Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#731

Post by lsiebert » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #409

lsiebert wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For US folks, The Liberal Party is Center Right and further to the left than the Republicans, Labor is Center Left and further to the left of the Democrats.

This isn't quite accurate. Really, Labor over the last five or six years (but mostly in just the last two) has actually moved basically centre-right as well, but still to the left of the Liberal/National coalition. In terms of the Liberal and National parties (who are in coalition Federally, and the two state branches merged in Queensland), while they are slightly left of the GOP overall, there are definitely a fair…

This is all accurate and detailed and I appreciate it, but I'm comparing them directly to US parties, hence center left, not centre-left.

It's possible I'm just splitting hairs though.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#732

Post by logicchains » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

iamthemonster wrote: post #600

hwers wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a ton of countries that just trusts its people to quarantine without the government checking on them.

Indeed, there are countries that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people with their policies. But I can't think of a country off the top of my head that has applied laissez-faire Covid controls but also recorded very low numbers of deaths.

Japan, with a population of around 126 million, only had 16,471 deaths so far from covid, a death rate of 0.013%. As a point of reference, there are around 20k suicide deaths annually in Japan. Japan didn't use harsh/legally enforced lockdowns; almost all their measures have been voluntary: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/covid-19-cases-su....

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#733

Post by futureshock » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #573

sandworm101 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> rather than stay at a quarantine facility. Nobody is being forced to use the app. Download the app or we send you to a camp? That isn't much of a choice. I'd say it is about as non-choice as possible while still meeting the literal definition.

I'll say what I said on the other thread - If you want to present an argument against quarantine being needed or warranted, please go ahead. Checking in on the app is the least intrusive of the three options - quarantine under guard (usually in a hotel, like the one I'm in right now), quarantine at home with police visits tio ensure compliance, or quarantine at home checking in to the app once or twice a day. In this…

The real least intrusive option would be to just ask people to quarantine and trust that they do it as their civic duty. You could also offer a small support check at the end if they completed the quarantine without being seen out of the house or offer payment if they download the app and allow location permission. There are so many ways to run a quarantine program without resorting to locking people away or making them use the equivalent of a house arrest bracelet. It's concerning that you don't even see how totalitarian this is. These people weren't convicted of any crime, they caught a highly contagious virus that we will never eradicate and will be living with for the rest of our lives.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#734

Post by logicchains » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #724

satronaut wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a blackout law keeps an enemy bomber from dropping a bomb on my house. IMO, if you say to a rational person "keep your blinds down or else the nazi's will drop a bomb on your house" they'll say "gee that sounds like a good idea." While in modern times, if you say "shut down the economy, increase alcoholism, suicides, mental health issues, homelessness, poverty, and inflation to defeat a virus with over a 99% recovery…

This is a tangential interesting point, not a disagreement with your comment. But despite the mental health costs of the pandemic and associated policy, there's a growing body of evidence indicating that suicides do not appear to have risen, across many countries. Eg https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n834

In Canada, substance-abuse-related deaths resulting from the lockdowns killed more under-65s than covid: https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-...

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#735

Post by logicchains » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

iamthemonster wrote: post #603

chitowneats wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quarantine for what? That's what you do with sick people. Whatever is going on in Australia has long ago left the realm of sane quarantine procedure. It will be 2022 soon, and the Australians are trying to prevent interstate spread of COVID-19. It's madness. Responding to your edit: still madness

I'm in Western Australia. I'm delighted with prevention of interstate Covid. The freedom to do whatever you want is pretty enjoyable to be honest, and not worrying that family members will die of Covid is even better.

Do you worry about family members in lockdowned states drinking themselves to death? In Canada lockdowns killed more under-65s than covid: https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-...

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#736

Post by tacocataco » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #448

gregsq wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see this as anywhere near the same thing though. These so called ‘donkey votes’ are derided, and categorised as together with voting errors and other invalid voting forms. The right to withhold your vote is as fundamental as the right to withold your labour. Voter turnout is an important metric in its own right, and is observed tactically in, say, the UK. Compulsory voting simplifies competition, and destroys…

A donkey vote isn't a blank ballot. It's a ballot that's just been numbered unthinkingly from top to bottom.

Are they counted as votes? That would mean the person at the top of the ballot have an advantage because of these donkey votes.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#737

Post by docmars » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

kongin wrote: post #628

Nursie wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quarantine for coronavirus, in a pandemic that’s claimed millions of lives. You quarantine people (and animal) who might be sick, that’s the point of it. It doesn’t look like madness to me when you look at the comparative death rates.

> Quarantine for coronavirus, in a pandemic that’s claimed millions of lives. So are we going to do a quarantine for the flu next? A pandemic that claims up to a 2 million lives a year globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932018_United_State...

Precisely. It is the best cover up for global domination while distracting populations with concern trolling around a virus that is not all that significantly worse than the flu given the level of risk across all age groups.

Heart failure and car accidents claim a higher risk.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#738

Post by amcoastal » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #705

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in practice (from the US) they come in with 10 people, guns drawn, in bulletproof vests ready to fire at anything moving just in case which leads to unfortunate deaths which is why 'Swatting' is so dangerous in the US

They also murder unarmed people with a frequency I'm not comfortable with, so any argument that guns is what makes the police trigger happy has plenty of counter examples of clearly unarmed people getting killed.

Yeah but they always think they have a gun, or so they say. It's not always having a gun pointed at you, it's the threat that it could happen. Very real to American police that keep them on edge, where in other countries that risk is lower so there is less sensitivity to a suspect moving there arm near a pocket or behind their back if they are far away from the officer (which makes it naturally harder to see what they are going for). Not saying it's a good thing, it's just a large contributing factor.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#739

Post by logicchains » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #605

strangeattractr wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Victoria. We have certainly given up all of our freedom. Our Premier has suspended parliament and now rules by decree. Citing fabled 'health advice', which is never made public nor provided when queried, to justify anything he does. That's why we have a 9PM curfew that has done nothing to stem the spread, punitive 'alchohol must be drunk through a mask' rules and playground closures. Those were not legitima…

All of your freedoms and rights? I imagine someone will be along to arrest you for sedition shortly then? That sounds horrendous but honestly little different to what we went through in the UK at various points in the last year and a half, and the death rates are very low in comparison. I’m sorry for your loss.

Funny thing is if he'd posted this on Facebook the Victorian police could well arrest him for incitement.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#740

Post by aurizon » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #175

aurizon wrote: post #134

What happens in Australia in housing also is happening more or less globally when unlimited "rent seeking" is allowed. People and companies can buy residential properties and then rent them out. With current low interest rates they can run amok and make a lot more than the interest. The Netherlands has a way to deal with this. A landlord tax on rented houses. https://borgenproject.org/dutch-housing-crisis/ If you buy…

Many parts of the US have something effectively the same called a Homestead Exemption. You get a discount on your property tax for the house you live in. Any other houses you own pay the full rate. It varies greatly by location and not everywhere has it but it's pretty common.

That would work if the tax was high enough to offset rent seekers