Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#701

Post by thecoppinger » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:10 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #634

raxxorrax wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Seems to work just as well. Curious what country this is where things are working "just as well" as Australia? The only major places I can think of in the "developed" world faring similarly* to Australia statistically (deaths per capita) are South Korea & Taiwan; both have had similar citizen monitoring. * leaving out NZ here obvs which is faring significantly better

I live in NZ, and after a recent exposure to Covid, I experienced said daily check in calls from the government that really relied on trust (honesty) more than anything, as far as I’m aware — I suppose it’s possible they were tracking my phone in some way to ensure my location stayed contained/consistent? Seems highly unlikely though.

I will add that if I’d been caught leaving the house, outside of a short daily workout, I’d have been liable for a fine and/or jail time.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#702

Post by Clubber » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #679

kongin wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistaking extending special rights to minority groups with citizens rights. We have been increasing minority rights as fast as possible with removing all the protections from dictatorships in the name of, I don't even know what. >Post WW1 didn't erode rights, it actually increased them. Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 >Post WW2, the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act And on…

Do you even read your own links? > As part of a sweeping repeal of wartime laws, Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920 The second wasn't a wartime act and even that was repealed. Talk about cherry picking.

He meant the Espionage Act, which is currently being used to seek prosecution of Snowden and Assange, among others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#703

Post by runako » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

relativ575 wrote: post #432

runako wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I am not a lawyer.) The USA recognized same sex marriage in 2015, but we did so via a Supreme Court ruling. The Court's composition has changed since then, and the new Court has signaled a willingness to overturn settled precedents. While our current detent may persist, I would imagine that an action taken by the Australian Parliament would tend to be more durable.

> I would imagine that an action taken by the Australian Parliament would tend to be more durable. I'm curious to understand why you'd think a law passed by elected lawmakers is more durable than a verdict by judges who have their position for life? Obacare was surely very controversial, but despite the best efforts by the conservative and an ideologically hostile Supreme Court, it remains in place after ten years.

Simply put: two of the five justices who voted in favor of Obergefell (the case that legalized same-sex marriage) are no longer on the Court. They have been replaced with justices who would be more likely to vote the other way.

The realignment of the Court, plus this Court's willingness to overturn settled law, together signal that a new law prohibiting same-sex marriage might be allowed to stand if brought before today's Court, returning the US to a country where same-sex marriage is not universally legal.

So I would regard our current regime around same-sex marriage, civil rights, etc. to be subject to not being directly challenged at the Supreme Court.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#704

Post by nonameiguess » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #569

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they can get a warrant to come into your house while you're not home and put a keylogger in your keyboard USB cable, or put a bug on the UART of your router, etc. Or just hacking your cheap Netgear router with one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that exist. That's actually not that weird. If you are a suspected criminal and a judge give a warrant targeting you specifically, it's quite natural the police can n…

Not being a legal expert, I can’t tell where the boundary is between enabling legitimate police work and giving (accidentally or deliberately) the police the power to plant fake evidence, the latter being what some of this sounds like. But, I’m not a legal expert, and “sounds like” is a way to make very large mistakes when looking outside of one’s own domain of expertise like I’m doing here. (Also doesn’t help that I…

I have no idea how Australia handles this, but in the U.S., the process of discovery is what is supposed to keep the police from just planting evidence. Prosecution needs to present all evidence that will be used against you, including exactly where it came from and chain of custody. If they can't, it gets thrown out. The only exception is they can't be compelled to give away the identity of confidential informants. But a confidential informant also can't testify anonymously, so the police would always need additional evidence beyond the word of a CI.

It's not a perfect system by any means. The police can and do plant evidence. But a lot of convictions also get thrown out and this is often why obviously guilty people get off on "technicalities" because the police don't follow procedure down to the letter.

The opposite end of the spectrum, not giving the police any power to do covert surveillance at all, is effectively just giving a license to the Mafia to do whatever it wants, as anyone who just commits all of their crimes privately will get away with it as long as they can sufficiently scare or kill anyone who would otherwise have been willing to testify.

It's a tradeoff either way, and we try to let there be a middle ground, where the police can bug your house, tap your phone, hack your router, but they need a warrant that has to be granted by a completely separate branch of government that is not in the same chain of command, and they have to prove to your lawyers that they obtained all of the evidence they have against you legally.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#705

Post by Clubber » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #529

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.

I think in practice (from the US) they come in with 10 people, guns drawn, in bulletproof vests ready to fire at anything moving just in case which leads to unfortunate deaths which is why 'Swatting' is so dangerous in the US

They also murder unarmed people with a frequency I'm not comfortable with, so any argument that guns is what makes the police trigger happy has plenty of counter examples of clearly unarmed people getting killed.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#706

Post by alliao » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

tikwidd wrote: post #360

alliao wrote: post #207

CCP is literally cancer on all citizens living in currently free democracy. They show that it's possible to keep a huge population under control with current tools and technology. Our politicians show public disdain, but fuck are they being seduced. And Australia is just stepping into it step by step while asking it's citizens to trust the government because they seem to be at odds with CCP publicly. As someone who l…

Isn't Australia showing the exact opposite, that you don't need CCP-style top down control to enact powerful surveillance laws? That's always been possible in a "free democracy". The Australian government has explicitly aligned itself with the US and against China in the current tensions, as a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. In my view Australia (and New Zealand) are being seduced by US power above all…

yes, amazingly enough anything can be achieved in a free democracy. I heard Nazi was elected too. Just takes good people's indifference.

To be honest, any military dialogue isn't of major interest to New Zealand because um look at our military? We have at most 2 planes that are usable. And maybe 5 sea faring vessels that probably can't even attack anything.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#707

Post by roody15 » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

tikwidd wrote: post #431

fallous wrote: post #401

I've lived to see this kind of thing enacted in a good portion of the Anglosphere and my visceral reaction is to engage in a combination of civil disobedience and a determination to undermine every overstep made. With regards to things like the Aussie requirement for phone check-ins every 15 minutes or they will deploy police to follow up and confirm your location, turn off the phone and make them eat the cost of hav…

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…

“ The app allows people who are required to isolate to opt to do their isolation at home, rather than stay at a quarantine facility.”

Sounds just like this was taken from a dystopian novel.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#708

Post by runako » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #521

relativ575 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would imagine that an action taken by the Australian Parliament would tend to be more durable. I'm curious to understand why you'd think a law passed by elected lawmakers is more durable than a verdict by judges who have their position for life? Obacare was surely very controversial, but despite the best efforts by the conservative and an ideologically hostile Supreme Court, it remains in place after ten years.

> [...] but despite the best efforts by the conservative [...] Those efforts were actually pretty half-hearted. They talked a big game, but they don't actually want to abolish it. (Reminds me of how the UK doesn't really want to face up to a no-deal Brexit, despite lots of brave talk. Or how no government in the UK has so far re-nationalised the railroads, despite re-nationalisation perennially polling high with the…

This is a really good point. Conservatives had two full years to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They had campaigned as a party for "Repeal and Replace" for nearly 10 years, but then they didn't repeal it.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#709

Post by melbourne_mat » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

numair wrote: post #624

melbourne_mat wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Australian. Your argument seems to be "If only the tech sector in Australia had some smart people". That's nice but I don't think that's what is going on. Most of the general public is apathetic to this kind of thing. They just don't get worked up like Americans do about freedom. Especially in the middle of an epidemic (covid19 is now out of control in the two biggest cities). We have a conservative government at…

I think you greatly overestimate how “worked up” Americans get. In reality, there is an enormous amount of lobbying and horse-trading that goes on behind the scenes whenever Washington wants to do anything that touches the tech and telecom sectors. Tech and telecom are seen as areas that drive tremendous economic value and national power, so they have the ability to bend things to go their way. Australia is quite the…

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, mate.

The story is "law enforcement and conservative government work together to bring in new laws that makes law enforcement's life easier".

I don't see how tech companies, union bosses or WA tax revenue has much to do with it.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#710

Post by flyinghamster » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

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.

I just did a quick look, searching (without quotes) "Australia permission to leave" on DDG. It looks to me like you're conflating emergency restrictions for COVID [0] with something like the exit visas that the former USSR used and Russia still uses. There are a great many people dying in the US at this very moment who were making this same sort of argument, right up until they caught COVID and ended up on ventilators. [1]

[0] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward