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

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#281

Post by cryptonector » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #238

falcrist wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content in the book you're talking about is probably better represented by Professor Duane's original viral video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE I think he wrote that book in part because he was frustrated by the lack of nuance in his presentation and the fact that it sort of "went viral". 13 million views for a lecture about law is pretty astonishing.

Yes, but iirc the best advice at the time of the viral video was invoke the 5th, but it has since evolved to do not invoke the 5th. Insist on your 6th .

Since Salinas v. Texas you cannot stay quiet. You must invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak to the police, else they can use your silence against you at trial(!).

Professor Duane has a video on that topic.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#282

Post by axguscbklp » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #217

axguscbklp wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Officials being democratically elected does not necessarily mean anything - in theory, a majority of the population could vote to literally enslave a minority of the population. I think that it is fair for a minority of the population to have some threshold beyond which they are willing to use force if necessary even if by doing so they are going against the wishes of the majority.

51% of a population having a say over their own lives is better than any other system I know of, because every other system I know of ends up with substantially less than 51% of the population having a say over their own lives. It's far from perfect, but I do think we should realize the comparison is to other forms of government, not some abstract ideal. And I'm not suggesting that there's never a reason to act viole…

Yes, it likely means killing people who think of themselves as patriots. However, many people who work for oppressive governments genuinely think of themselves as patriots. I do not see why it matters whether using firearms against a government means killing patriots or not. Many of the people who worked for Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union to oppress their fellow citizens were patriots by the standard meaning of the word.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#283

Post by TameAntelope » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

axguscbklp wrote: post #282

TameAntelope wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

51% of a population having a say over their own lives is better than any other system I know of, because every other system I know of ends up with substantially less than 51% of the population having a say over their own lives. It's far from perfect, but I do think we should realize the comparison is to other forms of government, not some abstract ideal. And I'm not suggesting that there's never a reason to act viole…

Yes, it likely means killing people who think of themselves as patriots. However, many people who work for oppressive governments genuinely think of themselves as patriots. I do not see why it matters whether using firearms against a government means killing patriots or not. Many of the people who worked for Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union to oppress their fellow citizens were patriots by the standard meaning…

It often matters to the people making these statements, is my point.

I haven't expressed my opinion about it, I'm just saying that the folks suggesting using firearms to "stop tyranny" very rarely know what they're actually saying.

Some do.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#284

Post by nemo44x » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #266

nemo44x wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you’re missing the point I think. The point is that a gun let’s you defend yourself from tyranny. And that is a sufficient number of people find a government tyrannical they can choose to organize against them by not following their tyrannical laws which are illegitimate. And the tyrannical government would have to take up arms against these people to enforce their power with the knowledge these people can defend…

I am not missing the point, you are. Guns aren't some abstract concept you get to hand-wave away, they have exactly one function -- to kill things. You "defend yourself from tyranny" by killing patriots of your own country. That's literally the only way to do it, so when you say things like "defend yourself from tyranny" you are saying, "I'm willing to murder cops and soldiers." because that's who you'll have to "def…

Nah, you’re missing the point entirely I think and you’re trying to use language devices to create a straw man.

You wouldn’t be defending yourself from patriots. Patriots wouldn’t take up arms against an oppressed citizenship they swore to protect. You’re logic says the SS were patriots. They were not (even if their government found them to be lawful) and anyone who shot them as they raided an innocent persons home is a hero. There are innumerable examples of this throughout history and I’d argue is the default state of power historically.

Machiavelli wrote hundreds of years ago that liberty can only be secured by the passion of a citizenry. That a paid militia can never secure it in the long run. This type of philosophy is in part what 2a is premised on.

I don’t think most anyone says we need to be armed so we can threaten violence if we don’t get our way on an arbitrary issue. I’m not saying Australia doesn’t pass this particular law if society is armed. But I do think I’d feel better about the direction the government is going if I knew my neighbors were armed.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#285

Post by christophilus » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #223

gorwell wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Plenty of us are still libertarian and think for ourselves. (Including you, I’d guess.)

Every platform is likely to eventually reflect the most common forms of groupthink from the culture. The reason I love HN is that I regularly see counter points and good perspective here that I simply don’t see anywhere else.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#286

Post by cryptonector » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #258

maerF0x0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Just out of curiosity - are you possibly confusing civil vs. criminal cases? The 5th amendment does apply in civil cases to the extent that you cannot be compelled to testify - but a judge can interpret your lack of response in a negative light in a c…

I think GP must be referring to Scalia's vote in Salinas v. Texas, which decided that a defendant's silence can be used against them at trial unless they specifically invoked their 5th amendment right to be quiet.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#287

Post by axguscbklp » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #283

axguscbklp wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it likely means killing people who think of themselves as patriots. However, many people who work for oppressive governments genuinely think of themselves as patriots. I do not see why it matters whether using firearms against a government means killing patriots or not. Many of the people who worked for Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union to oppress their fellow citizens were patriots by the standard meaning…

It often matters to the people making these statements, is my point. I haven't expressed my opinion about it, I'm just saying that the folks suggesting using firearms to "stop tyranny" very rarely know what they're actually saying. Some do.

Psychologically I think it is very easy to resolve any possible contradictions. "My side are the real patriots - their side are false patriots who are actually bootlickers/oppressors/occupiers/traitors/etcetera."

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#288

Post by cryptonector » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

katbyte wrote: post #227

cryptonector wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Australians in Australia are not allowed to leave the country they way they were prior to covid. Before, like any other reasonable country, all you needed was a valid passport. Heck, the U.S. doesn't even require that much. But now Australia requires more than just a passport, and to my knowledge that has had the net effect of not letting any Australians out.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#289

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

handoflixue wrote: post #280

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You confuse legality with morality.

I did not confuse anything. You may be confused about what I mean, and if so, I'm sorry for any unclear communication on my part that led to that state of affairs. Feel free to ask for clarification of my position if you're curious.

> Besides which, the state has done just fine without such invasive measures before.

That is not obviously true to me. For most of the period of time during which the people have had the capability to communicate remotely, the state has also had the capability to surveil that communication when warranted. And it seems plausible to me that the lack of that capability before permitted much criminality that since has been prevented.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#290

Post by christophilus » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #151

Crime rates have been going down for decades in the Western world (including Oz). Yet governments continue to pass surveillance laws to “fight crime.” If that doesn’t highlight their true aims, I don’t know what else does.

They’ll claim the drop in crime is a direct result of their draconian overreach. So, if a little has worked so well, why not heap more on?

Incidentally, it’s really hard to counter this reasoning, no matter what subject it is applied to. The truth is, we don’t know what crime would have done without such a system in place. It may have dropped even further. It’s the typical causation / correlation confusion.