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

291–300 of 397 posts

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#291

Post by javajosh »

8372049 wrote: post #222

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…

5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules, giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite.

And then it happens so much it's standard practice and attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#292

Post by cookie_monsta »

narrator wrote: post #166

Something really bizarre and unsettling is happening in Australia. Despite a small number of covid deaths, they have by far the most totalitarian lockdowns and are pursuing some of the most extreme social control measures of any country on earth. They are building quarantine imprisonment camps, doing national manhunts for people who aren't quarantining, arresting people for anti-government speech, using the military…

Hyperbole, mostly

Versions of all of those things exist, but not in the way you describe them.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#293

Post by majormajor »

hajile wrote: post #144
majormajor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% or the middle 25-76% or whatever other random fraction you pull out of your butt?

Most of the early Federalist papers deal with this problem of democracy in very damning terms. It leads to failures of the state -- usually within a hundred or so years. That is why the US decided to be a Republic instead. Outside the US, countries after WW1/2 opted for democracies instead of republics with strong foundations. We're witnessing the point of failure due to the exact issues outlined in those papers.

If there is such a convincing answer, why don't you actually state it, instead of just saying that others have talked about it?

It's very non-obvious to me why there's a natural "coalition of the bottom" versus that just being one possible way for things to shake out.

(It's also worth noting that the original American system already suffered a MASSIVE failure of the state - coincidentally also around the hundred year mark - which makes me think maybe they didn't have things perfectly figured out anyway. It hurts the credibility of the appeal to tradition/authority.)

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#294

Post by sjy »

peytoncasper wrote: post #14

Interesting. I’m not from Australia but I thought the concept of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal interesting. It seems like a way to offload work from the main court system. According to Wikipedia it also does seem to have oversight by the Federal Court of Australia. [1] While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn’t any detail in the…

The AAT is basically what’s known as an administrative court in other countries [1], or a consolidation of the numerous tribunals presided over by administrative law judges in the U.S. [2]. The average person in Australia is most likely to interact with the AAT by appealing a decision of the federal government in relation to child support, workers’ compensation, social security, immigration or tax [3]. Although the distinction between an AAT member and a judge is constitutionally important, it is not that obvious or practically significant. Both conduct public hearings and provide written reasons for deciding the legal disputes within their jurisdiction, which can be further appealed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_court

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge

[3] https://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#295

Post by HKH2 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #37

What is it about Australia that is driving it to be so uniquely totalitarian among the English-speaking countries? I always envisioned it culturally more individualistic than the UK, but they've gone even farther down the path of state control and surveillance.

Individualism in Australia is usually about fighting social control, but that just leads to being under government control.

We have fewer cultural roots so it makes the above process faster.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#296

Post by falcrist »

cryptonector wrote: post #281
maerF0x0 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I seem to recall the correct thing to do is to ask for council.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#297

Post by TameAntelope »

nemo44x wrote: post #284
TameAntelope wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Patriots would be the soldiers and cops you'd have to murderin order to "escape from tyranny".

It doesn't matter what word you use, you're still advocating for the murder of police and military members.

I'm not missing the point because I disagree with you, it'd be nice if you stopped trying to suggest that to be the case.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#298

Post by TameAntelope »

axguscbklp wrote: post #287
TameAntelope wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I think you're getting wrapped up in the word choice here. Someone espousing these beliefs is supporting the killing of cops and soldiers, an act which is very often reprehensible in the same circles.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#299

Post by lotsofpulp »

christophilus wrote: post #272
throwawayswede wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Being able to tamper is a game changer and would cause me to end my subscription. As far as I know, the US government does not explicitly condone that...yet.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#300

Post by cookie_monsta »

bitreality wrote: post #103
artursapek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think any of what's going on in Australia is the will of the people?

They have people voting over 3% tax increases and gay marriage, not surveillance. Doesn't matter who you vote for, every party is in favor of increasing their power.

We never had a vote on same sex marriage. It was more a completely optional mail in survey whose results the govt. was completely welcome and within its rights to ignore.

On that one, at least, the politicians were too spineless to take a stand.

Post reply on HN