Live data from Hacker News

Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance

innovationaus.com

271–280 of 294 posts

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

#271

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…

I don't think it's that complex. I always thought it was inevitable that once everything we did happened via a computer, gathering it all together would be an irresistible attraction to man+dog. It was always going to accelerate, and it was always going to go into overshoot.

And while it's painted in forum's like this as all negative, the reality is it's not. In fact there have been some pretty big positives. Crime levels have been dropping, while prosecutions have gone up. Criminologists have put that down to better surveillance. Cameras everywhere have meant the odds of getting caught for a given offense have gone up, so more people have been getting caught on their first offence. Amusingly, it's just just the criminals who have been on the receiving end of this - it's the law enforcers too. They used to be able to hide their overreaches behind the solidarity of the blue line. Now misbehaviour is very likely caught on a camera that's not behind the line, and the results have been on the world's headlines.

I know the naturally privacy conscious feel like this is a personal invasion, I feel like that too on occasions. Their problem is that to date it's most likely been a net positive. Open societies with less criminality and corruption do better, and that seems to have been the net result so far. While like you I doubt many people have analysed in these terms, what they have done is evaluated how life is now vs before, and it seems OK. In simple terms, we can have more shiny things. Therefore the simply don't care some privacy guru seems a privacy apocalypse around the corner. So far the reverse has been true, and wot do these supposed experts know anyway?

Still, I feel decidedly uncomfortable with the Assistance and Access bill, and its friends. My problem is not that they allow enough information to be mined - it's that they don't allow enough. Specifically, while they allow the government agencies to gather information on its citizens, the bills go out of their way to ensure the citizens have no idea how much their government is spying on them, or who is being spied upon, or why, or at whose behest. Without a little sunlight to sterilise things, it's inevitable malfeasance will grow in the dark. We already have numerous examples of petty privacy theft - police spying on their ex's, taxi's chasing credit card owners and the like. It's just a question of time before one politician plunders another's emails and polling data, or one of these systems gets hacked and mined for identity data for years before anybody becomes the wiser.

The sad bit is, it is only after they have blatant examples staring them in the face that voters will conclude this overreach has downsides too. So we will have to suffer some real pain before there is a correction. The good news is the public education has already started. The Huawei bans are an example of that. It was only after Huawei won the contract to run the Danish telephone system, and later the Danish discovered their private data leaking across the world that politicians and intelligence agencies woke up to the fact the same data gathering capabilities they were exploiting could also be used against them.

They reacted by banning Huawei. One day they will figure out that isn't going to fix the problem. We've since learnt Juniper was hacked for years, apparently by the Chinese who could watch all data flowing through their gear. And that's just the foreign players. In Russia we have private criminal gangs gathering data on a scale well beyond their Law Enforcement Agencies, and using it to shake down institutions like banks. The only cure I can see for this is a transparency on a scale we haven't seen to date. We have to put the days of blindly trusting government bureaucratic caesars to determine what data is collected, who can see it and what it is used for behind us. That information is too dangerous to be kept in the dark - it must be open to all citizens to inspect.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context here is in Australia . The links you provider are all about the US. The Australian BLM protests remained peaceful.

I misunderstood the comment. I didn't realize there were BLM protests in Australia. Strange that there are people who think the Australian government is systemically racist but then are fine with authoritarian lockdowns coming from that same government though.

Wanting to end racism is a different thing to wanting to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. You can want both things simultaneously, they're not in conflict.

It's also not necessary the same governments, or just government at all.

The federal government abdicated their responsibility to manage quarantine and border security to the states. It's been the states that have been managing quarantine, largely through Hotels (except in the Northern Territory, where they've had the Howard Springs facility.

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

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh! Amazing! That’s something we used to say as children to each other at school. I’m now 40 amd don’t recall the last time I heard anyone say that.

We only said that because it was cold war rhetoric, it came from 'free' relative to communist ones. Now the contrast is gone it's rendered meaningless.

Ah yeah right, I dunno if I’d made that connection before, seems obvious now.

Something else we used to say to each other at a school in the 90s was “BANG! - The Victorian Police Force”, if I recall correctly that was a running gag Full Frontal or Fast Forward did.

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

#274
post #139

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…

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 these laws actually start to impact us, then you will see people caring.

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

#275
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that obviously fall under entrapment?

Is entrapment a meaningful legal concept in Australia?

Yes, but not as easy a defense as in the US. Since Ridgeway v The Queen ('95).

However, entrapment as a legal defense is less an overall a defense and rather a reason to exclude a particular piece of evidence from the case. There will also likely be no punishment for those who attempted the entrapment, even if the evidence ends up being excluded.

Australia does have other mechanisms by which something similar may sometimes be used, such as conflict of interest (such as in the Lawyer X trials) are more appropriate defenses, where the US may simply use entrapment.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unfortunate. I immigrated to Australia 10 years ago, and when I arrived, I was shocked by the level of acceptance of surveillance and even the police rights to search. I'm not an Australian citizen, but I make sure the Australians I know are aware that it isn't like this everywhere around the world. If you don't like it, it's better to try to change it or bring awareness than just leave.

> I was shocked by the level of acceptance of surveillance and even the police rights to search It's not even just the police - the goons on the doors of JB Hi-Fi will demand to root through your bags on your way out of the shop. Nobody even seems to question it.

Yup, that's why I stopped buying from any store that does that, which forced many of my purchases online.

It's why I like the story of how Fry's Electronics, which had a similar practice in the US, was taken for $65M by one of their executives. They were guarding every penny and treating every customer like a thief while one of their own walked out the back door with millions. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/frys-electronics-execu...

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on what year you were born and whether you got into the property market or not (again, depending on what year). There is a very large gap between the haves and have not's in terms of property wealth. It's a strange situation here. A 25 year old on 150k p/a will have major difficulty getting into the property market because owner investors, who bought in a couple of decades ago (or even a decade ago!) are…

> A 25 year old on 150k p/a will have major difficulty getting into the property market errrrr... Australia is a big place so this isn't as concrete as you've made it sound. There's quite a lot of affordable property, but sure, the handful of places (cities) where a 25 year old can manage to get 150k p/a pre-tax income might also be inaccessible for buying property for a few reasons, one of which are the situation in…

There is an Australia outside of Sydney and Melbourne but job opportunity in regions are very limited. Hopefully the remote work trend that accelerated with Covid lockdowns will make the situation better.

"Australian adults are the wealthiest in the world, a new report has found.

Aussies topped the global rankings for median wealth per adult, at $A315,000 per person, according to Credit Suisse’s annual Global Wealth Report."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/australian-adul...

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

#278
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…

I know people who go so far the other way. They don't vote because they think it's all rigged. They don't follow politics so they think all the parties are the same. It's moronic. I try to explain but I'm met with looks like _I'm_ the moron.

The "both parties are the same" thing is a meme in some more engaged circles, because it's so obviously false to anyone paying attention.

It really shouldn't be surprising that the incumbent party benefits from this attitude, yet I get the same look from likely just as many people.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about explain why you disagree? Instead of saying shit like that? Also I never called anyone a moron outright. There is more to a political party than their stance on a single issue. If you can't see that then you are a moron. And yes, I did just call you that, outright.

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.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all good, it's why I asked what you meant. I think we've done a fantastic job of flattening the curve here compared to places like the US/UK. As long as we can continue to be on the right side of an ICU tipping point we should continue to ride this out.

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.
Post reply on HN