Live data from Hacker News

Australia is becoming a surveillance state

ia.acs.org.au

421–430 of 437 posts

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since leaving Australia (and started living in Europe) I have come to the conclusion that Australia is not a "real" country - it is just a continent owned by corporate interests that happens to also have people living on it. Since leaving the USA and moving to Australia I've come to the conclusion that the USA is in a unstoppable decline and will continue to degrade, both in terms of society and infrastructure, for…

So who pays to support dozens of people who lost their jobs in the name of protecting one guy?

the federal government. We had two programs, JobKeeper and JobSeeker. In my opinion this is why we have governments, to support the citizens in their time of need.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#422
post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about protecting one guy, but about stopping the spread as early as possible.

So as an individual, it doesn't matter if your livelihood is destroyed because for the greater good of the community?

Correct. A conscious decision has been made in Australia to prioritize human life over business profits. What most didn't realize is that by choosing this path we're optimizing both, eg because we don't have any community spread our economy is booming.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#423
post #86
post #66

Since leaving Australia (and started living in Europe) I have come to the conclusion that Australia is not a "real" country - it is just a continent owned by corporate interests that happens to also have people living on it. Corporate interests own the media, politicians, food production, education etc. and no one cares, because Life Is Good. Why expect anything to change, or people to care about strong democratic in…

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.

> Don't forget they disarmed the people.

SIGH. This isn't true and I wish Americans would stop saying it. You can own guns down here, even keep them in your house. Sure, you're limited to bolt actions/side by sides, etc; but there is a healthy shooting community down here. For instance, I've got a mate who owns 7 rifles, the largest of which is a .338 Lapua.

What Australia did was break the 'gun culture' down here and ban semi-autos, pump actions, etc. And let's be honest, I'd take that over the 18 million ARs in circulation in the USA every day of the week. Not having semi-autos is preferable to daily shootings in the community.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#424
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). Do you think the guns in civilian ownership are to be used for foreign wars? They are exactly for homeland invasion. And who will back th…

We’re talking about armed US residents vs US government not a foreign invasion of the US.

Well the US gov fighting it’s citizens would be a war crime. And then hopefully the entirety of NATO would come down on them. A gov cannot use their own military force against their citizens. Full stop. And speaking as a veteran, my willingness to fight would be based on the side my beliefs were based upon. If the order was given to kill US citizens, it was an illegal order and the chain of command has been broken. All bets are off.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, it is. Serfdom is when a peasant has no right to leave his lord's land. If neocolonialism includes recognition of the right to emigrate when another country wants to accept you as an immigrant, it's too broad a definition to be any kind of useful pejorative. The collective outcome may be bad for the country from which people emigrate, but the individual outcome is very good for the people who emigrate. And at a…

I don't know what you want me to respond with, what you're writing is a strawman, it's not what I wrote anywhere.

[deleted]

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, it is. Serfdom is when a peasant has no right to leave his lord's land. If neocolonialism includes recognition of the right to emigrate when another country wants to accept you as an immigrant, it's too broad a definition to be any kind of useful pejorative. The collective outcome may be bad for the country from which people emigrate, but the individual outcome is very good for the people who emigrate. And at a…

I don't know what you want me to respond with, what you're writing is a strawman, it's not what I wrote anywhere.

What I'd like is for you to either narrow your category of 'Neocolonialism' in the future or explain you have a minority view about it. The term as it's used today implies the speaker is arguing against it. If your use of the term neocolonialism applies to people 'voting with their feet', then you are either rehabilitating the term or implicitly arguing for serfdom. Neither of which I think were your intent.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Australia strangely enough struggles with plenty of organized crime in drug distribution.

I won't accept your "to be fair", since it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Just heavily regulated.

Importing and distributing or production and distribution of ice aka crystal meth shouldn't be illegal? Australia has been in the middle of an enduring crystal meth-related crisis for what, 20 years?[0]

[0], The biggest threat to Australia's future, https://time.com/4737800/meth-australia-ice-crystal-methamph...

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I don't really understand what you mean here? You pull your gun out and threaten a government representative, and you will be dead or in handcuffs within 30 minutes. Maybe your idea of civilian government overthrow could come true if you could somehow gather thousands…

Think less on quick-draw-shoot-the-cop sort of scenarios, and more along the lines of a "the freedom fighters generally live in these hills, and they like to blow us up with bombs or shoot us from far away when we aren't suspecting" situation. If there was a tyranny and a rebellion, the cops are going to think twice about going out and about without full force since they might be ambushed. Alot of this sort of situat…

That's one thing. But there's another. I've done years of fighting sports training with half the local (sort-of, they get called out pretty far, sometimes even flown somewhere) SWAT team. Including the commander. If you think even such a team will go charging into what might be an ambush, you're insane.

It does not work like in the movies. If you're in your house and someone is trying to kill you with a weapon, it will take the cops 15 minutes to your door ... and 30 minutes before they come in, minimum. If a unit has been lost (meaning a cop already got hurt), it will take hour before they come to the door, minimum. Some places (such as the court house) have different rules.

As soon as a unit has been lost, they will FIRST do a cost-benefit analysis of retaliating at all. And, especially in large cities, that analysis will regularly come up with something akin to "just let them deliver the drugs and do ... nothing" or "just let them go". Even when non-lethal (and "non-lethal" as in a knife) weapons are used they may refuse. You see, not getting maimed (even a little bit) is a thoroughly essential part of having any sort of career, and the treatment wounded cops get certainly does not justify self-sacrifice. The kinder logic is that criminals don't stop after one crime. If it's needed to stop them, there will be another chance.

Working this way means that for even a large metro area they can maybe handle 5 to 10 serious situations at any one time. Police weapons, even the big ones, do not defeat even relatively small determined militias. And the police will abandon neighbourhoods long before it comes anywhere near this point.

If they truly the think the situation will escalate without end, they may go in. That, by the way, generally means snipers, not knocking down the door. If they don't think the situation will escalate, or if there's too many people, or ... they will just let it be.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as an individual, it doesn't matter if your livelihood is destroyed because for the greater good of the community?

Correct. A conscious decision has been made in Australia to prioritize human life over business profits. What most didn't realize is that by choosing this path we're optimizing both, eg because we don't have any community spread our economy is booming.

Ah so what you view as business profits, somebody views it as a livelihood, way to live does not mean anything? But no its just profits.

Sounds like Australia has got ideas from CCP.

Re: Australia is becoming a surveillance state

#430
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re talking about armed US residents vs US government not a foreign invasion of the US.

Well the US gov fighting it’s citizens would be a war crime. And then hopefully the entirety of NATO would come down on them. A gov cannot use their own military force against their citizens. Full stop. And speaking as a veteran, my willingness to fight would be based on the side my beliefs were based upon. If the order was given to kill US citizens, it was an illegal order and the chain of command has been broken. A…

That's not really what NATO is for and it'd depend a lot on what the actual events looked like. If it's frameable as armed violent uprising/terrorism being controlled then it's much less likely to pull explicit foreign intervention and the prototypical '2A to protect against a tyrannical government usage' will almost definitely fit that bill.
Post reply on HN