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

801–810 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#801

Post by isaacremuant »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #782
ls612 wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah that was just taken from the history books. It was our totalitarian response that was from the dystopian novel.

The historical ignorance around Covid and other pandemics, and the way people act as though it was some unprecedented event that justifies the unprecedented reaction, is really stunning.

I'm glad you see more and more people voicing how insanely wrong this all has been.

For more than a year any counter of the narrative would get vitriol and the same talking points in a very political/religious zealot way

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#802

Post by Jedd »

lsiebert wrote: post #742
Jedd wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .. Labor is Center Left and further to the left of the Democrats. Do you think? I'd have pegged things like Green New Deal, fairly strong consensus around fossil fuels and renewables, as strong US Democrat party line -- compared to AU's Labor being still wedded to a fossil fuel future, still keen to satiate Murdoch and co. What broad policies / positions are you suggesting indicate AU Labor is more left than US Dem…

On a lot of things, universal health care, how strongly they are in favor of nuclear disarmament, gun control, etc. Remember President Biden is the head of the Democratic Party, And the US itself has been pushed further to the right by a conservative dominated supreme court. Here's the 2021 Labor party platform https://alp.org.au/media/2594/2021-alp-national-platform-fin... Here's the 2020 Democratic Party platform h…

Okay, so there's 249 pages of policy to read and then correlate, which is a bit beyond me.

> ... universal health care, how strongly they are in favor of nuclear disarmament, gun control, etc

As I understand it, US Democrats are keen on those three, and in Australia, we've already embraced all of those.

Are you suggesting there's a policy mis-match, or that one of the two groups leans even more strongly towards these principles than the other group?

Either way, I'm not sure how this strongly differentiates them.

> ... the US itself has been pushed further to the right by a conservative dominated supreme court.

The USA's supreme court arrangement is indeed a curious artefact, for those of us outside its domain.

AFAICT it's been 'pushed' in one direction by political appointees in the previous presidents' term.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#803

Post by lucideer »

raxxorrax wrote: post #778
lucideer wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to work just as well. Curious what country this is where things are working "just as well" as Australia? The only major places I can think of in the "developed" world faring similarly* to Australia statistically (deaths per capita) are South Korea & Taiwan; both have had similar citizen monitoring. * leaving out NZ here obvs which is faring significantly better

Japan for example. Also an island, South Korea is too for all practical purposes. Australia isn't even half an Italy, although the population is admittedly mostly concentrated. Still, you have to compare it to countries which can only be reached by ship or plane. There is merit for harsh policies if you can prevent any case, what NZ did relatively successfully. But admitting that it failed is hard to convey political…

> There is merit for harsh policies if you can prevent any case

This seems quite absolutist; why the all or nothing binary of "any case"?

There is merit for harsh policies, to a degree, if you can reduce fallout, to any relatively significant degree.

This may be subjective, but fwiw if Australia were actually monitoring the population via app, requiring check-in every 15 mins & deploying authorities otherwise (a conclusion some commenting here did seem to jump to at first, despite the otherworldly logistics that would entail), then of course questions would need to be asked about authoritarian escalation.

But enforced mandatory quarantine explicitly for those choosing to travel (something that's even been done in some European countries too), given the stakes at hand, really doesn't seem like an overstep relatively speaking.

It's also worth noting that travel in Australia is extremely restricted anyway, so the number of people who are subject to this is pretty tiny.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#804

Post by ihattendorf »

_fat_santa wrote: post #771
flyinghamster wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did a quick look, searching (without quotes) "Australia permission to leave" on DDG. It looks to me like you're conflating emergency restrictions for COVID [0] with something like the exit visas that the former USSR used and Russia still uses. There are a great many people dying in the US at this very moment who were making this same sort of argument, right up until they caught COVID and ended up on ventilator…

The question is then: Why is that an emergency COVID restriction in the first place. I seriously do not understand where the logic is here. I can understand restricting travel in, but why restrict travel out? In my mind there is no reason why someone LEAVING your country might be a health concern. But hey we're talking about the folks that thought the logical solution to prevent people from spreading COVID at dog she…

I think the reasoning was that it's "easier" to stop a citizen from leaving than returning.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#805

Post by AndrewBissell »

throwanem wrote: post #798
AndrewBissell wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The historical ignorance around Covid and other pandemics, and the way people act as though it was some unprecedented event that justifies the unprecedented reaction, is really stunning.

One might perhaps imagine that those concerned with the lessons of history would not overlook the lack of precedent for a pandemic taking place in a time of ubiquitous and nigh instantaneous global travel. Such a one would be disappointed in this case, certainly, but the expectation could be considered reasonable nonetheless.

No, this doesn't actually make the definitive difference you think it does. Many earlier pandemics had no problem spreading throughout the almost entire world in relatively short order.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#806

Post by adamrezich »

strangeattractr wrote: post #589
Nursie wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's given up "all their civil rights" ? That seems like a massive hyperbole. In WA, there are no lockdowns or any real coronavirus restrictions once you're in. Looks good to me. Might want to compare those death rates too.

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…

has there ever been anything remotely resembling justification for nighttime curfews? I've tried to find any reasoning for it and completely failed to do so.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#807

Post by _-david-_ »

joshschreuder wrote: post #116
_-david-_ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Australians voted for these parties who then pass this policy. This policy is extreme. That sure seems like extremist politics to me. I don't get why you are talking about the US. This policy was passed by Australia. I am not saying that non mandatory voting will avoid extremist politics. All I am saying is that mandatory voting is not a silver bullet to avoiding extremism.

The Australians who voted for these parties largely do not give two shits about the bills, because a) unlike HN, they don't understand them, why they're bad or any of the consequences, and b) because the media monopoly here ensures they don't get adequate explanation or coverage, which in turn feeds a). I agree with GP that this is less about the Australian population being extremist or facilitating extremism as much…

Just because the average person doesn't know what bills are passed is irrelevant to what I am saying.

All I am saying is that forcing people to vote has no impact on stopping extreme policies. If you were correct Australia wouldn't have passed this and other similar laws over the past few years.

I agree that voter apathy can lead to extreme policies passing. That point is irrelevant to what I was trying to convey that extreme policies are still passed despite mandatory voting.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#808

Post by chrisseaton »

iechoz6H wrote: post #779
chrisseaton wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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." Your opinion is not factually supported. A million people were prosecuted for breaking lockdown laws in the UK.

In the first six months of lockdown in the UK 6500 prosecutions were undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). These included non-lockdown flouting crimes which were simply flagged as 'Corona Virus related', such as threatening to cough on somebody whilst 'infected' and stealing items deemed essential for dealing with the pandemic.[1] Your assertion that a million people were prosecuted seems far fetched. 1.…

The blackout lockdown. A million people were prosecuted in WW2. It's a myth that everyone was cool with it and compliant back then.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#809

Post by dane-pgp »

boba-men wrote: post #358
dane-pgp wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all Western European nations have stricter voting laws / requirements than the US does The UK* has never required voting ID for elections, and it is possible to walk into a local polling station and be given a ballot paper after just stating your name and address. Sadly that may no longer be the case for future elections, because the UK Conservative party has decided to introduce a voter ID requirement, modelled on…

You pointing out edge cases isn't a very convincing argument against Europe as a whole. In general, Europe has more strict voting ID laws (fact). In general, Europe has more restricted immigration laws (fact). I mean in the US the debate isn't even about who to let in, rather if we should even have a border and allow people to come in as they please. In general, Europe is more racist. When Orlando Patterson, a renown…

I think you are making some reasonable points here, even though I don't agree with all of them. You're right that I was cherry-picking the example of the UK (just as the comment I responded to was cherry-picking examples of French and Danish policies) but I think I was justified in doing so since the other comment said "all Western European nations". Perhaps the difference between "all" and "nearly all" is not worth quibbling over, but my cherry-picked example does show that it's perfectly possible for a country to have legitimate elections without voter ID, which I think is relevant here.

Your comment would probably be more convincing if you provided some citations for your claims, though. The EU average for refugee population, on the link I gave last time, is 2.3 per 1,000 people and the European average is 2.01 per, which are both twice as much as the US. I suppose it's possible that Europe is more welcoming of refugees than other immigrants, but I think your second "fact" is not self-evidently true. The only policy you might have in mind is that EU states can, in some circumstances, expel citizens from other states, despite freedom of movement[0] and the Schengen system, which doesn't have an equivalent in the US as far as I know.

Of all your claims, though, the one that I think most needs to be supported is the idea that not having a border is a mainstream position. I don't think you're saying that every inch of America's land and sea borders need to have an impenetrable physical barrier to even qualify as a border at all, so can you point to an example of an official mainstream party policy saying that there should be no limits on who can enter the country? I'm sure some people on Twitter have suggested that the US shouldn't have a border, but I don't think it has more political support as a policy than, for example, the "shoot to kill" policy suggested by Georgia state Rep. John Yates (R).[1]

[0] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/myth-busting-free-movement/

[1] https://www.laprogressive.com/georgia-lawmaker-national-guar...

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#810

Post by dang »

kongin wrote: post #760
dang wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You don't have to change your views but we want thoughtful, substantive comments here, not battlefield stuff. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How are you dealing with weaponised flags? I'd put more effort into posts if they weren't just removed by someone who didn't like what they said. Give than you've unflagged a half dozen of them 12 hours later.

Those are two separate questions. If you want to comment here you need to follow the rules regardless of what other people are doing.
Post reply on HN