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

681–690 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#681

Post by gambiting »

virtualritz wrote: post #657
gambiting wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had to do a 14 day quarantine in the UK at home, and frankly, it was a bit of a joke. Literally no one has ever checked we were actually at home, the amount of trust in the population is insane over here. We actually stayed at home the entire time, but I know people who didn't, they had to go to work to make a living and the fine was like a £100. In contrast, in Poland if you are told to quarantine you will get…

I've been to Poland for a private b-day party over a long weekend in April this year (Thursday--Monday). When this country was marked red. I came by train from Berlin. The rules were to have a negative test not older than 24hs and to quarantine after arrival. No one ever checked. Go figure. This happened: Thursday evening, just after I arrived, my host said: let's go to tango (we are social tango dancers). We drove t…

Literally nothing that you wrote surprises me :P Sounds absolutely on par for Polish approach to these kinds of "problems".

The main key point here is that you arrived by train - and indeed, trains are not really checked at all. But if you came by plane, you'd absolutely be entered into the system and you'd have police coming over every other day to see if you're actually there. You were just lucky because of your mode of transport. I've heard similar stories from people crossing the border by car - also no hassle at all.

And to add to that - if you were actually diagnosed with Covid, your name would also be entered into the system and police would be checking if you are at home. I know my entire family were checked every day when they got ill.

I didn't mention Poland as some sort of great foolproof implementation - just that if you are actually "in the system", police checks if you are doing the quarantine or not. In the UK we were very much "in the system" and literally no one cared - we didn't even get a phone call to ask if we're actually at home. Literally nothing. Again, I'm not surprised you escaped the whole thing if you arrived by train.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#683

Post by joshuahughes »

grecy wrote: post #677
joshuahughes wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the alternative is invasive, Orwellian monitoring and inhumane enforcement by an authoritarian state, I'll take 40% compliance every time. Remember... governments NEVER give up these powers readily.

> 'll take 40% compliance every time Which has lead to tens of thousands of deaths that have not occurred in Australia.

"There is more to living than not dying."

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#685

Post by kingkawn »

mc32 wrote: post #121
kingkawn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ain't all men out there

It’s a quote. One doesn’t typically alter a quote unless it’s unintelligible if not altered in some way.

You can quote whatever you like however you like, but it ain't all men out there. Relying on such worldviews to understand the world leaves you with a truncated world.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#686

Post by CrazyPyroLinux »

chrisseaton wrote: post #658
joshuahughes wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the alternative is invasive, Orwellian monitoring and inhumane enforcement by an authoritarian state, I'll take 40% compliance every time. Remember... governments NEVER give up these powers readily.

> Remember... governments NEVER give up these powers readily. The West had massively draconian laws during the last similar protracted existential problem, WW2, and gave them up just fine when it finished.

Yeah we totlly gave up the New Deal and the military industrial complex...

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#687

Post by mc32 »

kingkawn wrote: post #685
mc32 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a quote. One doesn’t typically alter a quote unless it’s unintelligible if not altered in some way.

You can quote whatever you like however you like, but it ain't all men out there. Relying on such worldviews to understand the world leaves you with a truncated world.

As the other poster pointed out the word men has multiple meaning which depend on context. The meaning is clear to me and no need to modify it. Next time you quote it you can make your own changes.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#688

Post by melbourne_mat »

xkbarkar wrote: post #682

The accounts that hotly defend the australian government interventions seem to be created specifically for this purpose. They only comment on australia covid response posts. Food for thought.

The top thread which I think you're referring to mixes up the new digital surveillance laws and one state's digital quarantine phone app. I don't think anyone from Australia is going to defend the new digital surveillance laws.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#689

Post by sk2020 »

kongin wrote: post #617
chitowneats wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a third of Australia that's gone insane. The rest have checked out and completely ignored it. It's like a long holiday where you get paid to pretend you work. But you can't say that in polite company so you just have ~40 percent compliance with whatever insanity is going on now. Hilariously enough the compliance from police is lower than from the general population so basically we have politicians and the termin…

>latter days of the USSR

Is it better to prolong the perverse, decadent rule of the senators and consuls or to embrace Clovis? Hit ‘em with your Coriolanus swag.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#690

Post by jcims »

kevingadd wrote: post #486
jcims wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No it doesn't. A law does not become racist when one race disproportionately breaks it, otherwise every law everywhere would be racist. I think you'll find there are quite a few folks that disagree with you on this point, some feel that laws can be considered racist exclusively because of disproportionate impact on specific communities. Personally I think it just boils down to how people define the term 'racist'. Wh…

Intent is an increasingly imaginary concept when decisionmaking is partially or completely performed by neural nets and checklists. As such, outcomes end up being the important thing to examine.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I agree that it's important to examine outcomes. It's actually the fundamental measurement of a decision and if we recast 'intent' as 'desired outcome' then its clear why paying attention to it is important.

My problem is that I was taught that 'racist' describes an ugly mindset that would confer malice. That may be true in some cases where outcomes disproportionately affect certain folks, but it's clearly not always the case and implying otherwise just distracts the conversation.

Post reply on HN