I’m appalled at this legislation, but also curious about how they intend to do this. Are they going to be compelling service providers to comply with specific requests, or give them admin accounts, or…? Do targets of their activities receive notification when their online content is modified or removed? What recourse is there in cases of abuse of these powers?
Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
71–80 of 397 posts
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#72I guess my days as a paying customer of FastMail are coming to an end. I don’t expect to ever become a legitimate target of Australian law enforcement, but there is always abuse.
Oh, god, that's just dawned on me too. Time to look for another provider
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#73When the system will refuse something that benefits them ? It’s applied Kafka
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#74In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.
That's terrible news. I wonder how this will interact with ProtonMail (which I just switched to.)
On the other hand, I don't think you can draw your conclusion from those two examples. Also, other than the cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus, Switzerland isn't really a direct democracy, semi-direct at best. You'll notice they have representatives in a federal structure, despite having mechanisms for some direct democracy, and that's not for nothing.
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#75Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#76Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t a brain drain lead to even dumber laws?
Democracy leads to dumb laws. It's a tyranny of the bottom 51%ile. I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's a real problem I've yet to understand -- how can an outlier intelligent person thrive in a system that caters to the masses? The masses have an incentive to drain any marginal value out of the intelligent, and have the political power to do so. Edit: @majormajor sorry HN wont let me reply. The reason would…
[deleted]
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% or the middle 25-76% or whatever other random fraction you pull out of your butt?
>Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% 51 + 51 = 102% The bottom 51% have more influence than the top 49% because one is a majority. There is your answer.
I think you missed the point. By this logic, the top 51% have more influence than the bottom 49% so why isn't GP saying they're the ones driving democracy?
As an aside, if you look at the elected representatives of Australia, I suspect you'll find most of them are highly educated.
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kinda weird for the attitude toward governments allegedly violating freedom to be “it’s okay as long as it doesn’t affect me.”
Why shouldn't a person exercise their most powerful vote, voting by their feet and exit the system to reintegrate in a different system. Serfs did it in the past when feudalism become to harsh and moved to the cities to make a living. Europeans did it when life became to harsh in Europe and moved to the Americas.
Of course one can avoid most domestic laws by moving to another country. My point is that when someone asks for a solution to this problem, I’m assuming they are looking for something to actually help solve the problem in that country, because they’re probably already aware that simply leaving is a viable way out for themselves (if they can afford it).
Re: Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. Is it? Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow. Anyone associated with $thing could then be watched and imprisoned. With judicial oversight. Some possible values from $thing taken from history: being gay, (not) being christian, being a pacifist, being poor/homeless The above have all been persecuted in the past. Sometimes in…
Yes because societies are built on rules and enforcement of the societal contract has always come, in some measure, by the government's ability to enforce the basically decent behavior that the majority wants. The fact that the majority has often historically been in the wrong doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of enforcement of the laws: Anarchy is not preferable to a well ordered…
Anarchy is not opposed to a well ordered peaceful society!