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

331–340 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#331

Post by skissane »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #193
cletus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm Australian but from the part no one ever visits (ie Perth). I say this because for most visitors Australia = Sydney, maybe Melbourne. Anyway, I've gone to live overseas a couple of times now. The most recent time was to the US 11 years ago. I'm still here. As many problems as the US has, the one big selling point it has is career opportunities and earning potential as a software engineer. Like... it doesn't ev…

> 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.

> 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.

The US was only the 17th country in the world to allow same-sex marriage nationwide; Australia was the 23rd. Still only 28 out of 193 UN member states have it fully nationwide – less than 15%. Only a 3 year gap, when any country having legal same-sex marriage is just over 20 years old. If we look at this in a global and historical context, both countries are very progressive on this particular issue. To argue that the US is in some significant way "more progressive" than Australia just because it got there a few years earlier, you have to be looking at things from a rather narrow perspective.

"Fully nationwide" above is only counting the main national territory of the country, not overseas territories. Even for the US, same-sex marriage is not legal in the territory of American Samoa – the territorial government of American Samoa claims that Obergefell v Hodges doesn't apply to them due to some legal technicalities, and it appears nobody has yet challenged that claim in court. Likewise, Netherlands, New Zealand, and UK all have legal same-sex marriage throughout their main national territory, but not in some of their overseas territories.

So if you want to be hyper-pedantic about it, the US still doesn't have legal same-sex marriage (throughout all of its territory), Australia does.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#332

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dtn wrote: post #218
School-Cotton wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're making the mistake of conflating Australia's COVID-19 restrictions with this legislation, when they're entirely unrelated. They’re related in that both are examples of a level of authoritarianism that seems extreme by the standards of other Western countries.

One can point to Australia's COVID death rates (~4 per 100,000) in comparison to the United States and the United Kingdom (~200 per 100,000) and make a case for that. This legislation is far less justifiable, and should have no reason to exist. By associating the two issues, you are weakening the case against it.

Is it good practice compare a very large island that has 2/3rd the population of California, or it’s 1/10th the population density of the whole of the USA?

Seems like a flawed argument for at least a dozen more reasons.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#333

Post by Barrin92 »

Aerroon wrote: post #225

I'm always kind of surprised by people who move to Australia. It's a country that has had an active policy of censorship on entertainment for a very long time - books, video games, movies. The fact that the populace is okay with such a policy would make me reconsider moving there. I've also read some really questionable things about policies regarding aboriginals in the northern territories. In 2007 the government 't…

>that the populace is okay with such a policy would make me reconsider moving there

When I had to decide for a job relocation whether I should move to the UK or to the US I had many issues in mind, wages, safety, public transport, childcare, culture but I'm gonna be honest 'censorship in videogames' wasn't very high on the list.

Not to mention that the discourse in regards to Australia seems incredibly hyperbolic in contrast to more strict countries like Singapore or China, which actually have significant limits on freedom of expression, and even in those countries for the average middle-class person it is almost irrelevant compared to safety, income, housing, and whatever else.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#334

Post by walrus01 »

cletus wrote: post #185
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…

So I'm Australian but from the part no one ever visits (ie Perth). I say this because for most visitors Australia = Sydney, maybe Melbourne. Anyway, I've gone to live overseas a couple of times now. The most recent time was to the US 11 years ago. I'm still here. As many problems as the US has, the one big selling point it has is career opportunities and earning potential as a software engineer. Like... it doesn't ev…

> Property in Australia is like a game of musical chairs but the music stopped in Sydney in 1978 (in Perth and Melbourne it was more like 2003).

Sounds like Vancouver

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#335

Post by monkeycantype »

Aerroon wrote: post #225

I'm always kind of surprised by people who move to Australia. It's a country that has had an active policy of censorship on entertainment for a very long time - books, video games, movies. The fact that the populace is okay with such a policy would make me reconsider moving there. I've also read some really questionable things about policies regarding aboriginals in the northern territories. In 2007 the government 't…

Like everything, the reality is more complex up close. We've never had to think too hard about what underpinned our prosperity, about the law that underpinned our freedoms, because they never failed too badly, for too many people. Perhaps we've had as much law as we needed, and when things chafed we have pushed for changes?

Australia has no official right to the kinds of freedoms you're discussing, but those books and movies were here. Economically Australia has always been top at nothing, top 10 in everything, and that prosperity meant people were free to choose a life they wanted and live free of coercion. Like the poster above, I fear we're embedding an inequality we don't have the will to resolve. But that's been the perpetual fear, that the luck has finally run out. I don't agree with the 'Intervention' the measures you mention in Aboriginal communities, but not because it restricted rights, because I think Aboriginal communities must be allowed to define how individual rights and collective obligations are balanced in their communities. I disagree with it because I don't believe it was driven by Indigenous people. Colonisation dropped a new worldview and law onto an existing civilisation and imposed it with genocide. Indigenous civilisation has different conceptions of duty and rights. If Non Indigenous Australia manages to build a new relationship with Indigenous Australians, I might feel I have the right to form my own opinions, but for now I don't think it's possible for me to understand enough to understand what is right for Indigenous communities, that has to be Indigenous led.

I detest the government that brought in the intervention, but in doing so they were supported by senior Indigenous leaders whom I respect.

https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/leigh-sales-talks-to-directo... https://www.smh.com.au/national/its-time-to-stop-playing-pol...

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#336

Post by pessimizer »

cenophor wrote: post #292
Aerroon wrote: post #225

I'm always kind of surprised by people who move to Australia. It's a country that has had an active policy of censorship on entertainment for a very long time - books, video games, movies. The fact that the populace is okay with such a policy would make me reconsider moving there. I've also read some really questionable things about policies regarding aboriginals in the northern territories. In 2007 the government 't…

You can say the same things about a lot of things in many countries, someone can probably say the same about the one you live in. I suspect the censorship that you talk about are not as black and white as you seem to be trying to project. It's easy to cherry-pick the things that you don't like to get your own view across. Not really sure what you are trying to achieve here than to push your own personal viewpoints on…

> I suspect the censorship that you talk about

We're on the internet, you can look it up.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#337

Post by astrange »

perl4ever wrote: post #87
mdoms wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Australia for 5 years and my sense is that, as harsh as it sounds, Australia needs to go through an extreme hardship to wake up as a nation. Australia has lived true to its moniker as the Lucky Country - at least two full generations of Australians have never witnessed economic hardship or downturn of any kind. Natural disasters pass the nation by (other than wildfires). Even Covid looked like it was going…

I wonder how much Australia is influenced by people who loathe the US and move from it to Australia because it's far away and yet Anglophone and "western".

The only things Americans know about Australia are Steve Irwin and Outback Steakhouse, i.e., nothing.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#338

Post by mbg721 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #325
mbg721 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the first person in line to mumble "Johnson, Boris, 10 Downing St." gets his ballot? That can't be true in practice.

I think the poll worker would be entitled to perform a citizens arrest at that point, unless "the first person in line to mumble" that was also wearing a very good disguise.

So even without a physical ID document, the poll workers have at least the ability (if not the duty) to remedy a fraudulent vote attempt. The latest US "voting rights" push is to have as few voters as possible physically enter a polling place. Americans aren't grumbling about ID because they hate minorities; they're grumbling because their dead relatives voting in Chicago have been a running joke for 60 years.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#339

Post by samstave »

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…

I recall readinga book when I was young, it was all about a nuclear war - and the perspective of the characters was that AU was the last bastion of humanity to survive... and went on to talk about how the people were able to survive there...

So dystopian weird idea follows:

What if "they" are 'cleansing' Australia to make it clear for the oligarch elites to come in and claim the land!

:-)

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#340

Post by potatochup »

mdoms wrote: post #63
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…

When it comes to authoritarianism Australians are either extremely apathetic or they are generally in favour of more government intervention in private life. Try having a calm and balanced discussion with an Australian about bicycle helmet laws for a wonderful example.

It's a little different when you consider that the taxpayer funds everyones healthcare. Most people taking the side of requiring bicycle helmet laws are probably thinking "I don't want my taxes going towards looking after some numpty who was too stubborn to wear a helmet and crashed".

People arguing this position are assuming that requiring helmets will decrease the risk of injury, which I am well aware there is conflicting evidence around.

Post reply on HN