Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#51

Post by drchap »

DoubleCribble wrote: post #47
chimeracoder wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a strong gun culture in Australia as well, and as an Australian, and a gun owner, I am perfectly fine with not being able to have an assault rifle. Because no one else can either, and schools don’t get shot up Civilians in the US are not allowed to own assault rifles either, and haven't for decades. There are a tiny number of assault rifles in civilians' hands that were first sold over 30 years ago and were…

Sure we can. It's the "A" in AR-15. What you're probably thinking of is "automatic".

The "A" in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company where they were originally designed and manufactured.

The first rifle they produced was the AR-1, a bolt-action rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite#Products

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#52

Post by chimeracoder »

cromulent wrote: post #50
chimeracoder wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a strong gun culture in Australia as well, and as an Australian, and a gun owner, I am perfectly fine with not being able to have an assault rifle. Because no one else can either, and schools don’t get shot up Civilians in the US are not allowed to own assault rifles either, and haven't for decades. There are a tiny number of assault rifles in civilians' hands that were first sold over 30 years ago and were…

The terms are confusing for a non-American. My understanding is that in the USA you can't buy a "fully-automatic rifle", which is what the rest of the world calls a machine gun. Nor can you buy an "automatic weapon" which is a gun that looks like an automatic rifle. You can buy a semi-automatic AR-15, which can shoot 45 rounds or so per minute. As an Aussie, I'm also cool with not allowing people to have AR-15s. A ro…

> The terms are confusing for a non-American.

The terms are not confusing. "Assault rifle" is a technical term with a precise definition. How a gun looks doesn't actually matter.

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#53

Post by argentpatrol »

cromulent wrote: post #50
chimeracoder wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a strong gun culture in Australia as well, and as an Australian, and a gun owner, I am perfectly fine with not being able to have an assault rifle. Because no one else can either, and schools don’t get shot up Civilians in the US are not allowed to own assault rifles either, and haven't for decades. There are a tiny number of assault rifles in civilians' hands that were first sold over 30 years ago and were…

The terms are confusing for a non-American. My understanding is that in the USA you can't buy a "fully-automatic rifle", which is what the rest of the world calls a machine gun. Nor can you buy an "automatic weapon" which is a gun that looks like an automatic rifle. You can buy a semi-automatic AR-15, which can shoot 45 rounds or so per minute. As an Aussie, I'm also cool with not allowing people to have AR-15s. A ro…

In the US, you can buy a machine gun if it was privately owned and registered prior to 1986, though some states ban machine guns.

> A round or two a minute should be enough for most people.

That's because you don't know how to defend yourself with a gun, if for no other reason than that self-defense (with a gun or anything else for that matter) is effectively illegal in your country. Yet you're apparently qualified to tell me what kind of gun I should use for self-defense.

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#54

Post by lozenge »

linuxftw wrote: post #48

If only there was some theory of government that limited the government's power. Something that specifically granted powers to the government, and no other powers, so we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff in the future when an ill-informed majority wants to make decisions for the rest of us.

I'm not aware of one? Bureaucracies have their ways of squirming past any goal you set. (See: patriot act, NSLs, FISA court, Anwar Al-Awlaki)

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#55

Post by fandango »

Arubis wrote: post #13
cascom wrote: post #10

I was planning on moving over to fast mail over Labor Day, not so sure now.

That’s an excellent point. I may not renew with them, and it has nothing to do with FastMail themselves. Australia seems like precisely the right-sized society to be affected by pushback against this sort of behavior without being large enough to overwhelm outside opposition.

I will also leave FastMail because of this, just need to look for a good replacement. ProtonMail is a bit too much for me, as I rely a lot on serverside search.

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#56

Post by talaketu »

amckinlay wrote: post #49
marcus_holmes wrote: post #6

Always find it amazing how strong the urge to authoritarianism is in Australia. You'd think we'd all be larrikins and chilled out on the beach inviting newcomers to the barbie. But no, we're apparently terrified of immigrants and love nothing more than the smack of firm leadership.

Migration policy really has nothing to do with this surveillance law.

Oh come on. This was a comment that identified a general attitude towards authority and security in Australia. Fear of terrorism is used to justify both surveillance laws and, at some level, the xenophobia behind "we will decide" immigration policy. Social/political roots trace back to establishment as a penal colony.

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#57

Post by BLKNSLVR »

Semaphor wrote: post #19
Arubis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an excellent point. I may not renew with them, and it has nothing to do with FastMail themselves. Australia seems like precisely the right-sized society to be affected by pushback against this sort of behavior without being large enough to overwhelm outside opposition.

So, what FastMail alternatives are there to be recommended?

Disroot.org, https://disroot.org/en ProtonMail, https://www.protonmail.com Tutanota, https://tutanota.com Zohomail, https://zoho.com

The first three are just copied and pasted from this article: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/foss-software-alternati...

I've used (am using) Zoho for a domain of mine. It doesn't see a lot of use - but it's worked whenever I've needed it.

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#58

Post by BLKNSLVR »

1. This feels like the beginnings of the inevitable and on-going battles for power between technology-based multinationals and governments as foretold in various dystopian sci-fi novels.

2. Whilst all the issues in the article are cause for concern, what are the practical, technical and legal limitations to these requests? As I stated in a comment to a previous article, warrants are required for pursuing end-users (don't know about companies), so that means it's not a willy-nilly application of new powers.

It wouldn't be practical to pursue trivial crimes through forcing a company to release an intentionally insecure app update that targets one person.

Having said that, however, the Australian Government has authorised warrants to raid the homes of whistleblowers and their lawyers (see below), so I'm probably underestimating the pettiness of the powerful.

3. Further articles illustrating Australia's recent and worrying lurch towards authoritarianism and nationalism:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/witness-k-and-bernard-...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-29/chelsea-manning-austra...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-23/huawei-banned-from-pro...

First they helped to liberate East Timor and I said "good onya, mate", then they tried to screw billions of dollars from East Timor by illegally planting listening devices in the offices of the East Timorese government and I said "whoa, hang on a sec, that's Unaustralian! That's not why we helped them achieve independence in the first place is it? You sly c*nts!", then they came for my private messages...

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#59

Post by cromulent »

chimeracoder wrote: post #52
cromulent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terms are confusing for a non-American. My understanding is that in the USA you can't buy a "fully-automatic rifle", which is what the rest of the world calls a machine gun. Nor can you buy an "automatic weapon" which is a gun that looks like an automatic rifle. You can buy a semi-automatic AR-15, which can shoot 45 rounds or so per minute. As an Aussie, I'm also cool with not allowing people to have AR-15s. A ro…

> The terms are confusing for a non-American. The terms are not confusing. "Assault rifle" is a technical term with a precise definition. How a gun looks doesn't actually matter.

> "Assault rifle" is a technical term with a precise definition.

Maybe in your country. The Encyclopedia Britannica says:

"assault rifles are distinguished by their high rate of automatic or semiautomatic fire...In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition."

So an assault rifle can be automatic or semiautomatic, and you may buy an assault rifle that has been modified to remove automatic action. Isn't that confusing?

https://www.britannica.com/technology/small-arm#ref520660

Re: Australia’s Proposed Surveillance Laws Will Break the Trust Tech Depends On

#60

Post by marcus_holmes »

lainga wrote: post #40
ajdlinux wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Australian, who has many issues with these surveillance laws, I'm also 100% behind our gun control.

What do you see as the difference between them?

between surveillance laws and gun control?
Post reply on HN