Hacker News Reader

Comment by meltyness | Hacker News Reader

This is uncanny and worryingly specific, and I'm not a lawyer, but if you're not already under suspicion of being a criminal, then installing graphene doesn't match this definition I think

View on HN

"This regulation will only apply to people who are already criminals" is a line that has never held

Suspect, they wrote, and that happens all the time. If you go into a store on the way home from work, and 99 days this works fine but the 100th day they want to look in your bag, but you can't show them confidential drawings of the Google Pixel 14 Max that you carry as part of your work, now they'll think you really did steal something and you went from no suspicion (spot check) to definitely a suspect and new things start to apply to you, e.g. if you leave without resolving the suspicion the police might have grounds to enter your house or search you when you walk out next time. The suspicion is based on being a suspect, not on any actual evidence (nobody saw you put anything in your bag)

I mean, you don't really have to speculate about what this is for, it's for an authority providing for lawful search, it seems pretty well-scoped, and similar to any old search warrant, which is not a new thing, really https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/deccd...

Basically, they're not really setting up for a blanket ban on personal security features, that interpretation is obviously catastrophizing. Not that there aren't hamfisted laws somewhere like this, but NSWs implementation seems OK I guess

We have mass surveillance already in all 5 eyes countries that assumes that anyone can be a criminal at all times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com