Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

digitalrightswatch.org.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#441

Post by haihaibye »

Aerroon wrote: post #225

I'm always kind of surprised by people who move to Australia. It's a country that has had an active policy of censorship on entertainment for a very long time - books, video games, movies. The fact that the populace is okay with such a policy would make me reconsider moving there. I've also read some really questionable things about policies regarding aboriginals in the northern territories. In 2007 the government 't…

The USA has dozens of dry counties, most famously the home county of Jack Daniel's.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#442

Post by Gustomaximus »

jakequade wrote: post #402
Nursie wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ban on alcohol in some communities is (AFAICT) welcomed by those communities, which have massive problems with it. There are laws in other states which allow people to declare their house a “dry place” which is then enforceable by law, to try to stop anyone from bringing alcohol into the house. I can’t tell you whether any of these measures work, but they aren’t implemented for reasons of racist suppression, from…

If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. There's alternatives that don't set people with problems back even further.

What if the communities are the ones creating/supporting these policies? Are the being racist to themselves? As from my reading this is often the case.

I'm not an expert in this field but it seems to me you are vastly oversimplifying the policy and without context. And using language like 'punitive' seems unfair as I dont see how this is a punishment, even if one were to believe it was misguided or ineffective. And I respect this policy has flaws and questionable value, while at the same time feel its fair to recognise it is being done in co-ordination with the community itself and and with altruistic intent.

What are these other alternatives you mention? Please suggest. I suspect they come with a whole set of other flaws and failures as rarely is a solution to these problems without a flip side.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#443

Post by didibus »

mc32 wrote: post #100
worik wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote. Protest - particularly direct action Challenge them

In Australia people are compelled to vote, so the problem looks like the majority having a different take. Not that I agree with their votes, but you can’t say they don’t vote. Ultimately what is one supposed to do in a democracy (never mind Australia for a moment) when you’re just not part of the majority opinion on something?

Well, I think that's where individual rights and a constitution is supposed to help. If at least you enjoy the rights you get, there's that. Maybe you disagree with how best to run the country so it can protect those rights, but at least you'd have them. And then you could argue that if a majority thinks one way, it might be right even if you disagree.

Otherwise, I forgot which philosopher said this, but the only real freedom is the freedom to choose where to live and the choice of many places with different viewpoints and social norms. That way each individual could pick what matched their preference best and move there.

Unfortunately the freedom to choose where to live is not really something the world provides. So you might be stuck where you are, but if you're lucky, you might manage to get into another place you prefer.

If that doesn't work, your last resort is the activist route. Make your case and change people's mind. It's happened in the past, but it's a tough road.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#444

Post by creata »

WalterBright wrote: post #186
layoric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Born in AU so bias is to stay, which leads me to push more for political change required to try to address these problems. Most of your 10 years has been under a particularly bad (and honestly corrupt) federal gov. Country has a large state capture problem from largely mining companies but also other special interests that have lobbied and . Anything that might threaten those interests is being pretty heavily targete…

> compulsory voting This always seemed like madness to me. You can force someone to vote, but you cannot force them to vote responsibly. They may just vote "screw you" just for revenge. The right to vote includes the right to abstain from voting when one does not care. Forced voting sounds like a recipe for bad election results. I would expect the same from paying people to vote.

> They may just vote "screw you" just for revenge.

Sure, but how is that worse than them not turning up at all?

> The right to vote includes the right to abstain from voting when one does not care.

And you're free to cast an invalid vote.

> Forced voting sounds like a recipe for bad election results.

Forced voting eliminates some variables from elections, including:

* inequality regarding who can afford to take the time to vote.

* which parties can rile up the most people so that they're actually motivated to vote.

* to some extent, the ability to disenfranchise groups of people who tend to vote against you.

I'm curious as to how it'd make the election results worse.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#445

Post by ErikVandeWater »

jakequade wrote: post #402
Nursie wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ban on alcohol in some communities is (AFAICT) welcomed by those communities, which have massive problems with it. There are laws in other states which allow people to declare their house a “dry place” which is then enforceable by law, to try to stop anyone from bringing alcohol into the house. I can’t tell you whether any of these measures work, but they aren’t implemented for reasons of racist suppression, from…

If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. There's alternatives that don't set people with problems back even further.

> If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy.

No it doesn't. A law does not become racist when one race disproportionately breaks it, otherwise every law everywhere would be racist.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#446

Post by ErikVandeWater »

8note wrote: post #154
kylebyproxy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsory voting in an unengaged populace can only serve to lower signal-to-noise ratio. How many times do we need to relearn "garbage in, garbage out"? The responsible ballot choice when uninformed is "abstain". AFAIA, Australia doesn't provide that option. Also, the intransigent moderates you mentioned create inertia biased toward status quo and inhibits appropriate policy action and change (see e.g. the slow-movi…

Voting at all in an unegaged populace is bad. Might as well just have a dictator

This is pretty disrespectful to people actually living under dictatorships.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#448

Post by caf »

gregsq wrote: post #237
Nagyman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just submit a blank ballot. https://www.quora.com/As-voting-is-compulsory-in-Australia-a...

I don’t see this as anywhere near the same thing though. These so called ‘donkey votes’ are derided, and categorised as together with voting errors and other invalid voting forms. The right to withhold your vote is as fundamental as the right to withold your labour. Voter turnout is an important metric in its own right, and is observed tactically in, say, the UK. Compulsory voting simplifies competition, and destroys…

A donkey vote isn't a blank ballot.

It's a ballot that's just been numbered unthinkingly from top to bottom.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#449

Post by caf »

stephen_g wrote: post #400
WalterBright wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> compulsory voting This always seemed like madness to me. You can force someone to vote, but you cannot force them to vote responsibly. They may just vote "screw you" just for revenge. The right to vote includes the right to abstain from voting when one does not care. Forced voting sounds like a recipe for bad election results. I would expect the same from paying people to vote.

On balance, I think it's better, because systems where voting is voluntary seem to really encourage voter disenfranchisement. Also, the system means that the logistics must be in place for the system to be able to handle everybody turning up to vote, so it would be very unusual (in my experience) having to wait in line for more than 20 minutes or so. As opposed to stories we saw in the US of voters having to wait hou…

This is an often-overlooked point: if you make it compulsory to vote, you have to make it easy to vote.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#450

Post by ErikVandeWater »

0xdeadb00f wrote: post #308
roody15 wrote: post #269

I simply cannot wrap my mind around what is happening in Australia. Continuing a lockwdown while the number of positive covid cases remains in the low hundreds and the daily death rate in the lower tens to single digits. Nothing makes sense here. Draconian laws, complete shutdown over something that is and has been statistically under control and managed from months. Am I alone here or do people really think what is…

This talk about "Draconian" lockdown in Australia needs to stop. Our privacy and digital rights laws are awful. But the lockdowns are necessary. NSW had upward of 1000+ cases and that's why they're (still) in a strict lockdown. QLD and i beleive WA as well for example are not in lockdown at all because of their much much lower daily cases. Also, "50 cases in a nation of millions"? I dont know where you're getting you…

If lockdowns are "necessary" then there are other things like taxing unhealthy foods and dedicating the economy to produce enough N95 masks that are vastly more necessary.
Post reply on HN