Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

innovationaus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 294 posts

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#281

Post by brokenmachine »

0xy wrote: post #124
waddlesworth wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree with you, although I'm a little more optimistic. 2PP has Labor winning the next election. Some key figures in the Liberal party (Frydenberg, Hunt) have some tough campaigns ahead of them after the massive bias against their home state that's been on display. Then there's the whole friendlyjordies thing, which I've heard commentary about in circles where I would have never expected it. I don't know…

Why would Labor winning change anything? Labor have voted for every single piece of surveillance legislation tendered over the last decade. The AA Bill, metadata retention and more. They voted for it all. They are vehement supporters of surveillance state policies and have voted for it -- repeatedly.

At least they pretended to require amendments. But then they caved and gave in anyway, WTF.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#282

Post by iammisc »

pgreenwood wrote: post #280
iammisc wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long will you do a great job flattening the curve. If t requires fifty years of this policy because covid is still endemic elsewhere will you be okay with people being born, living and dying under your current regime? If so why? If not why not?

We're expecting the policy to start to be lifted when we reach 80% double vaccination rates, in around 4 to 6 weeks time.

Good luck with surg of covid when that happens.

Australia is a beautiful country but you are not going to be granted an exception to the exact same sequence of events as other countries with high vac rates that opened up.

Hope you actually get your promised freedom.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#283

Post by hndamien »

NoPicklez wrote: post #274
pentae wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Australian I respectfully disagree with you and agree with the article - most Australians just don't care. I've consistently mentioned this to my Australian friends, colleagues, family members for about 10 years now and it's always met with complacency. Most people don't care, some people care but won't do anything about it, and some people think that "If i'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry abo…

As an Aussie as well, I think not knowing about something is often aligned with people also just not caring. This goes for most things technology really, most people don't care until it impacts them. We all have only a finite amount of things we can care about in a day and for many Aussies, laws, especially laws around the use of technology aren't front of mind for the average Australian. But as time goes on and thes…

It's very Australian to care when it is too late.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#284

Post by hndamien »

0xdeadb00f wrote: post #279
bobbytit wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing is a fake democracy. You are given the choice between two cheeks of the same arse. Don't be too quick to confuse stupidity with a difference of opinion.

What I am describing is realistic. No independent will ever win. If that's a fake or flawed democracy so be it - I can't help that, it's out of my control. What is in my control is whether I get to pick the lesser of the two evils. The cheek that's slightly bigger, juicier.

You have a preferential voting system, not the lesser of two evils.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#285

Post by 0xdeadb00f »

hndamien wrote: post #284
0xdeadb00f wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I am describing is realistic. No independent will ever win. If that's a fake or flawed democracy so be it - I can't help that, it's out of my control. What is in my control is whether I get to pick the lesser of the two evils. The cheek that's slightly bigger, juicier.

You have a preferential voting system, not the lesser of two evils.

But you understand that no independent will ever win right? That isn't realistic.

It is technically preferential and sure, it could happen, but none of the independents have, or will ever have enough of a following to win a federal election.

Also, for the record. I don't choose either of the two evils as my number one pick when I vote. I always do choose the party I think is best for this country privacy wise. But sadly, they will never win a federal election.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#286

Post by exodust »

Tomis02 wrote: post #205
exodust wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody bats an eyelid....Can't go to Kmart....Riots in the streets...slight personal discomfort Hyperbole overload. Here in Victoria, we're still in the world's longest lockdown. Curfews, strict rules, masks outside, closed local businesses, police ready to pounce on anyone waving a sign saying "end the lockdown". To express any anti-lockdown opinion, is to be a traitor of public health. You're not a team player un…

It seems we're both pretty good at hyperbole. > Can't even protest in a responsible covid-safe manner Breaking lockdown to protest lockdown kinda misses the point of a lockdown. I understand people's frustration but once you compare the number of covid-related deaths to other countries you can reasonably conclude that the overall effort of fighting the pandemic was successful. Were there some badly implemented measur…

> Breaking lockdown to protest lockdown kinda misses the point of a lockdown.

Everyone has a line where breaking lockdown to protest lockdown becomes an option. For some that line is approximately 30 weeks in.

Some family units will cope better than others. The wealthy ones with large houses, spare rooms, backyard retreats do better. Families locked up in tight, affordable housing suffer more. And when education becomes a tedious long-term chore delivered via choppy laptop without quality social interaction, the need for ending lockdown weighs heavy.

> citizens have not only rights but also responsibilities

Many of the rules have been made on the run, with vast differences between states and countries. There is no universal playbook for lockdowns. People will disagree, strongly disagree, and sometimes protest.

In regards to "fourth Reich", some look at history and are concerned by scope-creep, or foot in the door power-grabbing opportunities by law-makers. Before the pandemic, there was much condemnation of policy-making, over-stepping, even corruption and flatout lies in and around Gov HQ and parties. Endless juicy material for commentators and critics, paints a picture of alarmingly untrustworthy political power sources and related corporate associates. One might be forgiven for questioning or resisting the box-ticking responsibility demanded of citizens by those distrusted so vigorously in normal times.

"Today we are announcing a 2 week snap lockdown", said literally hundreds of days ago. IMHO protesting lockdowns is safer from moral corruption than the nightly news would have you believe.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#287

Post by johnisgood »

masterof0 wrote: post #261
87er43 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True freedom is getting fired for hesitation over experimental medicine. People with hesitation are assholes who want to put others at risk. It's so clear now.

It seems that is not experimental anymore, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr... .

There has been MANY cases of FDA having approved then withdrawn medicines for their side-effects that were realized later though.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#288

Post by BelenusMordred »

stephen_g wrote: post #14

It’s a fairly complex situation. Most people just don’t realise all the encroaching police state laws even exist (I refer to the real ones Federally, not the temporary State-Government health orders that some people have tried to blow out of proportion). We have very little media diversity. The few billionaires who own the few outlets enjoy the continuing tax cuts, random free grants, advertising spend, etc. from the…

> not the temporary State-Government health orders that some people have tried to blow out of proportion

They banned single mothers from taking their child to playgrounds after being locked in their homes for weeks and then fined them thousands for doing so. They got rid of this absurd rule when cases rose by 3x, further highlighting how absolutely ridiculous it was.

Certain state governments have clearly overstepped the mark and anyone defending them will not go down well in time. Thankfully you can't delete comments here.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#289

Post by hndamien »

0xdeadb00f wrote: post #285
hndamien wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a preferential voting system, not the lesser of two evils.

But you understand that no independent will ever win right? That isn't realistic. It is technically preferential and sure, it could happen, but none of the independents have, or will ever have enough of a following to win a federal election. Also, for the record. I don't choose either of the two evils as my number one pick when I vote. I always do choose the party I think is best for this country privacy wise. But sa…

Theoretically an independent could get enough support to form a party that could win. My point is that at least the system is structured that such an outcome could happen over time, or that the process of this happening forces major parties to adapt to the prevailing winds against their ideologies. In a strict two party system you get systematic pressure towards polarisation, rather than a more bumpy road to some sort of consensus that is apparently easily manipulated by media.

Re: Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

#290

Post by brokenmachine »

ntSean wrote: post #54
ImTheMaddest wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't blame the LNP for all of this. All of the surveillance related bills passed in the last 10 years have been bipartisan. I'd also go as far as to say this is what Australians want. Many people believe these laws won't be used against regular citizens and will assist in law enforcement efforts.

It isn't the LNP or ALP which decide which security laws are implemented. If you'd like an explainer on how security laws such as TOLA are enacted, this channel is a great resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4rT3-GcHgLIHyrzA8RWzA

It's so pathetic that every video I've seen about these issues, most of the videos on that channel you posted and EFA have like 100-200 views.

Democracy dying with a whimper. Complacent is an understatement.

Post reply on HN