Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours • Hacker News Board

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#271

Post by retrac » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

dukeofdoom wrote: post #175

retrac wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should have slammed the international borders shut at the first sign of it, and placed any region with outbreaks into the strictest lockdown we could humanely devise. Lesson learned for next time. Too late for that for most of the world. Now we have to learn to live with it somehow. But it worked for New Zealand. They're in a very odd position now. Domestically as long as they can keep it out, they could go comple…

I'm not sure you realize how much the world is connected now. Look up tanker ship traffic to realize how much things go back and forth. Locking up a country to outsiders is fantasy, and a terrible horrible idea. Even North Korea trades with anyone it can. Also, good luck securing the Southern Border. Retarding your economy, will cause far more death than the 1% claimed for Covid.

Yes, that's the awkward position they're in.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#272

Post by christophilus » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

throwawayswede wrote: post #192

lotsofpulp wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, Fastmail has been backdoored for a few years now by Australian government (and hence I assume the USA, too). It is Fastmail’s biggest disadvantage, in my opinion.

While that may be true (and I'm sort of disappointed to find this out), I don't think there's any server _at all_ that I'd trust if I'm worried about certain governments snooping in on my email. That level of communication would prompt me to use PGP.

Snooping is one thing. Full blown legal access for law enforcement to view and tamper is another.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#273

Post by gagege » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

UnseenTraveller wrote: post #147

eplanit wrote: post #68

There and New Zealand both. The responses (extreme lockdown) of both countries to Covid has been nothing short of insane.

I promise you, Australians and Kiwis don't need advice from Americans on how to keep citizens safe.

Many Americans are less concerned about safety than they are about tyrants who (as history shows) get a whiff of power and don't stop making rules until they have complete dominance over every aspect of people's lives. That's much scarier and more damaging than a virus which is, for over 99% of people, about on par with the flu.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#274

Post by krapp » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

hajile wrote: post #187

krapp wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet American gun owners also tend to be the Americans who most believe their government is already totalitarian. Maybe they think waving their guns around just stops things from getting worse?

Brianna Taylor's boyfriend shot a cop breaking into their residence. It was classified as self defense. Gun laws in California were pushed decades ago to keep black people from owning weapons as a tacit acknowledgement that they knew they were mistreating people and didn't want those people to be able to resist. No matter what a country dictates, for it to mean something, they have to send someone out to your house t…

>Guns quite literally put a very hard hold on how far they will go -- maybe not in passing laws, but definitely in enforcing them.

No they don't. Let's be real - Some American cops won't hesitate to shoot a black person, armed or unarmed. The only thing private gun ownership guarantees WRT the state is an escalation of force on its part. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? The government will send tanks and flamethrowers at you if they want you bad enough.

As far as Breonna Taylor and police violence against the black community goes, political action and protest seem to have been more effective at raising awareness and putting pressure on government to change policy and culture than the ever-present threat of private guns and populist violence, and changing culture is how you get to police not willing to step over the line.

I'm not saying (since this is bound to be a touchy comment) that black people shouldn't arm themselves or are never justified in defending themselves against police brutality, but I am saying that doing so has no effect on the system at large.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#275

Post by jackson1442 » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #208

hughrr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well fuck I just moved to Fastmail. Who else is out there? And no I’m not self hosting.

I use Mailbox.org. My only regret is not buying my own domain name for it ahead of time in case Germany started doing things I wasn’t cool with. I’ve been sufficiently satisfied with their service. Sometimes emails take a bit of time to receive, like 10 or so minutes. That’s about it.

Ten minutes seems problematic. I use a few services where the MFA codes I receive (via email!) expire in only 5 minutes.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#276

Post by csomar » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #130

donatj wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I've always had doubts about direct democracy. Most people are idiots who scare easily and whose views should not be considered.

I’ve always wondered how hard it would be to start your own country, people start new companies all the time to solve problems, I think it’s time we start a new country for the first time in how many years? Maybe a government that actually does respect privacy and doesn’t just throw it out the window because of “terrorism” or whatever the thing of the moment might be. Also would be nice to live somewhere that doesn’t…

Technically, it is not hard (assuming you have the money). Your biggest hurdle is getting some sort of recognition from other countries. Enough to be able to trade, and enough not to be bombed by some military out there. An island will be a perfect choice as it'll be hard for "refugees", terrorists and militias to slip through your borders.

Your next hurdle is getting a police / army force as police can take over your city if they are not faithful to you. Since you can't protect your island, you'll need some diplomatic deal with a bigger country (USA, France, China, etc...) to pledge for your protection. Gotta pay them somehow for that kind of protection.

Don't be deluded. There are no dictators out there, but representations of the current forces and powers. At some duration in the timeline of this earth, the powers and forces enabled the creation of democratic nations with generous freedoms afforded to its citizens. Of course this would change as these powers and forces shift.

Australia is a de-facto military dictatorship given that it is a resource-export-oriented nation. The forces at the time (being part of the Common Wealth and an ally to the US) has made it a democratic and free country.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#277

Post by zizee » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #240

systemvoltage wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, you're not allowed to go beyond 5km radius of your house. Can someone in Australia confirm the details of the lockdown? Virus is here to stay for many years, if not decades. We're never going to eliminate it. It is time we push back on draconian measures in the name of covid. Unrelated but I can't even go to bathroom in SF city because every restaurant, convenience store, gas station, etc. have an excuse…

> I was fine with Gov-mandated measures last year when we didn't have vaccines. But, I am turning against my own self from last year. Several zip codes in the Bay are at what... 98% vaccination rate? I still don't get how the "much better" governments of Australia and New Zealands, held as examples through the pandemic, couldn't match the vaccine rollout of... the Trump Administration.

It's pretty simple. There have been far fewer cases and deaths than in the US. As for the vaccine rollout, it is largely a function of the early success in controlling infections.

The initial vaccine doses destined for Australia were diverted to more urgent areas (which was the right thing to do). Then as domestic product of AZ ramped up, a scare campaign ramped up (media love to make people worried) and the body for recommending vaccines gave advice for under 50s to not take AZ (whilst there was no actual alternative). Because covid lockdowns were effective, and Australians were seeing such low rates, there was complacency amongst the population and they were willing to wait for their vaccine of choice. Now delta is looking like it is making lockdowns less effective, and there is ample supply of Pfizer, people are scrambling to get vaccinated.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#278

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #252

WalterBright wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they live without the fear of death in a mass shooting I live in the US without the fear of death in a mass shooting because I understand statistics. There was a school shooting in my area a while back. There was a huge hue and cry to put uniformed police in all the schools. I (annoying person that I am) pointed out that statistically the children were much more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to sch…

> I live in the US without the fear of death in a mass shooting because I understand statistics. Obviously you are making the assumption I do not understand statistics, which I do. There are multiple preventable causes of death that can simultaneously be tragedies, and whataboutism does not negate from the extremely high death toll and comparative probability from gun violence in the United States. The comparison to…

I fear the sweeping new police and surveillance powers handed to the government to protect us from a statistically nonexistent threat.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#279

Post by eplanit » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #170

eplanit wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I guess if you're going to live under such rules, it's easier if you agree with them. I can only assume that you view the surveillance bill as also benevolent.

Please don't strawman me, I didn't say I agree with the surveillance bill (I do not) and I don't live in Australia - my family does though. It's a different country with a different set of tradeoffs, and is also a more free country than the United States across many important areas, which is why it rates higher in the Cato freedom index than the USA. It comes down to perspective, to take a separate topic to prove my…

I'm glad you're opposed to the bill, but what you describe sounds to me like a mindset of "I'm free because the government (via restrictions on people) helps me feel safe". To me, that's not freedom, but dependency.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#280

Post by handoflixue » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #19

andy_ppp wrote: post #10

Is there anywhere where you aren’t being watched now?

If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. As long as there is correct judicial oversight of these capabilities, then this is the correct way for things to be. Nobody should have an expectation of being able to conduct criminal business without surveillance. The issue comes in when the justice system is not providing correct oversight for this capability. That is wrong and shoul…

You confuse legality with morality. Privacy is, in part, the right to act on our own convictions. Breaking the law is a critical part of protest ("civil disobedience").

Besides which, the state has done just fine without such invasive measures before. Even with perfect oversight, the goals themselves can still be horribly corrupt, and no one should consider it "correct" to go about enforcing clearly immoral laws.