There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself.

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.

I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1]

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.

The content in the book you're talking about is probably better represented by Professor Duane's original viral video on the topic:

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.

Yes, but iirc the best advice at the time of the viral video was invoke the 5th, but it has since evolved to do not invoke the 5th. Insist on your 6th .

There's quite a bit of nuance in that recommendation. It's also very much about how you invoke your rights.

Since Salinas v. Texas you cannot stay quiet. You must invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak to the police, else they can use your silence against you at trial(!).

Professor Duane has a video on that topic.

I seem to recall the correct thing to do is to ask for council.

That too. "I will not speak without a lawyer present" should do.

> 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.

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.

I think GP must be referring to Scalia's vote in Salinas v. Texas, which decided that a defendant's silence can be used against them at trial unless they specifically invoked their 5th amendment right to be quiet.

Most directly I am referring to Duane's advice, of which I do not know his direct source (but I'm sure it's in the book as there are extensive notes).

Just thought I'd help clarify where I was coming from. That trial does seem to fit the scenario though.

Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment. Conservatives hate the ninth.

They've limited themselves because people wanted it (often violently). Now the majority of people are complacent and that's when the "leaders" accumulate power.

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.

And just because you are comfortable with the current regime having these powers and all knowing insight into your life, it doesn't mean you will be with the next and the next...

>complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people.

Odd choice of topics to be outraged about.

i will add anecdata that I know many healthcare professionals in Canada and they are down right burnt out and angry (even before Covid19) about how the system is giving terrible care to people. They want to do a better job but cannot with quotas and rules dictated by the rule makers.

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)

I wake up every day hating I'm alive and can only sleep with alcohol. Apparently, I'm far from the only one being denied proper mental healthcare. I'm not talking therapy, just medicaiton. So close, yet out of reach. So yeah.

Indeed. To say it another way, state power is total by default. Every individual right is carved out of that default total power.

The 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution limits the US government only to the powers explicitly enumerated in article 1 section 8.

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.

Unfortunately, a depressing number of people believe that an all-powerful government is the solution to all their problems. "There outta be a law" runs rampant.

>There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself.

Correction: there is no legal defense.

There are other defenses, historically.

While you are correct, these other defenses are messy and miserable to live through. Let’s hope we find a less bloody path forward.

>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.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar like this. It's not what the site is for.

The GP comment wasn't substantive either but the idea, when replying, is to move further away from hell, not jump into it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I stand by my comments. I am all for a call to action in the face of illiberal governance, but my correspondent made an unsubtle appeal to political violence. That is wrong.

Sorry, but grandiose political rhetoric, including "I stand by my comments", is a bad fit for the trivial medium of an internet forum.

As for 'unsubtle appeal to political violence', please abide by this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It's not at all obvious that you read the comment correctly, and 'unsubtle' is a big overstatement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> So get up on your soap box, and get people to the ballot box.

I think it's important to understand the context of a statement like this as it pertains to the United States at least. At some point in the last 6 years, the average person on both sides of the aisle has felt as if they have some reason to be quite skeptical of the security of our electoral system. It has been one of the defining issues of two consecutive election cycles. Setting aside the question of whether or not that skepticism is warranted, the rather worrying fact remains: as a whole, our belief in the mechanism of voting is probably approaching an all time low. This is quite concerning.

This is true. Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook discusses this further and talks about how seizing power in most modern, western democracies is very hard.

> Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going.

Don't worry, they won't let you in anyway.

Won't even let their own people in (or out) at the minute.

Tyrants are going to tyrant.

Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence all the time anyway.

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.

> Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence all the time anyway

Yeah, they do, but that's illegal and NOT encoded in law

So Aus has just made police tampering legal

Well, I did not read the law in detail, but I am pretty sure, that tampering with evidence is not included and still forbidden with the threat of criminal investigation for the officers doing it.

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.

> tampering with evidence is not included and still forbidden

> 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?

Not everything is 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.

Check the source, and try to verify it against any other information. I can't seem to find anything from a credible source to verify the extent this article claims

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.

>power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data

Since when is it legal in any democracy that the police can temper (modify, add) or delete proof? That's just beyond my understanding.

Democratic != righteous, no matter we wish they coincide.

That's not what i said.

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" ;)

It’s nothing special anyway, not worth the long flight

Nothing special??? It has some of the most diverse and crazy flora and fauna in the world...

I can watch documentaries in 4K about Australia’s flora and fauna and get 95% of the benefit without being treated like a drug lord at a border crossing on the way