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

Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 397 posts

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#221

Post by mullingitover »

soco wrote: post #52

In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.

I would expect as much, just based on how badly direct democracies have performed historically.

John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy."

In the past, democracy was viewed as a form of government that republics devolved into.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#222

Post by 8372049 »

It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question, read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this article are incorrect.

It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading:

  (5)  If subsection (4) applies, the applicant must:
  
  (a)  provide as much information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and

  (b)  not later than 72 hours after the making of the application, send a duly sworn affidavit to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member, whether or not a warrant has been issued.
Subsection (4) is about immediate threats.

The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia).

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being able to arrest you without a court order.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#223

Post by systemvoltage »

gorwell wrote: post #123
soco wrote: post #52

In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.

That means the government and media successfully manufactured consent with the population. A majority of the US supported the War on Terror. That was manufactured consent with thanks to the corporate press. It was only the outliers that protested from the beginning, only proven correct after 20 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan. Now that this has ended, be on alert for the next…

Agreed. My expectation from a community like HN would be total rebellious culture from the mainstream attitude, full of interesting perspectives, data-backed arguments, anti-mob pro-objectivity discussions, and no shortage of nutjobs posting crazy theories - the good ol' hacker culture.

What terrifies me is that HN community continues to double-down anything but mainstream and conformity. This is in direct relation to larger societal trends that you're highliting. Even the slightest neutral stance will get you downvoted.

If no one on HN is doing the legwork for raising concerns, who will?

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#224

Post by ceilingcorner »

mullingitover wrote: post #221
soco wrote: post #52

In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.

I would expect as much, just based on how badly direct democracies have performed historically. John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy." In the past, democracy…

This was covered by Plato 2,500 years ago. But we don’t learn about that ancient outdated stuff anymore, as it isn’t beneficial for the economy.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#225

Post by pessimizer »

asien wrote: post #54

Reminds me of anti-free speech laws that was almost passed in France. It was designed to help fight « hate speech ». It enable police to remove literally ANY content from the interne t as long as it was « hateful » of course there is no legal definition of hateful. I think similar laws have been passed in Belgium and Germany. I find it funny that has economic growth from the post war era is slowing down and climate c…

How “Hate Crimes Against Police” Expose the Fatal Flaw Within Hate Crime Statutes

https://truthout.org/articles/how-hate-crimes-against-police...

Offenses Against Police Could Be Hate Crime

https://www.post-journal.com/news/page-one/2020/09/offenses-...

If you squint enough, lése-majesté starts to look like hate crime legislation. Paul Kagame maintains his dictatorship on a foundation of hate speech and genocide denial accusations.

When the enemy is an abstraction like "hate" there's no way to create a bright line between it and "disagreement" or "opposition." Are you publicly condemning a politician's behavior, or are you inciting hate against him?

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#226

Post by nix23 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #23

Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts pol…

>power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data

Since when is it legal in any democracy that the police can temper (modify, add) or delete proof? That's just beyond my understanding.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#227

Post by katbyte »

cryptonector wrote: post #58
908B64B197 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a way out of surveillance? Vote with your feet. Divest out of Australia. Make sure there's a brain drain out of the country.

Leaving Australia is currently very difficult for Australians in Australia even if they reside abroad. But if one could leave, where should they go to?

going by the number living and moving to canada/west coast it can't be to hard for those under 35 with the working holiday visa

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#228

Post by lisper »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #65
cryptonector wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.

I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1] And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions. Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri... EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details.…

Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment. Conservatives hate the ninth.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#229

Post by trident5000 »

cfcfcf wrote: post #36
nemo44x wrote: post #26

It's a good thing everyone surrendered their firearms to this same government. Once they know you can't resist anything they can do anything to you. I'm guessing NZ is next now that they've confiscated nearly every firearm they could.

Yes. If we had our firearms we could shoot back. Pew pew!

I think you really underestimate what an entire populace geared with small arms can do if pushed too far. And thats the way it should be. The govt should be scared of crossing lines that anger the people they are supposed to represent.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#230

Post by elric »

tshaddox wrote: post #94
elric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. Is it? Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow. Anyone associated with $thing could then be watched and imprisoned. With judicial oversight. Some possible values from $thing taken from history: being gay, (not) being christian, being a pacifist, being poor/homeless The above have all been persecuted in the past. Sometimes in…

> Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow. Okay, but if a government wasn’t legally allowed to surveil you, they could change the law tomorrow so that they could legally surveil you. I’m not sure what this mode of argument really shows.

That's true. I don't think it's the legality of the surveillance that's bothering me, it's more the vast and ever growing capability of the surveillance apparatus. Which is fueled by the legal framework.
Post reply on HN