Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#311

Post by jim-jim-jim » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

tac0_ wrote: post #182

inkyoto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the only thing missing is competent leadership I keep hearing this every now and then, but the incompetent leadership does not come from nowhere nor has conceived itself. The country leaders have been legitimately elected, which means the leadership is the direct reflection of the country people's will. People consciously elect incompetence that bears the incompetent leadership, for that is what they desire for one r…

> The country leaders have been legitimately elected, which means the leadership is the direct reflection of the country people's will. I don't disagree. Although influencing the people's will is a lot easier when the main stream media is monopolised and heavily biased towards one political party. If we want a government that truly reflects the people's will we need a diverse media landscape. Also a reason why I supp…

I don't want to single you out, but the monomaniacal hardon that middle aged Redditors and Kevin Rudd (same thing) have for Rupert Murdoch is fascinating from my outsider perspective. It seems like a relic of a bygone generation—think 2003 and "Faux News." Like, it's not the wrong news that's turning Australia shit. Mean old Newscorp didn't force Labor to vote for increased surveillance, to leave negative gearing alone, or to go soft on coal lol.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#312

Post by zmmmmm » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:37 AM UTC

neither_color wrote: post #9

We can refer to both now as acts because — in what is an increasing trend in the Australian Parliament — the bills flew through both houses in a single day. Why is this an increasing trend? Voting is mandatory…so are voters more trusting of their institutions or just apathetic? Voting is compulsory at federal elections, by-elections and referendums for those on the electoral roll, as well as for State and Territory e…

> Why is this an increasing trend

Because the lived experience of politicians on both sides is that the less time something spends in the limelight the less scrutiny it gets. Once something is determined to be supported by both parties (and almost universally when it involves increasing the power of government over citizens they are all in favor) it is not in anybody's interest to have it linger around for debate.

Most Australian politics is cynically focused on controlling the debate rather than solving important issues. So both sides will usually pick strategically controversial but unimportant things that they think favor them and then focus exclusively on those. Everything else is dealt with as expeditiously and in the most minimalist fashion possible. It does have the upside that a lot of "good government" where both sides agree happens in the background without anybody realising.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#313

Post by vineyardmike » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:37 AM UTC

cletus wrote: post #276

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like when the gay marriage issue was decided even the highly conservative former PM Tony Abbott basically came out and said the matter was settled and it's time to move on. Australia recognized same sex marriage in 2017. That was 3 years after after the USA did. I'm not sure I would call Australia as being progressive by that measure.

So, for the record, I 100% support gay marriage and abortion rights. What you have to realize about the US is that the Supreme Court deciding these issues is... controversial. Many view it as undemocratic (although it's worth noting that many of those same people don't feel the same way about the Supreme Court's pro-2nd Amendment interpretations of modern times). We're still seeing the ripple effects of Roe v. Wade b…

>doesn't really give any moral superiority here of the US over Australia for two reasons:

I wouldn't call the US morally superior here anyways. In fact, i think anyone after the US is really late to the party. The first US law was MA legalizing gay marriage in 2004. It took 11 years of fighting after to get to supreme court.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#314

Post by BrissyCoder » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:39 AM UTC

cletus wrote: post #262

BrissyCoder wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with everything here but will point out that SE salaries have risen quite dramatically over the past 10 years in Aus. If you are a (genuinely) senior engineer you should be on $170k+. In a place like Brisbane (if you can handle the summers) that's a reasonably liveable salary. But yeah - I fear it's going to end up like the rest of the country fairly quickly... One of my major gripes is that education…

The central premise of musical chairs is that there are less chairs than people but every round everyone gets an opportunity to get a seat. So in my analogy, the last round ended in Sydney in 1978 meaning if you weren't sitting then then you didn't get another chance at a seat. I remember seeing property shows in the 2000s and there'd be a young couple in their mid-20s with a baby looking at houses that were up to $8…

Ahhh right... I didn't realise Sydney got so unnaffordable that long ago which is what I think threw me off.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#315

Post by shakna » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:40 AM UTC

mbo wrote: post #119

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...

Maybe it isn't ironic at all. This is the conclusion by Waleed Aly (quite a prominent journalist in Aus) that I read a while ago: > The British arrived with Governors, ready to assume the role of governing. [...] Then, these governments set about building infrastructure in a way they never did in Britain. They were not managing a society that existed. They simply crushed the Indigenous ones that did, then proceeded a…

> They’re also what makes it possible for us to legislate gun control after an isolated massacre,

This statement alone should call the writer's knowledge into question. Whilst it was after a particular mass shooting, it was because of the increasing regularity of mass shootings that the laws were drafted.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#316

Post by Waterluvian » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:40 AM UTC

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…

For what it’s worth, you could substitute Canada or countless other nations and say all the same things.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#317

Post by astrange » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:41 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #186

layoric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Born in AU so bias is to stay, which leads me to push more for political change required to try to address these problems. Most of your 10 years has been under a particularly bad (and honestly corrupt) federal gov. Country has a large state capture problem from largely mining companies but also other special interests that have lobbied and . Anything that might threaten those interests is being pretty heavily targete…

> compulsory voting This always seemed like madness to me. You can force someone to vote, but you cannot force them to vote responsibly. They may just vote "screw you" just for revenge. The right to vote includes the right to abstain from voting when one does not care. Forced voting sounds like a recipe for bad election results. I would expect the same from paying people to vote.

Mandating voting certainly seems better than the US system of trying to make it illegal for anyone you don't like to vote.

Australia feels culturally like the closest country to the US, though, so this particular political difference is being canceled out by other things.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#318

Post by StanislavPetrov » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:42 AM UTC

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #266

stjohnswarts wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know dude I just partied all weekend without any issues, no mask, no constraints on where I could go. No mandates. Seems like some places have their ducks in a row. Get vaccinated and live a little bit...

> I don't know dude I just partied all weekend without any issues, no mask, no constraints on where I could go. No mandates. During a pandemic, this is something to cringe at, not celebrate

A pandemic where healthy, vaccinated people have a far, far lower chance to die or be seriously injured than driving to wherever they are going. You can hide in your home for the rest of your life in order to minimize any potential change of future risks, but good luck forcing everyone else to do so at the point of a gun. This virus is never going away, and people are getting sick of the authoritarianism being carried out in the name of "safety". Life is inherently risky, and this is just another one of life's risks. Myself and my friends have been vaccinated since spring, and we have been living life exactly the same as we did before the pandemic started here in New York - and we will continue to do so.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#319

Post by notreallyhere00 » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:43 AM UTC

Teever wrote: post #198

WalterBright wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> compulsory voting This always seemed like madness to me. You can force someone to vote, but you cannot force them to vote responsibly. They may just vote "screw you" just for revenge. The right to vote includes the right to abstain from voting when one does not care. Forced voting sounds like a recipe for bad election results. I would expect the same from paying people to vote.

I think that I would be okay with compulsory voting if there was a 'none of the above' option on the ballot. If "none of the above" wins the vote then all the people on that ballot are disqualified from running in any election for a period of time, say 10 years and there is a do-over on that particular electoral district election. I'd like to hope that would clean up politics real quick.

This is an option, it’s called an informal vote, and it’s counted towards the tally

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#320

Post by potatochup » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 3:44 AM UTC

fhe wrote: post #245

smcleod wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost 11 years in Melbourne (from NZ) and I couldn't agree more. The 220~ days (and counting) that Melbourne has been in lockdown has certainly worn me down, but even before C19 the political climate, attitude towards technology, cost of housing and the impact of increasing bushfires has taken an enormous toll on the country over the past decade that I've been here.

How would you compare NZ with Australia? What are the big differences you noticed? Thanks.

My hot take: (lived in NZ, Aus, NL and USA)

Both places are are similar in that:

  - They have good access to nature/beaches
  - Property prices are nuts, most people see property as their primary investment vehicle. This is a big cause of wealth inequality
  - general populace has a relatively easygoing disposition

Aus has better weather (assuming you like warm and sunny), higher salaries and is somewhat less far from the world if you want to travel

NZ has a better human rights record, much cleaner grid, and doesn't seem to have the authoritarian bent that Aus does. It's like the slightly hippie/socialist/woke little sibling.