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

51–60 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#51

Post by siquick »

lettergram wrote: post #12
neither_color wrote: post #9

We can refer to both now as acts because — in what is an increasing trend in the Australian Parliament — the bills flew through both houses in a single day. Why is this an increasing trend? Voting is mandatory…so are voters more trusting of their institutions or just apathetic? Voting is compulsory at federal elections, by-elections and referendums for those on the electoral roll, as well as for State and Territory e…

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

Not sure why you are getting downvoted.

In my anecdotal experience, people don't care about politics here and will most likely vote on either "I'd rather have a beer with X than Y so I'll vote for X" or "they're both as bad as each other so I'll just vote like my family always have."

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#52

Post by xvector »

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

Aren't we Five Eyes nation members all affected by this? The U.S. should pull out of this. We need to re-assert privacy rights and avoid trade as much as possible with any countries that enact these kind of laws.

The US will not pull out of Five Eyes because it enables the US to circumvent the constitutional rights of its own citizens via proxy. This has been used in multiple high-profile cases to catch cybercriminals.

The government does not give back power it manages to hoard for itself. This is the fundamental problem with modern progressive liberalism and anti-choice conservatism. When you give the government power, it WILL use said power against you.

Not a single government in human history has not turned on its citizens.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#53

Post by desertraven »

siquick wrote: post #37

I've lived in Australia for 10 years and really considering my familys future in this country. We are sleep-walking towards a very average future. An undiversified export economy, out of control house prices, a job-market primarily focused on two cities, a government intent on selling all public assets, very limited political interest in positive climate policies. The latter is simply addressed with "technology will…

I’m also here, and quite concerned.

I’ve seen how quickly a country can erode (Syria, Ukraine, Hong Kong) and am questioning the future of this country.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#54

Post by teleforce »

Just wondering will this new acts have negative consequences for global and independent internet agencies as Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) is well within Australian borders [1]? If it's function going to be severely affected by these new Australian acts APNIC should it be moved somewhere else without these dubious acts.

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

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#55

Post by bobbytit »

Democracy is an illusion in Australia, just like the rest of the globalised West.

Politicians are chosen to stand for election by a small number of corrupt branch stackers, not by the people.

The people are given a choice between party a or b, which are two cheeks of the same arse.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#56

Post by lettergram »

d_t_w wrote: post #19
lettergram wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

It's complex. When I first moved to Australia I rankled at compulsory voting as I believe that not participating is a valid political act. Countries without compulsory voting talk about the turnout as relative to previous years, and if it falls too far there will be questions about a mandate to govern. In Australia that can't happen as turnout is always high, this leads to very little opportunity to overhaul the mech…

> Look at America, what an absolute shambles of a democratic system. One party spending decades attempting to stop black people voting. Voter suppression and gerrymandering (also not possible in Australia) baked into the political system. No thanks.

It’s always interesting to see this essentially fake narrative. No one is trying to stop anyone from voting. It’s made up, to try and role the base, the same way you describe —- it increases turnout for the left. So they push the fake narrative.

Anyway, I see your point. But the US is an entirely different beast. As much as people want to knock it, the system is extremely robust. The federal government really isn’t supposed to have a mandate. That’s essentially the entire left and right debate in the US. States rights vs federal rights.

The issue you’re seeing in the US are that the left are socialist/Marxists who want a strong federal gov (authoritarian). The right believes that’s anti-American, and believes we should have strong states and personal freedom (Republican). If the left stopped trying to enact federal control (through monetary, economic, political, etc), the right would be totally happy. California would do its thing and Tennessee would do theirs, the best would win.

Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re doing.

This literally goes all the way back to the founding with the federalists (John Adam’s) and anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson). The system is dysfunctional by design, the goal was never to have a strong government and while its tense, you have more freedom and security than just about anywhere.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#57

Post by mdoms »

siquick wrote: post #37

I've lived in Australia for 10 years and really considering my familys future in this country. We are sleep-walking towards a very average future. An undiversified export economy, out of control house prices, a job-market primarily focused on two cities, a government intent on selling all public assets, very limited political interest in positive climate policies. The latter is simply addressed with "technology will…

I lived in Australia for 5 years and my sense is that, as harsh as it sounds, Australia needs to go through an extreme hardship to wake up as a nation. Australia has lived true to its moniker as the Lucky Country - at least two full generations of Australians have never witnessed economic hardship or downturn of any kind. Natural disasters pass the nation by (other than wildfires). Even Covid looked like it was going to give Australia a miss until very recently.

The populous of Australia are fat and happy, and therefore unbothered by the extremely worrying creeping authoritarianism, an economy teetering on total collapse and incompetent local governance. I had real Brave New World vibes living over there.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#58

Post by wrycoder »

d_t_w wrote: post #19
lettergram wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

It's complex. When I first moved to Australia I rankled at compulsory voting as I believe that not participating is a valid political act. Countries without compulsory voting talk about the turnout as relative to previous years, and if it falls too far there will be questions about a mandate to govern. In Australia that can't happen as turnout is always high, this leads to very little opportunity to overhaul the mech…

If you are saying the Republican Party has spent decades trying to stop black people from voting, that is simply incorrect. It is what the other party’s propaganda would like you to believe. Same with voter suppression.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#59

Post by _-david-_ »

kibwen wrote: post #36
ogwh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACLU has already been taken by the new American leftist orthodoxy. Turning the tide will require new thinking.

If you're trying to argue that the ACLU is espousing authoritarian causes, I'll have to ask for a citation.

Here is a good thread about the ACLU losing their way https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
Post reply on HN