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

601–610 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#601

Post by jjgreen »

jezzzabell wrote: post #550
zarzavat wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In some like the UK, that trust was misplaced, and compliance with isolation rules was under 50%. More like, people in the UK more correctly assessed the risk of COVID. While is a dangerous disease, it's not so dangerous that it is worth giving up all of your civil rights to avoid it. In Australia the cure seems to be worse than the disease.

UK Covid deaths 133,000 vs Australia Covid deaths 1054. That's some cold-blooded calculus to say that Australia would have been better off with another 50,000 people dead rather than having some restrictions in place while they wait for vaccination targets to be reached.

"Those who would give up ..." oh forget it, old-fashioned ideas

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#602

Post by Mordisquitos »

xvector wrote: post #566
WanderPanda wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to bear arms also seems to fit your framework quite well. If the police knocking on your door has to fear that you appear naked that is unpleasent but merely a nuisance. If you could be armed they will probably think twice if it is worth the risk.

And this is the foundation of the Second Amendment despite the intense opposition to it. The Second Amendment creates lines that even the government will be unwilling to cross.

And yet government agents shooting unsuspecting non-criminals in their own home, after mistaking the address or responding to a malicious fake emergency call, is a line that is only crossed in the country with the Second Amendment.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#603

Post by iamthemonster »

chitowneats wrote: post #585
Nursie wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Become like what? Do you have an argument against quarantine? Would tens of thousands of deaths been better than asking travellers to check in for a couple of weeks on arrival, during a pandemic? I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. I'm British by the way. The UK also has guarded quarantine centres in hotels for people coming in from what it considers “red zones”

Quarantine for what? That's what you do with sick people. Whatever is going on in Australia has long ago left the realm of sane quarantine procedure. It will be 2022 soon, and the Australians are trying to prevent interstate spread of COVID-19. It's madness. Responding to your edit: still madness

I'm in Western Australia. I'm delighted with prevention of interstate Covid. The freedom to do whatever you want is pretty enjoyable to be honest, and not worrying that family members will die of Covid is even better.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#604

Post by ipatec »

bserge wrote: post #499
gorwell wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the Australian government rapidly moves toward an authoritarian police state, does part of you wonder if they'd be so cavalier if their citizens had guns? Or if that might be a deterrent to tyranny at some point?

You imagine some ragtag groups fighting against the police and military with the guns they bought a decade or two ago? Personal ownership of guns doesn't help that much. You need a lot of people, a lot of organized people. At which point you can acquire or even create the weapons you need.

Not really. Even an unorganized small group of armed people can create enough damage to the Police/Government forces that it's not worth the fight.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#605

Post by Nursie »

strangeattractr wrote: post #589
Nursie wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's given up "all their civil rights" ? That seems like a massive hyperbole. In WA, there are no lockdowns or any real coronavirus restrictions once you're in. Looks good to me. Might want to compare those death rates too.

I live in Victoria. We have certainly given up all of our freedom. Our Premier has suspended parliament and now rules by decree. Citing fabled 'health advice', which is never made public nor provided when queried, to justify anything he does. That's why we have a 9PM curfew that has done nothing to stem the spread, punitive 'alchohol must be drunk through a mask' rules and playground closures. Those were not legitima…

All of your freedoms and rights? I imagine someone will be along to arrest you for sedition shortly then?

That sounds horrendous but honestly little different to what we went through in the UK at various points in the last year and a half, and the death rates are very low in comparison.

I’m sorry for your loss.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#606

Post by christophilus »

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…

American here. It appears to me to be poor incentives reinforcing themselves in the political sphere. If you make a single metric the measure of success, most will go to extremes to game that metric. Australian politicians seem to have made the low number of COVID infections the sole measure of their success. The result is somewhat predictable.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#607

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

Not from Australia, but as a citizen the precaution I would take is not to get tested while such a quarantine policy is in effect.

Don't know, my country does some checks like calling people on the phone, the rest relies on trust. Seems to work just as well.

So I see a lot of room to criticise "the least intrusive" option as well. This is security done wrong. Not slightly wrong, detrimental towards the goal of security. If people get uncompliant, no such measures will be efficient.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#608

Post by Nursie »

jjgreen wrote: post #601
jezzzabell wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK Covid deaths 133,000 vs Australia Covid deaths 1054. That's some cold-blooded calculus to say that Australia would have been better off with another 50,000 people dead rather than having some restrictions in place while they wait for vaccination targets to be reached.

"Those who would give up ..." oh forget it, old-fashioned ideas

Not sure how temporary the safety gained by those tens of thousands is, nor how essential the liberty to enter a country without two weeks of quarantine is.

In fact, having just a few minutes ago come out of two weeks confined to a hotel room, into a place where there is effectively no coronavirus, I’d say not very essential at all.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#609

Post by daniel-grigg »

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.

It’s a consensual decision on behalf of the individual - when you travel from a high risk region to another it’s understood by all parties you will need to quarantine for a period to prevent unknowingly spreading the virus on untold others. Which to me just seems you know, ethical and responsible?

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#610

Post by Nursie »

raxxorrax wrote: post #607
Nursie wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not from Australia, but as a citizen the precaution I would take is not to get tested while such a quarantine policy is in effect. Don't know, my country does some checks like calling people on the phone, the rest relies on trust. Seems to work just as well. So I see a lot of room to criticise "the least intrusive" option as well. This is security done wrong. Not slightly wrong, detrimental towards the goal of securi…

The quarantine policy is for people travelling inter-state or internationally.

I have no idea what the requirements are for people who test positive, but here in WA that’s not even relevant because there are no known cases.

So it all looks like it’s working pretty well.

Post reply on HN