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

451–460 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#451

Post by caf »

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.

You can force someone to vote, but you cannot force them to vote responsibly.

How does this not also apply to similar civic obligations, like jury duty?

(I've always mentally put compulsory voting in the same box as compulsory jury duty. In both cases of course it's not really compulsory to take part, just to attend).

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#452

Post by pmontra »

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…

I never used a voting machine: do they allow the equivalent of a blank paper?

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#453

Post by brutusborn »

0xdeadb00f wrote: post #273
alliao wrote: post #207

CCP is literally cancer on all citizens living in currently free democracy. They show that it's possible to keep a huge population under control with current tools and technology. Our politicians show public disdain, but fuck are they being seduced. And Australia is just stepping into it step by step while asking it's citizens to trust the government because they seem to be at odds with CCP publicly. As someone who l…

Hey mate. Aussie here. I'm sorry to say that it seems to me no one around here gives a flying fuck about politics let alone anyrhing to do with digital rights. This is a war we've already lost. I blame Murdoch but quite frankly most of the people I talk to are too wrapped up in working to pay their bills and care for their families to care about anything else.

There's still a few of us, but I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to being too busy.

Political reporting tends to either oversimplify things to the point it is not useful, or be so verbose that only the most committed citizens will read it.

I have started working on the idea of using knowledge graphs to fix this problem. The idea is basically representing political values/ beleifs/policies as nodes that are connected by edges representing reason (e.g. "cut income taxes" -> because -> "low taxes are good" -> because -> "high taxation makes the economy less efficent" ). This way, voters can fill out a survey of their values/beleifs and this can be compared to the graph that represents the beleifs of all candidates. Thus, instead of spending tens of hours just trying to understand the political landscape (and likely failing), voters can spend less time and have a greater certainty that they are making a good choice.

Also, evidence could be added to the graph, so that 2 people who disagree on basic ideology could easily see the basis for their differences (by diffing their graphs)

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#454

Post by laurent92 »

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…

> In 2007 the government 'temporarily' banned alcohol and porn for aboriginals as an 'emergency' measure.[0] And apparently it, or some replacement, is still in effect.[1]

In 1976 France implemented a temporary permission to abortion, just to hedge the wave. A lot of social rights come from temporary laws that were never deactivated.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#455

Post by caf »

worik wrote: post #107
mc32 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No easy answer. It is called politics. The culture helps too. In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong. Just ask the Australian Indians. Fun fact: Māori people had the right to vote in Australia from the start, Aboriginal Australians (just how racist are they when there is no word in Australia for the first people?) did not get that right until 1967. It is a tough fight for…

The continent was home to a very large number of difference language groups and languages prior to settlement. There is not one common demonym - in southeast Australia "Koori" is often used, but more commonly people are referred to by the language group to which they belong (eg an Arrernte man).

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#456

Post by logicchains »

stubish wrote: post #396
calvinmorrison wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently read an article in which protesters were fined thousands of dollars for violating "health codes". A country who cannot allow protest is no free country at all.

The right to protest during a pandemic is dubious, in direct conflict with other peoples rights. It is also self defeating, when the majority consider the protesters arseholes for willfully endangering the general community and don't get around to considering the actual issue being protested.

>direct conflict with other peoples rights

What the hell? Nobody sitting at home in their house has the right to prevent other people meeting peacefully on the street. People like you are what's wrong with Australia, you authoritarian monster! Nobody has the right to stop other people meeting because they might spread a virus to eachother with a 99%+ survival rate that might somehow eventually find its way back to them.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#457

Post by logicchains »

stubish wrote: post #396
calvinmorrison wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently read an article in which protesters were fined thousands of dollars for violating "health codes". A country who cannot allow protest is no free country at all.

The right to protest during a pandemic is dubious, in direct conflict with other peoples rights. It is also self defeating, when the majority consider the protesters arseholes for willfully endangering the general community and don't get around to considering the actual issue being protested.

If other people aren't afraid of the virus, you have no right to stop them; it's their choice. Now maybe you could argue you have a right to keep them out of your house, or your personal space, if you don't want to be infected, but you have absolutely no right to stop them meeting on the street far from you.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#458

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#459

Post by cblconfederate »

prawn wrote: post #326
brokenmachine wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how psychologically demotivated you would feel if you didn't have the property...

And were watching others' properties rise aggressively in price, and further out of your reach. I can imagine that many people feel quite helpless.

and resort to cryptocurrencies

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#460

Post by worik »

yesenadam wrote: post #190
worik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No easy answer. It is called politics. The culture helps too. In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong. Just ask the Australian Indians. Fun fact: Māori people had the right to vote in Australia from the start, Aboriginal Australians (just how racist are they when there is no word in Australia for the first people?) did not get that right until 1967. It is a tough fight for…

> In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong I don't have much idea what you mean here. > Just ask the Australian Indians. Uh, could you explain what you mean here? > Aboriginal Australians...did not get that right until 1967 I thought that too until recently, but not true. On the history of Indigenous Australians’ right to vote : https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resour…

Democracy is not majority rules. Democracy is rule by the people. Minorities matter too, and if minorities are railroaded by majorities it is not much of a democracy.

Voting is important, but much more important is the rule of and access to the law.

"Australian Indians" means the same thing as "Australian Aborigines" Indian and Aborigine are synonyms.

You schooled me on the right to vote! My prejudice leaked out!! I will not let it become bigotry. But I think it is at the federal level. At federation (I thought it was 1905) they really wanted NZ to be a state, and in NZ Māori electorate was a thing, not a particularly democratic thing, but a thing. So to make NZ a state Māori had to able to vote at a federal level.

Post reply on HN