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

381–390 of 397 posts

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#381

Post by dang »

xenophonf wrote: post #374
dang wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar like this. It's not what the site is for. The GP comment wasn't substantive either but the idea, when replying, is to move further away from hell, not jump into it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I stand by my comments. I am all for a call to action in the face of illiberal governance, but my correspondent made an unsubtle appeal to political violence. That is wrong.

Sorry, but grandiose political rhetoric, including "I stand by my comments", is a bad fit for the trivial medium of an internet forum.

As for 'unsubtle appeal to political violence', please abide by this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It's not at all obvious that you read the comment correctly, and 'unsubtle' is a big overstatement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#382

Post by cookie_monsta »

narrator wrote: post #380
cookie_monsta wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are exemptions to the travel restrictions[1] So "not allowed to leave for any reason" is hyperbole. It has a grain of truth but like the other things on your list is a gross exaggeration. It's almost as if you shouldn't take everything you read online at face value [1] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia

You could get an exit visa from the Soviet Union under certain circumstances too. Just cause there's an exemption doesn't mean it's all ok.

The discussion isn't about if it's good policy (although low case numbers and low death rate are fairly compelling arguments). What's being called into question is the exaggerated nature of your claims.

We can leave for business, compassionate grounds, medical reasons etc etc. The line that we cannot "for any reason" is being pushed by people with an agenda and a particular interest in politicising a public health crisis just like all the other exaggerations you have parroted here.

I'm sorry you refuse to see that and in fact choose to participate. I'm not saying this is you, but the hilarious thing about the "free thinkers" on the pandemic is that they refuse to even entertain the possibility that they might be being used as pawns to peddle misinformation while accusing the rest of the world of being just that.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#383

Post by rangitatanz »

swader999 wrote: post #210
ManBlanket wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about averting the easily exploited, "no cost is too great" mentality entirely? If the cost is a disease which kills people smack-dab on the average human lifespan, 99% of which already had a significant confounding disease. We live on an overpopulated planet amidst global ecological collapse. Nobody seems to care about the millions, mostly children under 5, dying of respiratory illnesses caused by pollution or c…

Covid is somewhat better than driving in terms of risk to our younger generations and roughly on par with risk to our older and yet we go full stop for it.

"better" in that it's less risky to have covid than to drive? Might need a reference on that claim. My quick googling only thing I found a comparison to doing bomber runs over nazi Germany during ww2 for older generations.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#384

Post by Celeo »

afandian wrote: post #365
afandian wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too, and I just submitted a support request seeking clarification. I'll update with any reply I get.

Update: ``` Hi, Thank you for contacting Fastmail support. I’ve escalated your ticket to our privacy team, who is best suited to assist with this issue. You can expect to receive an update in approximately two business days. I thank you for your patience as we work to get this addressed for you. Sincerely, ** ```

I got the same as well. I look forward to hearing what they have to say on it.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#385

Post by audit »

8372049 wrote: post #351
lobocinza wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good intentions means nothing. Most people have good intentions but that doesn't prevent them from abusing power, lying and causing damages intentionally and unintentionally.

Then we mean different things by "good intentions".

Good intention still implies that the implementation allows for 'bias'. Prosecutorial bias, judicial bias.

Allowed bias is necessarely a bad thing, because that means bad behaviour can be hidden behind a shield of 'plausable deniability'.

I think any legal system that allows for prosecutorial and judicial discretion in anything that can lead to criminal charges, is destinet to become a system of entrapment over time.

I even have my own 'adage' to offer:

'A bad behaviour rewarded by sufficent increase economic or political power, will eventually corrupt and subvert any law that allows for prosecutorial discretion in determining guilt'

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#386

Post by basisword »

sjy wrote: post #304
ChrisKnott wrote: post #159

In what way was this bill "rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours"? The bill in question is dated 2020 and the committee was requesting submissions by 12th February[0] [0] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...

You’re quite right, but it is exceptional that the bill passed the House of Representatives on the same day as its second reading speech, and passed the Senate on the following day [1]. This means that there was little time for debate and amendment within Parliament itself, including by minor parties [2] and independents [3] not represented on the committee that reviewed the first draft of the bill. [1] https://www.a…

Doesn’t it pass that quickly because it got enough votes? In other words there wasn’t enough dissent to require further readings and debate because enough people were happy with it.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#387

Post by traloid »

8372049 wrote: post #316
javajosh wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then I don't consider it to be a big problem. If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads would probably roll. However, in most cases these things are legitimate. I've worked in government and most people have good intentions. We don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against…

Unless there are stated penalizations for violations, rules mean nothing.

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#388

Post by traloid »

tikwidd wrote: post #341
908B64B197 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will be given new freedoms Wow, that's Orwellian to say the least. Freedom is never granted, it is earned.

And not all freedoms are equal. My freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road is lesser than your freedom to drive safely, so we restrict the former over the latter. Australians have chosen the freedom to live free of the virus over some temporary freedom of movement. In Auckland (NZ) we are in probably some of the strictest lockdown conditions in the world, with schools and non-essential business closed, travel…

>Australians have chosen

Have they?

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#389

Post by sjy »

basisword wrote: post #386
sjy wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re quite right, but it is exceptional that the bill passed the House of Representatives on the same day as its second reading speech, and passed the Senate on the following day [1]. This means that there was little time for debate and amendment within Parliament itself, including by minor parties [2] and independents [3] not represented on the committee that reviewed the first draft of the bill. [1] https://www.a…

Doesn’t it pass that quickly because it got enough votes? In other words there wasn’t enough dissent to require further readings and debate because enough people were happy with it.

That’s a necessary condition for any bill to pass, but as explained in [2] and [3], this one followed an exceptional procedure which reduced the opportunity for parliamentarians outside the two major parties to consider, propose and persuade others to endorse amendments to the bill. The opposition was also “concerned” about aspects of it, but voted yes because of the “tension between how quickly criminals can adapt their trade craft and how long it takes to properly scrutinise and introduce the legislation required to counteract and disrupt criminal activity” [4].

[4] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

#390

Post by 8372049 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #363
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…

I don't see the necessity and equivalency to be honest. A police officer isn't allowed to search your apartment for example, why should he be allowed to search you documents without court order?

In many jurisdictions, a police officer is allowed to search your apartment under special, urgent circumstances. I'm sure you can think of cases where immediately issued warrants make sense, whether its for apartments or documents.
Post reply on HN