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

391–400 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#391

Post by desertraven »

potatochup wrote: post #320
fhe wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could you add NL and USA to your comparison by any chance? Just curious.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#392

Post by locusm »

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…

Spot fucking on.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#393

Post by jakecopp »

roody15 wrote: post #269

I simply cannot wrap my mind around what is happening in Australia. Continuing a lockwdown while the number of positive covid cases remains in the low hundreds and the daily death rate in the lower tens to single digits. Nothing makes sense here. Draconian laws, complete shutdown over something that is and has been statistically under control and managed from months. Am I alone here or do people really think what is…

This is false. We currently have ~1500 positive cases per day in NSW in Australia.

NSW is planning to lift restrictions in mid October once vaccine rates hit 70%.

ICU capacity is just about at 100%, with the peak to hit in the next few weeks.

I'm pretty happy to be in lockdown for a little bit longer in this situation.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#394

Post by Nursie »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #383
Nursie wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ban on alcohol in some communities is (AFAICT) welcomed by those communities, which have massive problems with it. There are laws in other states which allow people to declare their house a “dry place” which is then enforceable by law, to try to stop anyone from bringing alcohol into the house. I can’t tell you whether any of these measures work, but they aren’t implemented for reasons of racist suppression, from…

So your points arethat “some people like authoritarian measures” and “the censorship isn’t bad because today you can get around it”. Sounds like you have a vested interest in not realizing what these new laws mean for you.

I think the idea that the alcohol rules are authoritarian is misplaced and it’s more complicated than your summation. To have an informed debate you would need to be familiar with the situation on the ground, which I am only in passing, and (respectfully) I suspect you are not at all.

The “censorship” is not really any worse than the UK’s BBFC.

I know what these laws mean for me because I’ve lived here before. They mean very little.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#395

Post by AussieWog93 »

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's such a bizarre take. I would love to meet these immigrants that care more about whether or not there is gore in Left 4 Dead 2 than social stability, health care, education and economic opportunities.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#396

Post by stubish »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #243
worik wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote. Protest - particularly direct action Challenge them

I recently read an article in which protesters were fined thousands of dollars for violating "health codes". A country who cannot allow protest is no free country at all.

The right to protest during a pandemic is dubious, in direct conflict with other peoples rights. It is also self defeating, when the majority consider the protesters arseholes for willfully endangering the general community and don't get around to considering the actual issue being protested.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#397

Post by jussij »

roody15 wrote: post #269

I simply cannot wrap my mind around what is happening in Australia. Continuing a lockwdown while the number of positive covid cases remains in the low hundreds and the daily death rate in the lower tens to single digits. Nothing makes sense here. Draconian laws, complete shutdown over something that is and has been statistically under control and managed from months. Am I alone here or do people really think what is…

> because there are 50 positive cases in a nation of millions

Australia is currently experiencing 1500 daily case of COVID with some 30,000+ cumulative case since the start of this last outbreak which is now some two months old.

> Nothing makes sense here.

Firstly only three of the seven states and territories are in lock down.

Four states and territories are experiencing zero cases and for them life is very close to normal.

However, the reason two states are now in lock down is because, as a developed country, Australia is last in terms of vaccination roll out.

And it is not only last, it is last by a long way.

There are only two ways to deal with COVID:

1. Lock down until the vaccination numbers improve

2. Open up and let the virus rip and hope the hospital system can cope with the increased demand.

NSW is currently in lock down (i.e. option 1) and even with these strict rules in place the health system is not coping well, as it struggles with the uptick in COVID hospitalizations.

The simple fact is Australia stuffed up the vaccination roll out and we are now paying the price for that mistake.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#398

Post by fcklckdwns »

0xdeadb00f wrote: post #308
roody15 wrote: post #269

I simply cannot wrap my mind around what is happening in Australia. Continuing a lockwdown while the number of positive covid cases remains in the low hundreds and the daily death rate in the lower tens to single digits. Nothing makes sense here. Draconian laws, complete shutdown over something that is and has been statistically under control and managed from months. Am I alone here or do people really think what is…

This talk about "Draconian" lockdown in Australia needs to stop. Our privacy and digital rights laws are awful. But the lockdowns are necessary. NSW had upward of 1000+ cases and that's why they're (still) in a strict lockdown. QLD and i beleive WA as well for example are not in lockdown at all because of their much much lower daily cases. Also, "50 cases in a nation of millions"? I dont know where you're getting you…

>But the lockdowns are necessary.

Based on what evidence?

AFAIK, lockdowns are something Chinese and European politicians (foolishly) invented last year. It's not part of public health textbooks, nor part of the pandemic/bio-terrorism plans written for various nations. I think the first call for lockdowns in Europe came from Neil Ferguson, a physicist with no specific qualification in epidemiology or public health.

I would be very happy to be proven wrong if someone can point to a document published before 2019 showing how lockdowns are a possible or recommend solution for epidemics/pandemics.

But even if we accept that it's indeed a new technique, where is the evidence that it works? I'm a bit surprised that the "Trust the Science(tm)" crowd who is constantly talking about randomized, double-blind studies when it comes to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin seem to have a different standard for masks, lockdowns, etc.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#399

Post by Gatsky »

roody15 wrote: post #386
Gatsky wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty hyperbolic. Examination of global excess deaths would tell you that the lockdowns were successful in their stated primary aim. Australia and NZ had significantly fewer excess deaths during the first wave [1]. And if they continue with lockdowns, they will have signficantly fewer excess deaths again no matter what else happens. You may think this isn't a good trade-off, which is a fine point to make, bu…

You are correct I think this is not a good trade-off. However I stand by “my mind is blown” that continuing with these draconian measures and the lock down approach borders on madness. For reference in my part of the world we are fully open going on the 5th week of full in person schooling. All athletic teams and events have resumed with full crowds. In a school district of 2600 students we have over 45 positive case…

It's hard to evaluate what this means without knowing, at least, the demographic make up of your part of the world, the vaccination rates, the vaccination kinetics, and health system capacity and access.

I could equally cherry pick places with more disastrous outcomes as a counterargument eg Italy early on.

Nevertheless, I'm envious of your lack of restrictions. I haven't seen my father for a long time.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#400

Post by stephen_g »

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.

On balance, I think it's better, because systems where voting is voluntary seem to really encourage voter disenfranchisement. Also, the system means that the logistics must be in place for the system to be able to handle everybody turning up to vote, so it would be very unusual (in my experience) having to wait in line for more than 20 minutes or so. As opposed to stories we saw in the US of voters having to wait hours to vote.

As others have said, it's an option to just submit a blank paper.

Post reply on HN