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

561–570 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#561

Post by alfiedotwtf »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #553
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #266

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. During a pandemic, this is something to cringe at, not celebrate

The only thing I find cringeworthy is people who revel in “Covid Culture”, making a deliberate spectacle of what a good, compliant, obedient individual they are and what awful crimethinking, irresponsible saboteurs anyone who takes a taste of proper life again is. People who use the “it’s a pandemic stupid” line to sweep perfectly legitimate concerns about civil liberties, generational inequality, and the futures of…

So much to unpack here...

Until recently, Victoria has managed to bring all previous outbreaks to zero. COVID zero works until other states started undermining said goal in the name of business. By saving NSW businesses 3 weeks of not locking down, they've geniously bought themselves 2 months and counting of lockdowns along with high highest number COVID ever seen in Australia.

> We aren’t just economic fuel to be burned up for the benefit of society

By not locking down (and providing you with payment), you literally become their economic fuel you mention to keep their markets going.

Stop listing to what the right wing media are pedaling. You're literally goosestepping into their freedumb.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#562

Post by jsscclr »

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.

Whilst officially Australia has compulsory voting, unofficially you merely have to sign your name off. If you fail to have your name signed off, the fine is $20 (for federal elections, $55 for the state of NSW). Voter turnout is still a way of measuring disengagement, as well as measuring the number of informal votes, and more importantly, the nature of the informal votes. You can write whatever you like on the ballot paper at the end of the day, so if voters feel that no party represents them, you can fill in nothing. If you do not like any party, you can submit a blank ballot, which does represent a decent percentage of informal votes - but I think that given you're already there, most people have some idea of who they like _less_ or _more_.

I think the cultural aspect of the _appearance_ of compulsory voting is important: not voting because it's raining and you'd rather stay in bed is very different to abstaining based on your political beliefs, and compulsory voting (in Australia) means you are less likely to encounter the former whilst still enabling the other. I would argue that this makes abstaining for political reasons a bit more explicit than non-compulsory voting (technically you can even write your reasons for not voting on the ballot paper, which would officially mean nothing but would certainly be evaluated in research on informal voting), but I do concede that this feels a bit disingenuous: the system works because you're told to vote even though you kinda don't really have to vote, but make sure you jump through the hoops to make it look like you voted.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#563

Post by pibechorro »

fallous wrote: post #401

I've lived to see this kind of thing enacted in a good portion of the Anglosphere and my visceral reaction is to engage in a combination of civil disobedience and a determination to undermine every overstep made. With regards to things like the Aussie requirement for phone check-ins every 15 minutes or they will deploy police to follow up and confirm your location, turn off the phone and make them eat the cost of hav…

This.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#564

Post by rosege »

wsc981 wrote: post #423
rosege wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved from Australia to the Netherlands as well and felt the same about not having my tax dollars directed where I didn't want them to go. I unfortunately had to move back to Australia and now get to watch my tax dollars flow to the richest companies (including foreign luxury brands) thanks to Jobkeeper.

Actually I moved from The Netherlands to Thailand, since I don't like the way things are going in The Netherlands :) If you do hope to move to The Netherlands in the future, if you believe it's a better place for you, I hope you can succeed. I would agree based on the news from Australia, that The Netherlands seems the better option of the two.

Yes it is. If only it had Australia's sunshine!

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#565

Post by apatheticonion »

CydeWeys wrote: post #324
apatheticonion wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moved to Sydney from New Zealand and have been here for 6 years. I do like it here compared to New Zealand but I think I would move elsewhere given the chance. The internet here is an actual joke, the politics are biased towards conservatism, don't think about owning an electric car but... the pay is quite good and it's a nice place to go out. Lots of nature and you can find nice apartments to rent if you look. New Z…

> My company has offered to relocate me to NYC, which is interesting. Looking on YouTube at what the city looks like and it's pretty ugly if I am honest. This is a great opportunity that you'd be silly to pass up because of some YouTube videos. You have to at least visit in person to give it a fair shot. NYC is the largest city in any western country. I guarantee you can find parts of it you'd like. > Hey Canada, how…

I have asked to visit there before making up my mind and the company has agreed to send me over for a trip - which is awesome.

Just gotta wait for these borders to open back up.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#566

Post by xvector »

WanderPanda wrote: post #516
fallous wrote: post #401

I've lived to see this kind of thing enacted in a good portion of the Anglosphere and my visceral reaction is to engage in a combination of civil disobedience and a determination to undermine every overstep made. With regards to things like the Aussie requirement for phone check-ins every 15 minutes or they will deploy police to follow up and confirm your location, turn off the phone and make them eat the cost of hav…

The right to bear arms also seems to fit your framework quite well. If the police knocking on your door has to fear that you appear naked that is unpleasent but merely a nuisance. If you could be armed they will probably think twice if it is worth the risk.

And this is the foundation of the Second Amendment despite the intense opposition to it. The Second Amendment creates lines that even the government will be unwilling to cross.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#567

Post by yesenadam »

worik wrote: post #460
yesenadam wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong I don't have much idea what you mean here. > Just ask the Australian Indians. Uh, could you explain what you mean here? > Aboriginal Australians...did not get that right until 1967 I thought that too until recently, but not true. On the history of Indigenous Australians’ right to vote : https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resour…

Democracy is not majority rules. Democracy is rule by the people. Minorities matter too, and if minorities are railroaded by majorities it is not much of a democracy. Voting is important, but much more important is the rule of and access to the law. "Australian Indians" means the same thing as "Australian Aborigines" Indian and Aborigine are synonyms. You schooled me on the right to vote! My prejudice leaked out!! I…

Hi. "Democracy is rule by the people" - well, I know enough to know that it's not any one thing, or captured by any one definition. How that one differs from "majority rules" I'm not sure. Anyway. Let's not get into that here.

> "Australian Indians" means the same thing as "Australian Aborigines" Indian and Aborigine are synonyms.

Uh I'm not sure where you are, but in Australia it sure doesn't mean that. No-one here calls aborigines "Indians", and far as I know never has.

Hehe it's ok, I think most Australians probably believe that 1967 thing, if they know the date at all, I'm not sure why. The truth is somewhat complicated.

Gee, I had no idea NZ was involved in the pre-Federation conferences in Australia, although sounds like NZ just wasn't very into it. A wise decision!

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#568

Post by throwawaythekey »

SilverRed wrote: post #306
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…

> 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. Surely you can see how this is equivalent to asking why the company hires a system admin when the system hardly ever goes down or gets hacked. And you have always been allowed outside for a jog. Please do not spread false information.

> And you have always been allowed outside for a jog

If you're in Victoria it can't be a long jog (2hr total per day), and it can't be after 9pm though!

Sorry for being pedantic but really it should be you are allowed outside for a jog sometimes

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#569

Post by ben_w »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #540
nickysielicki wrote: post #79

These "data disruption warrants" are the most interesting to me: > Data disruption means adding, copying, deleting or altering data held in a computer. This can only be done in order to frustrate the commission of offences or determine relevance of data. To assist disruption, a warrant can also authorise other facilitative activities, such as entering specified premises, using electronic equipment to obtain access to…

> So they can get a warrant to come into your house while you're not home and put a keylogger in your keyboard USB cable, or put a bug on the UART of your router, etc. Or just hacking your cheap Netgear router with one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that exist. That's actually not that weird. If you are a suspected criminal and a judge give a warrant targeting you specifically, it's quite natural the police can n…

Not being a legal expert, I can’t tell where the boundary is between enabling legitimate police work and giving (accidentally or deliberately) the police the power to plant fake evidence, the latter being what some of this sounds like. But, I’m not a legal expert, and “sounds like” is a way to make very large mistakes when looking outside of one’s own domain of expertise like I’m doing here.

(Also doesn’t help that I hear about stories like this from people who don’t like them, so I get a potentially biased first impression).

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#570

Post by sails »

smcleod wrote: post #351
fhe wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In my experience New Zealand is more different from Australia than a lot of Australians seem to assume. Generally speaking New Zealand is far more socially liberal than Australia, however there are greater financial / job opportunities in Australia due to it's size. In New Zealand you're less likely to own a fancy new car or have has many expensive possessions but to me at least it didn't feel like you "need" them as…

South Africans moving to NZ often mention the "tall poppy syndrome" in NZ. Do you feel like that is a fair comment?

This comment reminded me of the concept:

> In New Zealand you're less likely to own a fancy new car or have has many expensive possessions but to me at least it didn't feel like you "need" them as much as in Australia.

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

Post reply on HN