking away the homeless, complacent with the laws slowly eroding everyone's freedoms, complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people.
It's the same old tired trope of "first they came for X, and I didn't speak out". In the end there will be no one to speak for the majority, either.
We have it coming and we'll get it.
Odd choice of topics to be outraged about.
Canada may have better outcomes on average, because it picks up the very bottom (imagine how easy it is to help the bottom quartile of health). But I think it also drops the ball on people who are proactively trying to optimize their health because then the answer becomes "Not indicated, you're not sick enough for us to care", and then it's outright illegal to say "fine I'll pay out of pocket for the care!" (save for going international)
Don't worry, they won't let you in anyway.
Won't even let their own people in (or out) at the minute.
So it is anyway about trust - and how to check reliable, if they deserve trust.
This is how I would choose, which places to visit.
Australia is still quite good on that list, as cases where the police officers for example - are the ones doing the kidnapping and ransoming and investigation about it all by themself, like it is common in other places - are still quite rare.
My experience with australian police officers are a friendly warning for me, for ignoring a red light while at foot. And a asshole police officer stopping and handing out a hefty fine for us, for not "deadstopping" at a stop sign at a empty roadcrossing at night - explicitely, because we were driving a backpackers car and not a local one (he said so)
So all in all, I would probably visit again.
Yeah, they do, but that's illegal and NOT encoded in law
So Aus has just made police tampering legal
What is allowed here, is hacking for the police. That necessarily can include changing files on the target computers (e.g. deleting logs) - this is the way I read this. And I would see the point in it - if it really only get applied in serious crimes like terrorism to catch the whole network for example. (back to trust)
But yes, it maybe makes it more easy to tamper undetected with evidence in sneaky ways, but not if for example you would log the hacking activities by default of the police. In fact, I strongly believe that this should be done, but doubt, it will be.
> What is allowed here, is hacking for the police. That necessarily can include changing files on the target computers (e.g. deleting logs)
How is this not tampering with evidence?
When there is an email on the computer that will be used as a proof - then why is this been tampered with, if just a system log was altered?
Courts are usually very strict to only allow "clean" evidence. Cases have been thrown totally over, because of a minor fuckup of police. It is all a question of how it is implemented and used. And sure, it is a very extreme thing and sadly the use case "only for serious crime" is in danger of soon to be applied to allmost anything.
EDIT: since I can't directly reply - the article linked below directly contradicts the URL on the HN post - it clearly states that warrants would be needed. It is also political hyperbole and contains very few details about the actual bill. I recommend scrolling down to jpollock's response for credible sources.
Since when is it legal in any democracy that the police can temper (modify, add) or delete proof? That's just beyond my understanding.
But strong judiciary and executive (and strong borders between them) is a core understanding in every real democracy.
If the executive OR the judiciary can do everything (or are completely intermingled) you have no democracy but a "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ;)