Australia is becoming a surveillance state • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#131

Post by weimerica » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:15 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #105

noxer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes work the same, secure the monopoly on force by removing arms is a key step for any authoritarian gov.

Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'

> Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people".

It is, until it isn't.

> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?

See: Middle East

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#132

Post by powerapple » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:15 PM UTC

a0-prw wrote: post #5

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #3

What real/perceived security risk is AU dealing with to justify all these legal changes? They seem relatively isolated from many of the threats facing the US/EU west regarding terrorism/extremism. Borders in AU are pretty naturally secured by oceans.

Oz is part of the 5 eyes. The West in general, but especially the 5 eyes (anglosphere) have been waging an economic and propaganda war on China since Obama "pivoted east". Anti Chinese rhetoric in Oz media and from their politicians has been strident . It is quite possible that the 5 eyes are ramping up methods of internal control in expectation of a war with China.

I was thinking the same the other day. FB recommended a news article from Australian media yesterday, basically the journalists translated some Chinese text into some negative words in English, and wrote a piece for it, unbelievable. The way I see it is that both China and US do not want to go to war, but they all know there is a possibility you cannot ignore, the media is preparing for it. If you can label your enemy as non-human or evil, you don't have to worry about backslash from your citizen when a war breakout. I strongly feel this is the reason for what is happening now. In a few years, there will be conflicts.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#133

Post by nanis » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #105

noxer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes work the same, secure the monopoly on force by removing arms is a key step for any authoritarian gov.

Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'

> anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?

I am not taking sides in the underlying argument.

I am simply astonished that you can make this statement in the face of U.S. forces running away from Afghanistan.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#134

Post by candiodari » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #127

Cyril_HN wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point. The point is that it means a government must resort to violence and it may be unwilling to do so. Whereas if people don't have guns, then the government can be incredibly overpowering without having to step over the threshold of violence, which makes it more likely.

Governments have no problem "stepping over the threshold" and using violence. If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.

Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower.

When push comes to shove, guns allow normal people to escalate violence to the point the government stops MUCH quicker and faster than without guns.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#135

Post by weimerica » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #127

Cyril_HN wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point. The point is that it means a government must resort to violence and it may be unwilling to do so. Whereas if people don't have guns, then the government can be incredibly overpowering without having to step over the threshold of violence, which makes it more likely.

Governments have no problem "stepping over the threshold" and using violence. If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.

> If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.

The government order is acted on by a person, at the end of the day. During the lockdowns my City authority closed all public parks including the one across the street from my house. They also retasked all Parks & Recreation employees to sit in the parks and yell at anyone using the parks. Many citizens, myself included, outright ignored the P&R staff and continued to make use of the park under the threat of "calling the police." Even after the lockdown ended and parks re-opened, the staff at our local park continued with their own "closure."

However, at no point did officers respond let alone use state-sanctioned violence against citizens. That a government flunky gives an order does not mean it will be enforced let alone result in violence from authorities.

Ultimately, this is a continuous function rather than a boolean as you're implying. Citizen ownership of arms helps juice that function in our favor.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#136

Post by onethought » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:21 PM UTC

joshsyn wrote: post #95

taberiand wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A whole lot more people simply don't think about it at all.

Which is exactly the kind of complicitness I have an issue with. I don't believe in giving bureaucrats enormous power over an individual. Freedom is easy to give away, hard to take back. Plenty of examples around, why.

Australia… literally a country of prisoners. Seems like freedom isn’t that hard to take back.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#137

Post by stackedinserter » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:21 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #105

noxer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes work the same, secure the monopoly on force by removing arms is a key step for any authoritarian gov.

Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'

> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?

I do think that in case of armed resistance, US government will step back instead of nuking Oklahoma City.

Also, search "chechen wars". Large well-equipped Russian army with tanks, artillery and air force lost to people armed with AK's, determination and grassroots support from locals.

For more recent example see what happened in Afghanistan. The best the most powerful army on the planet could do is sitting inside their bases with multiple security perimeters.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#138

Post by tsujp » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:22 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #91

BFLpL0QNek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was written in 1964 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country , it still rings true today.

Have to quote this bit for those too lazy to follow the link: Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.

This genuinely describes the recent delta outbreak in Sydney both at the lack of action from the NSW Premier and our Prime Minister.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#139

Post by neartheplain » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #105

noxer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes work the same, secure the monopoly on force by removing arms is a key step for any authoritarian gov.

Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'

>Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?

Ask the Taliban.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#140

Post by refurb » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

bradrn wrote: post #125

sumedh wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the justification in banning citizens from leaving?

At the most basic level: if people don’t leave, they can’t come back with the virus. Also, we’ve instituted mandatory hotel quarantine for anyone coming to Australia. But hotel quarantine only has a certain number of places; if less people leave Australia, then less people will come back and fill up hotel quarantine spaces.

Indeed. It’s kind of amazing that Singapore, often accused of being overly authoritarian, took a much softer approach to Covid than Australia.

You could always leave. Citizens and PRs could always come back (although if they left after a certain date they had to pay for their care if they got Covid).

Even immigrants workers could leave. You needed permission to come back, but unless Covid was raging they took in quite a lot of workers.