SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
In the wake of recent changes to NZ law to allow the NZ government to demand traveller's pass codes to their devices when they cross NZ borders, the Australian government is stepping up its plan to snoop on user communications by introducing a systematic weakness or vulnerability to products and systems including ISPs. While being very loose on details and unclear exactly how this would work the so called 'decryption bill' while claiming that "The protections provided in this bill are actually greater than what presently exists in the physical world.” Meanwhile, not one single person has provided concrete information about the practical real world implications of this bill.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Australia follows New Zealand to demand passwords
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 62 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less
than half of you half as well as you deserve.
-- J. R. R. Tolkien
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:18PM (4 children)
In the old days, there was no theory of behavior that governments tried to impose on society. Rather, everybody just waited around for a problem to arise, and then that one, particular, exact, specific, precise case would be tried (it's in the name, folks: "tried") and thereby be adjudicated. This formed case law, and the collection of cases formed the common law of the land.
After a while, related cases would involve divergent adjudication, so a learned body of scholars known as legislators would standardize existing practice (you know, that's what "standardization" used to mean: Clarify and regularize EXISTING practice). In so doing, Anglo-Saxon government was both evolutionary and conservative, having society lead government, rather than having government try (and always fail) to lead society.
That's why the devastating revolutions of mainland Europe never hit the UK. But, that's all changing now. Common Law is giving way to Civil Law, where paper-pushing bureaucrats try to play the inherently impossible role of "Intelligent Designer".
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
You can't try a case unless you have a law to accuse the person of breaking.
The bypass, the old way that did bind it together, was the influence of $church and their ability to interpret $scripture to say you were guilty of something.
And what is $scripture, if not a bunch of people agreeing to write down the social contract, as directed by $power ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:56PM
Judges make law in Common Law, and they cover their asses by pointing the finger at as much precedent as possible.
You're speaking about mainland Europe's Civil Law, which hails from the Roman era, not Anglo-Saxon Common Law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:29AM (1 child)
I guess you missed the actual revolutions that did occur. The Glorious Revolution, for example.
If you mean peasants' rebellions, what about Wat Tyler?
There was a lot that went on there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:02AM
Nothing has ever changed radically, because the system has been that fucking good.
Which Revolutionary Government are the French now operating under? And, let's forget the fact that they basically adopted an Anglo-Saxon framework, sans Common Law.