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

571–580 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#571

Post by eru »

Nursie wrote: post #483
eru wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia by and large is also much less grubby than the UK. (I say, 'grubby' not 'dirty', because I don't know whether the UK is actually dirty. Eg all the buildings just look dirty and drab compared to Australia. Perhaps it's a leftover from centuries of burning lots of coal?)

I agree, Perth has always seemed sparkling clean compared to most cities in the UK. Other Australian cities I've visited seemed that way as well. I think partly it's the light - it's so bright here in Aus that things look cleaner anyway, but also the light and the heat keep things a little cleaner, UV sterilises and the sun bleaches after all. Aus doesn't have as much of a legacy of concrete brutalism, either, lumpen…

Interesting, yes, the UV bleaching things might be a factor.

You are right about the smell of urine and pot in London.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#572

Post by throwawaythekey »

roody15 wrote: post #371
shakna wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Correction - thousands, not hundreds. But comparison to the previous numbers is required, because it's approaching the peak we've seen. So close to highest ever, rather than something to be dismissed. > Serious cannot leave your house outside and go outside for a j…

Do you have to wear a mask when jogging outside? (or walking etc). Can you jog with your family or small group of friends?

One day at the beginning of the pandemic I was out exercising and the police interrogated me over wearing jeans instead of sports wear. The copper was unsatisfied by my responses and directed me to return home + threatened a fine of several thousand dollars if I did not comply.

> Do you have to wear a mask when jogging outside?

Given my encounter and as jogging isn't well defined I assume this is at the discretion of the nearest officer.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#573

Post by Nursie »

sandworm101 wrote: post #547
tikwidd wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be referring to the South Australia Home Quarantine app [1]. There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about this app recently. I'd just like to clear up some things: The app only applies to people that need to quarantine, not the general population. The app allows people who are required to isolate to opt to do their isolation at home, rather than stay at a quarantine facility. Nobody is being f…

>> rather than stay at a quarantine facility. Nobody is being forced to use the app. Download the app or we send you to a camp? That isn't much of a choice. I'd say it is about as non-choice as possible while still meeting the literal definition.

I'll say what I said on the other thread -

If you want to present an argument against quarantine being needed or warranted, please go ahead. Checking in on the app is the least intrusive of the three options - quarantine under guard (usually in a hotel, like the one I'm in right now), quarantine at home with police visits tio ensure compliance, or quarantine at home checking in to the app once or twice a day.

In this context, getting hysterical about the least intrusive option is weird.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#574

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

Nursie wrote: post #528
iotku wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The app is voluntary and allows you to be at home rather than in a facility, and to not have random police checks If the alternative is being harassed by the police it's not voluntary.

The app is entirely voluntary. Quarantine is not. Effectively you get to choose - 1. Stay in a quarantine centre for two weeks under guard (which you pay for) 2. Quarantine at home with police visits 3. As above but check in with the app In that context, getting pissed off about the app is ridiculous. You want to argue quarantine is unnecessary or wrong? Go for it, make those arguments. But what you’re doing is pissi…

> 2. Quarantine at home with police visits

Is this an official option, or do you have to install the app then turn your phone off, with the potential of this turning to 1 if they don't like you doing that too often?

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#575

Post by digitalbase »

jezzzabell wrote: post #551
slowmotiony wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The phone check in thing is for enforcing the two weeks home quarantine for returned travelers and close contacts of confirmed cases. So the government can effectively just inprison you in your own house, with no proof, no recourse and no due process, because they suspect you were near some guy at some particular time some days ago. They don't even ask to get tested first! How can people on hacker news of all place…

When the alternative is thousands and thousands of deaths, most of us are willing to temporarily give up a bit of civil liberty.

temporarily...almost always those measures stay in place much longer

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#576

Post by Nursie »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #574
Nursie wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The app is entirely voluntary. Quarantine is not. Effectively you get to choose - 1. Stay in a quarantine centre for two weeks under guard (which you pay for) 2. Quarantine at home with police visits 3. As above but check in with the app In that context, getting pissed off about the app is ridiculous. You want to argue quarantine is unnecessary or wrong? Go for it, make those arguments. But what you’re doing is pissi…

> 2. Quarantine at home with police visits Is this an official option, or do you have to install the app then turn your phone off, with the potential of this turning to 1 if they don't like you doing that too often?

I believe this is an official option, at least in WA where there is already an app, it's up to you which option to take.

AFAICT there is no "we're sick of visiting you, off to a quarantine centre" potential at all, effectively you're doing them a favour by using the app, the default would be police visits.

Unless you're found to have breached quarantine the conditions I guess. Not sure what happens then.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#577

Post by ud_0 »

Nursie wrote: post #505
Palmik wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it's "just" for 2 weeks of quarantine, being able to check-in within 15 minutes seems unreasonable. What about taking a nap, taking a bath, cooking, etc.? Many other countries trust their citizens enough that such draconian measures weren't required even at the height of the pandemic. Not to mention now. I'd be curious how violations to check-in are handled in practice.

> What about taking a nap, taking a bath, cooking, etc.? If you fail to check in, they try again a bit later on, if you fail again it falls back to the non app-enabled method of a police check at your home. The app is voluntary and allows you to be at home rather than in a facility, and to not have random police checks. It's a convenience, not an imposition. > Many other countries trust their citizens enough that suc…

Hang on, the 15 minute interval requires constant human action, it's not enough that the phone itself is reachable? How does that even work? If that's true (which is sincerely hope it's not) being woken up every 15 minutes during the night for two weeks constitutes torture under most definitions.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#578

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

logicchains wrote: post #457
stubish wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If other people aren't afraid of drink driving, you have no right to stop them; it's their choice"

An appropriate time to look at where we draw the line is when their choices put others in harm's way

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#580

Post by chitowneats »

Nursie wrote: post #573
sandworm101 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> rather than stay at a quarantine facility. Nobody is being forced to use the app. Download the app or we send you to a camp? That isn't much of a choice. I'd say it is about as non-choice as possible while still meeting the literal definition.

I'll say what I said on the other thread - If you want to present an argument against quarantine being needed or warranted, please go ahead. Checking in on the app is the least intrusive of the three options - quarantine under guard (usually in a hotel, like the one I'm in right now), quarantine at home with police visits tio ensure compliance, or quarantine at home checking in to the app once or twice a day. In this…

How did Australians become like this? In my imagination, my American ancestors were quite similar to yours. And yet...
Post reply on HN