Hacker News Reader

Comment by kgeist | Hacker News Reader

I just checked that the right against self-incrimination exists in Australia, too. Isn't it a violation of this law to require someone to tell their passwords?

View on HN

Even in the US the case law around self-incrimination due to forced password disclosure does not seem to be settled. There have been multiple cases were judges have considered passwords foregone conclusions, e.g. [1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/us-supreme-court-nixe...

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in the USA you cannot be compelled to provide your password as such, but you can be ordered to produce the decrypted content. I guess the only real distinction there is that you're allowed to keep the password itself secret.

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

By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? Your government permits you to to have those rights through extremely similar mechanisms to ours in Australia.

Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretations. Ie, your government is actively in the process of deciding how the legal system interacts with the citizens and the constitution, which is definitively your government giving you the rights. See, every 2A Supreme Court battle ever.

>By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate?

The 2nd.

Edit: >definitively your government giving you the rights

Because we've gotten lazy and allowed it. Most of our legislative buildings have public balconies above the floors where laws are made. The architecture is sort of a reminder/implicit threat. Or it was, once upon a time. "We're watching you. Don't make any laws that are draconian".

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

There's a specific method for amending it that requires a very high level of agreement among both houses of Congress and the various state legislatures. In theory Congress or the executive branch could just ignore that and go do whatever they want as long as the judiciary didn't stop them, or the Supreme Court could use weasel-words to make the Constitution mean something other than what it says. Both of those things have happened to varying degrees over the years, but it would be a huge expression of contempt for the rule of law for anyone say outright that was what they were doing.

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

If your government tries to change it without the approval of the states, etc. (see constitutional amendments in the US), you kill the government. That's what the second amendment is for. To be pedantic, they are not the actual government anymore when they don't follow the constitution, but they have to be killed all the same to clear space for the new legitimate government.

> They have to be killed

Who have the power to do that? Does individual state have army?

That's where the armed bears come into play, isn't it?

You are aware that the government can just drone strike you, right? Or have a cop gun you down (with qualified immunity, they won't even get any punishment!)

Yes. But that's a far-cry from where we are now. There are americans in positions of authority who would happily wield that type of violence against other americans. There are also americans in positions of authority who would be unhappy about it.

Imagine telling a bunch of 20 year olds in the national guard they're going to kill some dangerous domestic terrorists. Imagine What happens if they don't think those people are really dangerous.

With how the average cop/soldier of american origin acts, half of them would have fired the bullet before you finished the sentence "domestic terrorist".

> cant your government just change it?

Short answer: no. The federal government (Congress) can propose amendments, but ratification requires the approval of a 2/3 majority of the 50 states' legislatures (38/50).

And remember that in the US, the governments of each state are not just sub-divisions of the federal government, but totally distinct entities with their own constitutions, legislatures, elections, etc. The federal government has no direct control over the states, and thus can not force them to approve an amendment.

So, to change the US Constitution, 39 separate governments need to agree, and that's a pretty high bar.

> So, to change the US Constitution, 39 separate governments need to agree,

In practice, you simply need the minimum majority of the supreme court to agree with an 'interpretation' of the constitution that gives you what you want.

Well if you want to follow that line of argument, the Supreme Court is irrelevant since the executive branch or military can just choose to ignore its rulings.

But assuming the rule of law still exists, there is no way the Supreme Court would be able to "interpret" the Constitution to allow amendments in another way. The Constitution is very explicit about the amendment process, and it has been performed by that process 27 times to date. No way to "interpret" your way out of that.

(OK, yes, I know constitutional conventions are another route. But that has never been tried.)

In principle I agree, and will admit that for a second I marvelled at the wisdom of your forefathers.

In practice, I fully expect that those rights are only a jedi mind-trick "Your rights are not being violated" away in any case where it is of actual consequence (e.g. Assange)

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly not true when you consider how many cases the government itself loses.

We apparently have differing understandings about “inalienable.”

Clearly the government does.

But that's the kicker. If the government does take inalienable rights away, you still have them, it's the gov't that needs correction, not the right.

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

You are more than a century late. The government has prohibited people from putting drugs in their bodies for a long time. Alcohol, illegal drugs, pharmaceutical drugs rejected by the FDA... There is no serious interpretation of "body autonomy" that gives the government the right to ban alcohol/drugs but doesn't give it the right to stop women from killing fetuses.

I dunno, usa does not sounds like shining beacon. Between qualified immunity, asset forfeiture, and general acceptance of cops right to shoot you cause you have hands wrong ... plus justice in us is so expensive, that you likely can't afford it in the first place.

Technically he's not required to tell anyone his passwords - this surveillance is part of the conditions for his temporary bail, and he can refuse them at any time; however, then the default conditions (i.e. going back to incarceration) would apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com