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

691–700 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#691

Post by School-Cotton »

dtn wrote: post #218
School-Cotton wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're making the mistake of conflating Australia's COVID-19 restrictions with this legislation, when they're entirely unrelated. They’re related in that both are examples of a level of authoritarianism that seems extreme by the standards of other Western countries.

One can point to Australia's COVID death rates (~4 per 100,000) in comparison to the United States and the United Kingdom (~200 per 100,000) and make a case for that. This legislation is far less justifiable, and should have no reason to exist. By associating the two issues, you are weakening the case against it.

There is some justification for nearly all authoritarian laws. One can point to the low crime rate in Singapore relative to the United States, for example.

People who oppose authoritarianism do so because it's not worth the cost, not because terrorism, child abuse, and disease aren't real problems.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#692

Post by chrisseaton »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #686
chrisseaton wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I think you're possibly confused about what we're talking about here - those weren't restrictions on personal freedoms. A better analogy is blackout laws, which people railed against in the exactly the same way as lockdown laws. But obviously those powers went as soon as possible - literally the day Hitler died in fact.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#693

Post by UnpossibleJim »

thinkingemote wrote: post #653
femto wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it all started in February 2020 that's exactly what Australia was doing, but a minority could not be trusted and broke quarantine and consequently COVID started spreading. At that point the model changed to mandatory quarantine in a government facility. There was broad community support for that change. In an ideal world people would have liked to have stuck with the voluntary approach, but most were realistic e…

This comment is revealing and truthful. It's almost been 2 years and most people have suffered. They blame and identify a minority for their suffering. It's one way that if you look at history minorities have also been identified. Scapegoat behaviour from the crowd is a response to senseless suffering and pain. It actually makes those who scapegoat others feel better and people want to feel better. Why would anyone v…

The important take away from these sorts of restrictions, though, are such state powers set to end when the pandemic is controlled or terminated? I'm not from Australia, so I can't speak to their power systems, but almost every time our federal institutions take a more broader domestic power towards spying, restricting speech, restricting movement, etc. etc. those powers don't come back at the end of the panic, whatever that panic may have been. Some of those expanded powers (PRIZM) we have to find out about through leaks, to the detriment of the people who leaked the information for the greater good.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#694

Post by alfiedotwtf »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #664
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is at best a policy that buys time to get people vaccinated This is exactly the strategy in Australia, from all states and territories. We're last in the OECD in population vaccinations and so COVID-zero via lockdowns are our only strategy until jab rates get to 80% (of people above 16).

I cannot accept a policy where people are imprisoned within their borders and not allowed to leave as ethical. Free countries don't have laws to stop people escaping, and there's no threat on earth where a genuine police state is an ethical response.

> and there's no threat on earth where a genuine police state is an ethical response.

Pandemics need a centralised, coordinated effort to combat. Sure, being a Libertarian is great, but unfortunately Libertairism is about the individual. You don't fight a common threat by individualism.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#695

Post by Lio »

potatochup wrote: post #340
mdoms wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to authoritarianism Australians are either extremely apathetic or they are generally in favour of more government intervention in private life. Try having a calm and balanced discussion with an Australian about bicycle helmet laws for a wonderful example.

It's a little different when you consider that the taxpayer funds everyones healthcare. Most people taking the side of requiring bicycle helmet laws are probably thinking "I don't want my taxes going towards looking after some numpty who was too stubborn to wear a helmet and crashed". People arguing this position are assuming that requiring helmets will decrease the risk of injury, which I am well aware there is conf…

I guess but I don't think it's as rational as that.

I mean you generally don't see people arguing compulsory helmets for car passengers. Even though the number of people requiring medical treatment head injuries caused by cars is orders of magnitude higher than it is for cyclists.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#696

Post by nemo44x »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #323
bingohbangoh wrote: post #44

It’s cool though, this time they’ll finally get rid of COVID. All snark aside, I ask what I’ve asked everybody: at what point is the cure not worth it anymore?

>at what point is the cure not worth it anymore? At the point where a critical mass of people realize this has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with seizing and consolidating power.

Anytime a government is unified in something, like it has been here, you should be highly skeptical. Politicians make calls for “unity” all the time and of course they do as everyone agreeing with them makes exercising power that much easier. The main objectives of any political elite/party in any form of government throughout all of history are to increase their power and to remain there. Division doesn’t mean dysfunction.

The Patriot Act was roundly supported and of course it was - it increases the political classes power across the board, legitimizing the increase for “safety”.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#697

Post by collegeburner »

javier123454321 wrote: post #661

Australia seems on a steep decline and a testing ground for western authoritarianism. Look at the requirements to leave the country, you need to jump through hoops and prove that your presence is required outside to be granted permission to leave. This should be unacceptable for anyone, whether you are Australian or not.

Absolutely, requiring that to leave is all sorts of fucked up. That's some combloc country-type bs. Reentry requirements are different but leaving doesnt put aussie citizens at risk so there's basically 0 justification beyond control.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#698

Post by nemo44x »

okareaman wrote: post #35

It's ironic that a country founded by England with prison convicts who pushed out the indigenous people would eventually choose to create a police state. Edit: Fixed for people who knew what I meant but want to bust my...

Not just convicts but also the prison guards.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#699

Post by Clubber »

ikr678 wrote: post #532
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.

This is in one of the few jurisdictions worldwide with zero covid trasmission, and the government wishes to keep it that way.

See the argument for having a high transmission also justifies this. It's win-win. If you have low transmission, we need to enact these laws to keep it that way. If it's a high transmission, we need to enact these laws to lower the transmission.

I'm amazed people have this much trust in their government officials. I mean they're just people with the same ethical flaws as everyone else, they just have a lot more power.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#700

Post by Frost1x »

chrisseaton wrote: post #674
sandworm101 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about the app. My comment was about the choice between app and being sent to a facility, about how that isn't much of a choice. I would make the same comment if the "choice" was between a facility and a vaccine, or a drug, or counseling sessions, or paying a fine. Nearly anything is better than being sent to a camp and so any such binary alternative isn't much of a real choice.

> I didn't say anything about the app. My comment was about the choice between app... Seems self-contradictory.

You have the choice to nose dive off the Burj Khalifa, sign over all of your assets to me, or record a chicken dance video and put it on YouTube.

OP's point is giving a set of all undesirable options which under normal circumstances and given freedom, you would decline all the options. "Choice" tends to imply you have at least some desirable options or at least have the option to refuse all of the choice options (not choosing has to be an option in the proposed choice).

If you're given a set of constrained options where you must choose and none of the choices are desirable, you're really given highly constrained freedom to the point no one considers it freedom. It's even worse when it's clear that most the constraints (choice options) point to only one option for any sane "chooser."

Sure, you could jump off the Burj Khalifa but is that really a viable option? Pretty much everyone would record a chicken dance video and choose minimal public humiliation over the other options. I gave options but they're not really options, not from any sane decision making perspective. That is the illusion of choice to make people feel like they have control over direction. We have a lot of this going on in society these days, where people have options but the options lead to one obvious path, meaning they have no viable alternative options.

Post reply on HN