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

Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

digitalrightswatch.org.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#41

Post by dalyons »

d_t_w wrote: post #19
lettergram wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

It's complex. When I first moved to Australia I rankled at compulsory voting as I believe that not participating is a valid political act. Countries without compulsory voting talk about the turnout as relative to previous years, and if it falls too far there will be questions about a mandate to govern. In Australia that can't happen as turnout is always high, this leads to very little opportunity to overhaul the mech…

As an Australian living in America for 10 years you absolutely nailed it; compulsory voting effectively prevents what is the worst part of American democracy - the unceasing efforts to stop people voting . Plenty of other bs, but at least the right to participate is guaranteed.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#42

Post by _-david-_ »

user123456780 wrote: post #32
mrslave wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsory voting does not imply a politically engaged populace. I believe the majority of voters do not enjoy the requirement to attend on polling day, and treat the whole affair like supporting a football team. Except they care a lot less about the election results than their football team. Mandatory voting probably has the effect of protecting the two major parties more than anything else. There was a surge in min…

Even though people may not be engaged in politics mandatory voting is important. It reduces extremist politics and the constant need to be increasingly divisive. It forces regression to the mean. In non mandatory voting systems the politicians need to motivate people to the polls. The default of the population is apathy so to generate action you appeal to the extremes who are the most likely to act. The more people y…

Seeing how this law was passed, maybe you should rethink your theory that you will get less extremist politics.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#43

Post by discordance »

okareaman wrote: post #35

It's ironic that a country founded by England with prison convicts who pushed out the indigenous people would eventually choose to create a police state. Edit: Fixed for people who knew what I meant but want to bust my...

Australia was initially populated with Aboriginals, from who the land was stolen by convict settlers.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#45

Post by markdown »

okareaman wrote: post #35

It's ironic that a country founded by England with prison convicts who pushed out the indigenous people would eventually choose to create a police state. Edit: Fixed for people who knew what I meant but want to bust my...

GTFOH

Prison convicts were not the first people of Australia.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#46

Post by dtn »

systemvoltage wrote: post #15

Democrats and republicans alike, let's make sure we don't do this in USA. Please donate to EFF, FIRE, ACLU, etc. I feel like both parties are becoming more authoritarian. COVID-19 is here to stay for many years if not decades. We're not going to be able to wipe off the virus from the planet. Governments will continue to use this as an excuse to erode privacy. This whole clampdown feels completely anti-Australian to m…

You're making the mistake of conflating Australia's COVID-19 restrictions with this legislation, when they're entirely unrelated. These digital powers were something Australia has sought for many years- under the good ol' reasons of terrorism and child safety.

The recent hubbub surrounding Australia's restrictive COVID-19 measures were possibly the best thing that could happen for our government- when our vaccination numbers rise, the public health restrictions will rollback, whilst the digital legislation will continue on unabated.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#47

Post by King-Aaron »

siquick wrote: post #37

I've lived in Australia for 10 years and really considering my familys future in this country. We are sleep-walking towards a very average future. An undiversified export economy, out of control house prices, a job-market primarily focused on two cities, a government intent on selling all public assets, very limited political interest in positive climate policies. The latter is simply addressed with "technology will…

After 34 years of being an Australian, the feeling is mutual.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#48

Post by fieryskiff11 »

kodah wrote: post #30

I don't have any mainstream social media presence. I deleted those accounts years ago. Could the AFP create profiles in my name with my likeness?

yes >AN ACCOUNT TAKEOVER WARRANT enables the law enforcement agencies to take control of an account, and even lock the account holder out of it. This can be done covertly and without consent, so the individual wouldn’t necessarily know what is going on until or if they are ever charged. It includes removing two-factor authentication and using one account to gain access to others (directly contradicting cyber security best practices for staying safe and secure online).

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#49

Post by fighterpilot »

lettergram wrote: post #21
fighterpilot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"only those with children could vote" implies removing the right to vote from people without children, which has nothing to do with compulsory voting.

Yes? That was the point I was making, you don’t necessarily want universal suffrage. Those with long-term interest are better for society

That didn't sound like the point you were making, and others agree with me. Everyone is responding to you thinking that you were criticizing mandatory or compulsory voting, not universal suffrage. Your choice of words "forced to vote" rather than "right to vote" conveyed that meaning.
Post reply on HN