[HN Gopher] Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliamen...
___________________________________________________________________
Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours
Author : ghoda
Score : 420 points
Date : 2021-08-31 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tutanota.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tutanota.com)
| throwawayswede wrote:
| Over the past two years, Australian and New Zealand's governments
| have become great examples of how statism can take over so
| quickly. As an outsider, I feel really sad for people in
| Australia and New Zealand.
| celticninja wrote:
| What have NZ done?
| BoppreH wrote:
| Can we change the URL of this post to a more normal news website?
|
| The current one is a blog post from an email provider company,
| not a journalistic entity.
|
| It has unnecessary hyperbole ("End of Human Rights"), and has a
| clear conflict of interest given that they provide secure email
| services and one of their main competitors (FastMail) is
| Australian. (though I do share their concerns)
|
| I find @jpollock's links a good replacement.
| [deleted]
| yakz wrote:
| I 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.
| yreg wrote:
| Also: Atlassian
| afandian wrote:
| Me too, and I just submitted a support request seeking
| clarification. I'll update with any reply I get.
| csomar wrote:
| Interested in that too. I checked their blog, they seem to be
| talking about everything privacy except for this.
| commotionfever wrote:
| thanks! an update would be much appreciated when you get it
| morganvachon wrote:
| Agreed, which sucks because no other service out there is
| better at their prices. And I have _everything_ important tied
| to that address. I have never been to Australia and don 't ever
| plan to, but the fact that _any_ government can legally plant
| data on my account and then try to prosecute me for it is scary
| as hell. Given that Australia and the US are part of the "Five
| Eyes", it's not a stretch to believe they can construct a case
| out of planted evidence and push it to the FBI as a joint
| investigation.
| vngzs wrote:
| Stop allowing email providers to control the domain of your
| email. Buy a $10/year domain and point it at GitHub pages (so
| it gains some trustworthiness). Send your email to that
| domain, and point the MX records at a mail provider (Fastmail
| or GMail or ProtonMail, doesn't matter).
| morganvachon wrote:
| I own several domains, and I have two valid email addresses
| at two personal domains hosted with a small US hosting
| provider, but I don't want those to end up in spammer lists
| so I use them sparingly. For a main email address I'm
| better off with a large email-focused provider that has
| tools to handle all the spam that builds up from an address
| used for online purchases and forum/social accounts, and as
| I mentioned Fastmail has the absolute best tools for
| managing all of that. Gmail is not an option, nor
| Microsoft.
| akvadrako wrote:
| I've done quite a bit of searching for a good mail
| provider and mailbox.org is what I would recommend.
| zargon wrote:
| When people say use your own domain, they mean use your
| own domain at the email provider of your choice. You
| don't miss out on any of their tools by using your own
| domain.
| 8372049 wrote:
| I recommend reading the actual law before panicking. The
| article is pretty exaggerated. There is still judicial
| oversight to protect you from abuse, making this the same as
| most other laws in most western democracies.
|
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
| dalmo3 wrote:
| > There is still ...
|
| You're probably right. Although seeing it in context, those
| news coming from Australia suggest a very slippery slope
| where "There is still ..." might not be true sometime soon.
| On the one hand it could be negativity bias, on the other
| hand there's also the fear Australia is being used as an
| experiment and the rest of the Five Eyes will follow suit.
| 8372049 wrote:
| That is quite possibly the case, and we should never cease
| to be vigilant. But that said, we were worried about the
| same slippery slope 20 years ago, and at least in my
| country it is less worrisome now than then.
|
| It seems to me that Australia is lagging behind more than
| being an experiment, considering they're still talking
| about encryption laws etc. But perhaps the US is as well?
| throwawayswede wrote:
| TIL Fastmail is an Australian company. I wonder if this bill
| applies to data hosted outside of Australia for international
| clients by a company based in Australia?
|
| I'd really like to know what they have to say about this.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| They don't seem to mention any special treatment for
| international clients:
| https://www.fastmail.com/help/ourservice/law-
| enforcement.htm...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| As far as I know, Fastmail has been backdoored for a few
| years now by Australian government (and hence I assume the
| USA, too). It is Fastmail's biggest disadvantage, in my
| opinion.
| throwawayswede wrote:
| While that may be true (and I'm sort of disappointed to
| find this out), I don't think there's any server _at all_
| that I'd trust if I'm worried about certain governments
| snooping in on my email. That level of communication would
| prompt me to use PGP.
| christophilus wrote:
| Snooping is one thing. Full blown legal access for law
| enforcement to view and _tamper_ is another.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Being able to tamper is a game changer and would cause me
| to end my subscription. As far as I know, the US
| government does not explicitly condone that...yet.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, that is is why I continue to be a Fastmail customer.
| I do not think there is a comparable alternative with no
| government snooping.
| hughrr wrote:
| Well fuck I just moved to Fastmail. Who else is out there?
|
| And no I'm not self hosting.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Same, I paid for 3 years upfront. I love FastMail UI and
| nothing comes close to it. :-(
| t-writescode wrote:
| I use Mailbox.org. My only regret is not buying my own domain
| name for it ahead of time in case Germany started doing
| things I wasn't cool with.
|
| I've been sufficiently satisfied with their service.
| Sometimes emails take a bit of time to receive, like 10 or so
| minutes. That's about it.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Ten minutes seems problematic. I use a few services where
| the MFA codes I receive (via email!) expire in only 5
| minutes.
| Aachen wrote:
| 10 minutes? The 30-60 seconds Runbox (Norwegian) takes to
| deliver 2FA or other types of confirmation emails already
| bug me. Not enough time to do something else, plenty of
| time to overthink my choice in email provider.
|
| Privately (Runbox is my employer's provider) I run my own
| server and desktop notifications of new mail are often
| faster than the page loads where it was triggered. Maybe
| I'm spoiled.
| [deleted]
| akvadrako wrote:
| It takes 10 minutes because they use greylisting. You can
| also turn it off if you don't mind getting a bit more spam.
|
| https://kb.mailbox.org/display/MBOKBEN/Customizing+your+mai
| l...
| perch56 wrote:
| Tutanota and Mailbox.org are 2 good alternatives.
| [deleted]
| blahblahblogger wrote:
| protonmail?
| [deleted]
| abawany wrote:
| I've been using Mailbox.org for a few years.
| _joel wrote:
| Oh, god, that's just dawned on me too. Time to look for another
| provider
| jccc wrote:
| Each of the Five Eyes benefits, so one doesn't need to be the
| target of just Australian law enforcement.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| What is it about Australia that is driving it to be so uniquely
| totalitarian among the English-speaking countries? I always
| envisioned it culturally more individualistic than the UK, but
| they've gone even farther down the path of state control and
| surveillance.
| atok1 wrote:
| It's because AU is used as a test bed for all the really fucked
| up laws that the powers that be would love to pass, but can't
| due to significant citizen pushback and/or armed citizens.
| HKH2 wrote:
| Individualism in Australia is usually about fighting social
| control, but that just leads to being under government control.
|
| We have fewer cultural roots so it makes the above process
| faster.
| ccn0p wrote:
| this seems to coincide with some pretty aggressive [arguable very
| over-reaching] lockdowns in the country as well...
|
| not looking good.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Crime rates have been going down for decades in the Western world
| (including Oz). Yet governments continue to pass surveillance
| laws to "fight crime."
|
| If that doesn't highlight their true aims, I don't know what else
| does.
| christophilus wrote:
| They'll claim the drop in crime is a direct result of their
| draconian overreach. So, if a little has worked so well, why
| not heap more on?
|
| Incidentally, it's really hard to counter this reasoning, no
| matter what subject it is applied to. The truth is, we don't
| know what crime would have done without such a system in place.
| It may have dropped even further. It's the typical causation /
| correlation confusion.
| krona wrote:
| Perceptual and judgment creep.
|
| _Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become
| less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the
| "signal" a person is searching for becomes rare, the person
| naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the
| signal--and therefore continues to find it even when it is not
| there._
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aap8731
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| All the countries and regions that have been "soft" captured by
| China over the last decade+ will do similar.
| Animats wrote:
| Why is Australia trying so hard to become an authoritarian state?
| It's an island nation with few serious internal or external
| enemies.[1]
|
| [1] https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/australias-enemies-
| looking-w...
| bserge wrote:
| Perfect place for that, tbf
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| In what way was this bill "rushed through Australian parliament
| in 24 hours"? The bill in question is dated 2020 and the
| committee was requesting submissions by 12th February[0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...
| sjy wrote:
| You're quite right, but it is exceptional that the bill passed
| the House of Representatives on the same day as its second
| reading speech, and passed the Senate on the following day [1].
| This means that there was little time for debate and amendment
| within Parliament itself, including by minor parties [2] and
| independents [3] not represented on the committee that reviewed
| the first draft of the bill.
|
| [1]
| https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
|
| [2]
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
|
| [3]
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption
| powers_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364140 - Aug
| 2021 (77 comments)
|
| _'Extraordinary' hacking powers pass Australian Parliament_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311722 - Aug 2021 (212
| comments)
|
| _Australia is becoming a surveillance state_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139048 - Aug 2021 (423
| comments)
| 8372050 wrote:
| 418 votes submitted 3 hours ago and the story can't be found on
| the front page
|
| The top commenter is throwaway created an hour ago
|
| Curious how ranking works on HN. If that hasn't been answered
| already.
| justinjoshuak wrote:
| This is an important piece of legislation - however OP doesn't
| provide the best link (it's a blog post from a company that sells
| encrypted email service?).
|
| This should be a helpful - it's a list of politician speeches
| when the bill was debated in parliament.
|
| https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary%20Business/Bills%20Legi...
|
| For non-Australians, politicians with (LP) or (LNP) belong to the
| party in government.
|
| For example, speech by government party member:
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr...
|
| Speech from opposition party (that still supported the bill):http
| s://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards...
|
| Speech from a third party:
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards...
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Is there anywhere where you aren't being watched now?
| swayson wrote:
| Brain waves, atleast for now.
| seph-reed wrote:
| if you hike more than 6 miles from any given trail-head, there
| will still be people but they usually aren't the kind to have
| their phone out.
|
| if you start from a place without reception, doubly so.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that
| is as it should be. As long as there is correct judicial
| oversight of these capabilities, then this is the correct way
| for things to be. Nobody should have an expectation of being
| able to conduct criminal business without surveillance.
|
| The issue comes in when the justice system is not providing
| correct oversight for this capability. That is wrong and should
| be vigorously opposed. The capabilities themselves I have no
| problem with.
| MontagFTB wrote:
| Would this philosophy extend to phones then, too? Assuming a
| phone is being used for criminal business. A Ring camera,
| assuming the house is being used for criminal conduct?
|
| I'm playing devil's advocate, and am interested in a stance
| arrived at reasonably.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| > Phones
|
| Sure. Wire-tapping has been a thing almost as long as
| phones themselves. With a warrant, it is best that the
| police should be able to surveil your phone calls.
|
| > Ring camera
|
| With a warrant? Absolutely.
| mLuby wrote:
| Yes, it would. Wouldn't detectives watching through your
| windows as you type on your phone be functionally the same
| as having your phone surveilled?
|
| Warranted, _targeted_ surveillance is less bad than
| surveilling _everyone_ to see if they are committing
| crimes, which less bad than recording what everyone did so
| they can be charged with crimes _retroactively,_ which is
| less bad than charging people for crimes they 're only
| _predicted_ to commit.
| elric wrote:
| > 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
| the present. All quite legally. With judicial oversight. With
| political (and often popular) support.
|
| Edit: formatting, HN doesn't seem to like lists
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow.
|
| Okay, but if a government wasn't legally allowed to surveil
| you, they could change the law tomorrow so that they
| _could_ legally surveil you. I'm not sure what this mode of
| argument really shows.
| elric wrote:
| That's true. I don't think it's the legality of the
| surveillance that's bothering me, it's more the vast and
| ever growing capability of the surveillance apparatus.
| Which is fueled by the legal framework.
| crowbahr wrote:
| 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 peaceful society.
| elric wrote:
| Hmm, I don't think I'm advocating for anarchy. I find it
| hard to put this into words in a coherent way; but I
| think it's preferable that the state's capabilities are
| somewhat matched by the populace's. Not just the
| legalities of checks & balances. The people need to be
| able to watch the state if the state is watching them.
|
| This capability is currently very much lacking. We (by
| which I broadly mean western countries in general) are
| seeing less and less government transparency. Trade deals
| are brokered in secret, surveillance bills are rushed
| through parliaments, terrorism and child abuse are being
| used as blanket excuses for pretty much everything.
| Journalists get less and less access. In some countries
| (Italy comes to mind) there are very strong ties between
| the government and the media.
|
| And sure, we have some form of representative democracy,
| but it seems like governments in many cases don't
| represent their people, but rather their own interests.
| The people are often unaware of what their governments
| get up to (various atrocities in the Middle East come to
| mind). By the time the next election comes up, the damage
| is already done, with zero accountability.
|
| Long story short: it's good for governments to be able to
| enforce laws that benefit (all? most?) people, but the
| people need to be able to stick it to the government if
| need be. And with all this government surveillance,
| that's become virtually impossible.
| citruscomputing wrote:
| Anarchy is not opposed to a well ordered peaceful
| society!
| powerslacker wrote:
| How so?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Anarchy just implies no ruling authority. It may lead to
| chaos and disorder, but that only follows if you prove
| (or believe) that ruling authority is necessary to
| prevent chaos and disorder.
| handoflixue wrote:
| You confuse legality with morality. Privacy is, in part, the
| right to act on our own convictions. Breaking the law is a
| critical part of protest ("civil disobedience").
|
| Besides which, the state has done just fine without such
| invasive measures before. Even with perfect oversight, the
| goals themselves can still be horribly corrupt, and no one
| should consider it "correct" to go about enforcing clearly
| immoral laws.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| > You confuse legality with morality.
|
| I did not confuse anything. You may be confused about what
| I mean, and if so, I'm sorry for any unclear communication
| on my part that led to that state of affairs. Feel free to
| ask for clarification of my position if you're curious.
|
| > Besides which, the state has done just fine without such
| invasive measures before.
|
| That is not obviously true to me. For most of the period of
| time during which the people have had the capability to
| communicate remotely, the state has also had the capability
| to surveil that communication when warranted. And it seems
| plausible to me that the lack of that capability before
| permitted much criminality that since has been prevented.
| ghoda wrote:
| I don't know where this is going. Perhaps prepping for the global
| warming riots. Is there a way out of surveillance?
| swayson wrote:
| Take the red pill?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| What does this mean, and how does one take it? Googling it
| comes up with misogny and a documentary of the same name.
| swayson wrote:
| Oh sorry, yes it the matrix reference.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Right, but like besides a reference, is there something
| you'd suggest as an action? (which represents taking the
| redpill)
| amp-man wrote:
| The Matrix
| mrkstu wrote:
| From 'The Matrix':
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Is there a way out of surveillance?
|
| Vote with your feet. Divest out of Australia.
|
| Make sure there's a brain drain out of the country.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > Divest out of Australia.
|
| Time to sell AAAU etf, you can't trust a bank if the gov't is
| corrupt.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| If you have been trusting Australian banks I would refer
| you to the recent Royal Commission:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
| news/2018/apr/20/banki...
| koolba wrote:
| Wouldn't a brain drain lead to even dumber laws?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| 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 be because the bottom 51% have something to gain from
| extraction. The top 51% however are already superior and
| dont need to rely on extraction to fulfill their
| wants/needs.
|
| 51% might have been too broad a number, but do you get my
| drift? Those in the lower intelligence brackets have a lot
| to gain, but those in the upper intelligence brackets do
| not have a lot to gain
| majormajor wrote:
| 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?
| trutannus wrote:
| >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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| 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.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Why must the 50% percentile vote with the bottom half
| rather than the top half?
| hajile wrote:
| Most of the early Federalist papers deal with this
| problem of democracy in very damning terms. It leads to
| failures of the state -- usually within a hundred or so
| years. That is why the US decided to be a Republic
| instead.
|
| Outside the US, countries after WW1/2 opted for
| democracies instead of republics with strong foundations.
| We're witnessing the point of failure due to the exact
| issues outlined in those papers.
| majormajor wrote:
| If there is such a convincing answer, why don't you
| actually state it, instead of just saying that others
| have talked about it?
|
| It's very non-obvious to me why there's a natural
| "coalition of the bottom" versus that just being one
| possible way for things to shake out.
|
| (It's also worth noting that the original American system
| already suffered a MASSIVE failure of the state -
| coincidentally also around the hundred year mark - which
| makes me think maybe they didn't have things perfectly
| figured out anyway. It hurts the credibility of the
| appeal to tradition/authority.)
| claytongulick wrote:
| The implication here is that there's a sort of "pareto
| distribution" of capability when it comes to voting
| "well". This was an issue that the founders tried to
| solve (in a bad way) by attempting to limit voting to
| property owners.
|
| Of course, at the time this almost exclusively meant
| wealthy white men - which is obviously a terrible way to
| run a voting system.
|
| The converse of this is the "bread and circuses" problem
| with Democracy. This was supposed to be mitigated by the
| "House of Lords" equivalent in the U.S. - The Senate.
|
| The Senate was supposed to have been a buffer that
| protected against popular vote because they were assigned
| by the state legislature. They were beholden to the
| welfare of the state, not to direct-democracy political
| campaigning and all its ills.
|
| Personally, I think its time to re-evaluate the 17th
| amendment to see if it had the desired effect, or
| resulted in massive unintended consequences.
| Geee wrote:
| This is true, and that's why there's constitution.
| Constitution makes sure that government power is limited
| to issues that don't change power balance from people to
| government or from minority to majority groups. It makes
| sure that no matter who runs the country, they can't ruin
| it.
| [deleted]
| elzbardico wrote:
| Other kind of dumb laws. Authoritaranism is a special kind
| of dumbness historically associated with really smart
| people.
| dragonelite wrote:
| Not the problem anymore for the brains that fled.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Kinda weird for the attitude toward governments allegedly
| violating freedom to be "it's okay as long as it doesn't
| affect me."
| alpaca128 wrote:
| No, it's not okay. But if you can't fix it, why stay in a
| bad environment?
| dragonelite wrote:
| 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.
| tshaddox wrote:
| 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).
| moate wrote:
| At that point, who cares? You live somewhere else, not your
| problem. That's sorta the whole point of leaving a country
| for political reasons, you feel it's unfixable and not
| worth hanging around. It's defeatist and doesn't help the
| people still in Australia, but it's a valid value
| judgement.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Or vote with your... vote. The relative benefit is that it
| can actually work, in theory at least.
| artursapek wrote:
| You really think any of what's going on in Australia is the
| will of the people?
| bitreality wrote:
| They have people voting over 3% tax increases and gay
| marriage, not surveillance. Doesn't matter who you vote
| for, every party is in favor of increasing their power.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| So which country is better in that regard?
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| We never had a vote on same sex marriage. It was more a
| completely optional mail in survey whose results the
| govt. was completely welcome and within its rights to
| ignore.
|
| On that one, at least, the politicians were too spineless
| to take a stand.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Leaving Australia is currently very difficult for Australians
| in Australia even if they reside abroad. But if one could
| leave, where should they go to?
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Leaving Australia is currently very difficult for
| Australians in Australia
|
| Just like Cuba and Eastern Europe when the USSR was still
| around. Wonder why.
| katbyte wrote:
| going by the number living and moving to canada/west coast
| it can't be to hard for those under 35 with the working
| holiday visa
| cryptonector wrote:
| Australians in Australia are not allowed to leave the
| country they way they were prior to covid. Before, like
| any other reasonable country, all you needed was a valid
| passport. Heck, the U.S. doesn't even require that much.
| But now Australia requires more than just a passport, and
| to my knowledge that has had the net effect of not
| letting any Australians out.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Join the bureaucracy executing it. Make the experience of being
| surveiled as onerous and intrusive as possible so that the
| fever can break sooner.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I bet they're pretty worried about unrest from climate change.
| Most of the continent is pretty hot and arid already and it's
| not going to get better when temperatures start rising.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Being a gray man is probably the realistic solution for most
| people.
| indy wrote:
| If there are riots, then a worldwide crash of the financial
| markets seems like the more likely cause
| charbonneau wrote:
| You can take a man out of surveillance but you can't take
| surveillance out of a man
| [deleted]
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Vote. Or be more active in politics.
| cfcfcf wrote:
| Voting is mandatory and it has bi-partisan support.
| [deleted]
| hulitu wrote:
| Too late.
| sweettea wrote:
| Voting is how this mess started... how is voting harder going
| to fix what voting created? Nothing short of a common
| national ethos of trust in an almost unremovable leader can
| solve this problem. A leader who can listen to experts and
| make a choice, even if unpopular, without fear of next
| election and without the need to aggrandize more power and
| wealth.
| soco wrote:
| That's the kind of rationalization which got Europe into
| WW2...
| mLuby wrote:
| "Fear of the next election" is one of the few things that
| keeps elected leaders in line.
|
| You want a wise, just dictator for life, and maybe you luck
| out and get one who reigns beneficently for a few decades,
| but who's to say their successor will be as good, or the
| next one, and on and on until you inevitably get a Stalin.
|
| Put another way: if the leader dies, and heir A spends all
| their effort on ruling effectively, and heir B spends all
| their effort on beating heir A to the throne, how can heir
| A succeed? You'd need metrics for being a good ruler which
| are _immune_ to Goodhart 's Law.
|
| Given that--over time--power _inevitably_ centralizes and
| _inevitably_ is abused, those tendencies must be
| counterbalanced; or else power must be regularly reset by
| more crude means.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Voting is already mandatory in Australia.
| agilob wrote:
| and if that doesn't work wait 4 or 5 more years and vote
| again, hope for the better!
| eplanit wrote:
| Australia's penal colony origins are beyond ironic anymore.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| The Australian government has always dreamed fondly of China's
| control over there population and has been working tireless to
| get there.
| [deleted]
| christophilus wrote:
| Serious question. How concerned should I be if my email is hosted
| by an Australian company?
| atok1 wrote:
| Always remember that Session is also developed in AU....
|
| Makes me really consider the information I was told about FM.
| narrator wrote:
| Something really bizarre and unsettling is happening in
| Australia. Despite a small number of covid deaths, they have by
| far the most totalitarian lockdowns and are pursuing some of the
| most extreme social control measures of any country on earth.
| They are building quarantine imprisonment camps, doing national
| manhunts for people who aren't quarantining, arresting people for
| anti-government speech, using the military to limit movement. You
| are not even allowed to leave the country anymore! Things really
| happened so fast and with so little debate that it rivals the
| speed and severity of loss of rights that occurs in a communist
| revolution. What the heck is even going on there?
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| Hyperbole, mostly
|
| Versions of all of those things exist, but not in the way you
| describe them.
| jdkee wrote:
| In the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which
| reads:
|
| The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
| papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
| shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
| probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
| particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
| or things to be seized.
| jldugger wrote:
| And the EU has GDPR. Which is intended to protect its citizens
| globally. It seems like AU parliament is doing their best to
| ensure their chartered companies be unable to serve European
| customers.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Why was this downvoted?
|
| Anyways, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about alterations by
| LEAs to seized documents. That hadn't been invented yet, I
| guess, back in 1789. Though arguably Due Process requires a
| well-behaved justice system that wouldn't do that.
| jpollock wrote:
| edit: found information about emergency authorisation
|
| Here's the bill under discussion [1] :
|
| This article states that it brings in new warrants, and makes no
| mention of "without a judge's warrant" [2].
|
| Perhaps the original article is keying off of:
|
| "(aab) to establish procedures for certain law enforcement
| officers of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime
| Commission to obtain warrants and emergency authorisations" [3]
|
| "emergency authorisations" would appear to not require a warrant,
| but it does include language of "it is not practicable in the
| circumstances to apply for a <warrant>" [4]
|
| However, I'm not Australian, and definitely not a lawyer.
|
| [1]
| https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
|
| [2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/even-hacking-field-
| gove...
|
| [3]
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
|
| [4]
| https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/360document/legauUio1949041sl318...
| peytoncasper wrote:
| Interesting. I'm not from Australia but I thought the concept of
| an Administrative Appeals Tribunal interesting. It seems like a
| way to offload work from the main court system. According to
| Wikipedia it also does seem to have oversight by the Federal
| Court of Australia. [1]
|
| While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual
| body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn't any
| detail in the article but I would hope there is a massive audit
| trail on the ability to modify data or impersonate someone
| online.
|
| Anyone have any additional details on the AAT's effect on the
| average Australian citizen?
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Appeals_Tribuna...
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Not to directly answer your question, but my trust of "the
| system" in general is severely shaken by recent cases involving
| the treatment of whistleblowers.
|
| Australia's powers-that-be seem to be promoting a chilling
| effect on any revelations that may cause negative publicity
| about said powers-that-be.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witne...
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-29/prosecutors-proceed-c...
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US.
|
| This is your daily reminder that FISA was originally created as
| a way to provide oversight for intelligence agencies after
| things like MK Ultra and COINTELPRO. Instead it became a rubber
| stamp legitimizing their actions.
| ConanRus wrote:
| Next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika
|
| NKVD troika or Special troika (Russian: osobaia troika), in
| Soviet history, were the People's Commissariat of Internal
| Affairs (NKVD which would later be the beginning of the KGB)
| made up of three officials who issued sentences to people after
| simplified, speedy investigations and without a public and fair
| trial.[1] The three members were judge and jury, though they
| themselves did not carry out the sentences they dealt. These
| commissions were employed as instruments of extrajudicial
| punishment introduced to supplement the Soviet legal system
| with a means for quick and secret execution or imprisonment.[
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| This is worse than FISA. Once again, in a 5 eye country the
| china like surveillance infrastructure has been rubber stamped.
| ohhhhhh wrote:
| FISA court is unconstitutional too.. and is was literally used
| to frame Trump
| sjy wrote:
| The AAT is basically what's known as an administrative court in
| other countries [1], or a consolidation of the numerous
| tribunals presided over by administrative law judges in the
| U.S. [2]. The average person in Australia is most likely to
| interact with the AAT by appealing a decision of the federal
| government in relation to child support, workers' compensation,
| social security, immigration or tax [3]. Although the
| distinction between an AAT member and a judge is
| constitutionally important, it is not that obvious or
| practically significant. Both conduct public hearings and
| provide written reasons for deciding the legal disputes within
| their jurisdiction, which can be further appealed.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_court
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge
|
| [3] https://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat
| peytoncasper wrote:
| Really appreciate the detailed answer @sjy! That makes sense,
| so it seems odd to me that this article is claiming this is
| effectively "warrantless". Functionally, it sounds like law
| enforcement still have to present their case to a judge and
| then there is a path for recourse on behalf of the citizen.
| soco wrote:
| In 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.
| snarf21 wrote:
| That's unfair. People are exhausted. The world is too complex.
| We have almost no control of anything. People just want to eat,
| sleep and spend time with their family. They don't have hours a
| day to get up to speed on the most complicated new tech law
| that will just be rubber stamped by people who are supposed to
| represent our interests for campaign dollars. Some of these
| laws get push back and trend hashtags for a couple of days.
| Then the powers that be just try again in 2 months. And again,
| and again. You know, because of the children......
| donatj wrote:
| This is why I've always had doubts about direct democracy. Most
| people are idiots who scare easily and whose views should not
| be considered.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Maybe, but that should be their right. We need fixes but as
| long as you can buy a Senator for 4 or 6 years for $100K, we
| have no chance. Things get a lot harder if that same voting
| power for 1 vote costs $5M. The problem is that the people in
| power want to stay there and keep feeding at the trough. What
| we really need is the ability for public resolutions to put
| directly into law. Then we could have a chance for reform,
| unfortunately most states don't have provisions for this
| path.
| base698 wrote:
| Living in California right now is scary, given our direct
| democracy.
| jliptzin wrote:
| I've always wondered how hard it would be to start your own
| country, people start new companies all the time to solve
| problems, I think it's time we start a new country for the
| first time in how many years? Maybe a government that
| actually does respect privacy and doesn't just throw it out
| the window because of "terrorism" or whatever the thing of
| the moment might be. Also would be nice to live somewhere
| that doesn't have atrocious wars on its historical record or
| hundreds of years of exploitation of other peoples.
| csomar wrote:
| Technically, it is not hard (assuming you have the money).
| Your biggest hurdle is getting some sort of recognition
| from other countries. Enough to be able to trade, and
| enough not to be bombed by some military out there. An
| island will be a perfect choice as it'll be hard for
| "refugees", terrorists and militias to slip through your
| borders.
|
| Your next hurdle is getting a police / army force as police
| can take over your city if they are not faithful to you.
| Since you can't protect your island, you'll need some
| diplomatic deal with a bigger country (USA, France, China,
| etc...) to pledge for your protection. Gotta pay them
| somehow for that kind of protection.
|
| Don't be deluded. There are no dictators out there, but
| representations of the current forces and powers. At some
| duration in the timeline of this earth, the powers and
| forces enabled the creation of democratic nations with
| generous freedoms afforded to its citizens. Of course this
| would change as these powers and forces shift.
|
| Australia is a de-facto military dictatorship given that it
| is a resource-export-oriented nation. The forces at the
| time (being part of the Common Wealth and an ally to the
| US) has made it a democratic and free country.
| personlurking wrote:
| An idea I've heard is that some tech billionaire decides to
| purchase a little-used state of another country - say in
| Central America - and turns it into a technolibertarian
| country of sorts. While treating it like a company, and
| thus paying the country for its use, iirc.
| nyokodo wrote:
| > I've always wondered how hard it would be to start your
| own country
|
| Really really hard. You have only a few choices and they're
| all terrible. First one is revolution, see history for how
| that tends to go. Second is conquest and then colonization
| followed by eventual independence, again see history for
| how much this sucks for your stated aims. Seasteading might
| work but if you develop and build the stuff to make it work
| you're unlikely to get any acknowledgement of your
| statehood from any other nation but might get attacked by
| them [1]. The last option is outer space somewhere and
| self-sufficient space colonies are still science fiction
| and once they're not the early pioneers are going to die a
| lot and their living situation is going to be awful.
|
| 1: https://reason.com/2019/10/14/how-two-seasteaders-wound-
| up-m...
| bserge wrote:
| I think the closest you can get these days is a village in
| some poor but relatively stable country. In Eastern Europe
| for example.
|
| The government will ignore a lot of things for a pretty
| long time as long as you're building, doing stuff and
| paying taxes.
|
| But an independent country? Maybe on a bunch of ships in
| international waters.
|
| Otherwise you'll quickly find yourself with a small army at
| your "borders".
|
| Too many people these days, soldiers, guns and ammunition
| are cheap and all land is taken.
| gorwell wrote:
| That means the government and media successfully manufactured
| consent with the population.
|
| A majority of the US supported the War on Terror. That was
| manufactured consent with thanks to the corporate press. It was
| only the outliers that protested from the beginning, only
| proven correct after 20 years, thousands of lives and trillions
| of dollars wasted in Afghanistan.
|
| Now that this has ended, be on alert for the next campaign of
| fear that will be used to erode freedom and increase the
| surveillance state. Australia is a look at the near future of
| western "democracy" if they are successful.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Democracy is rule by the media. This has been a criticism of
| it for hundreds of years.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| > Now that this has ended, be on alert for the next campaign
| of fear that will be used to erode freedom and increase the
| surveillance state.
|
| You mean like a seemingly never-ending virus with a 99%+
| survival rate?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Agreed. My expectation from a community like HN would be
| total rebellious culture from the mainstream attitude, full
| of interesting perspectives, data-backed arguments, anti-mob
| pro-objectivity discussions, and no shortage of nutjobs
| posting crazy theories - the good ol' hacker culture.
|
| What terrifies me is that HN community continues to double-
| down anything but mainstream and conformity. This is in
| direct relation to larger societal trends that you're
| highliting. Even the slightest neutral stance will get you
| downvoted.
|
| If no one on HN is doing the legwork for raising concerns,
| who will?
| christophilus wrote:
| Plenty of us are still libertarian and think for ourselves.
| (Including you, I'd guess.)
|
| Every platform is likely to eventually reflect the most
| common forms of groupthink from the culture. The reason I
| love HN is that I regularly see counter points and good
| perspective here that I simply don't see anywhere else.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I would expect as much, just based on how badly direct
| democracies have performed historically.
|
| John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon
| wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy
| Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that
| Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less
| ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy."
|
| In the past, democracy was viewed as a form of government that
| republics _devolved into_.
| stereolambda wrote:
| Well, it's interesting, then, that Switzerland is one of the
| oldest political regimes in Europe. This kind of rhetoric
| tends to come from elitist thinkers that would want a
| guarantee of power over people because they think they are
| right and somehow destined to have it.
|
| If we are on topic of exchanging opinions of famous men, I
| think Machiavelli said that the people can be misled and go
| astray but are not prevented by pride from correcting
| themselves, like rulers would.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| This was covered by Plato 2,500 years ago. But we don't learn
| about that ancient outdated stuff anymore, as it isn't
| beneficial for the economy.
| guerrilla wrote:
| 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.
| soco wrote:
| That might be a different discussion but the mentioned police
| surveillance law was voted in a national referendum.
| merlinscholz wrote:
| One advantage of ProtonMail is that they are not easy to
| tamper with, as the data is encrypted with the password you
| provide at login which is (hopefully) not being stored.
| [deleted]
| kertoip_1 wrote:
| Is that password sent anywhere or is it just used on client
| side decryption?
| noduerme wrote:
| I'm most curious about what they mean by "ADDING" data...
|
| Does this mean the police can create a social media account in
| your name? Imagine for instance that they suspect one of your
| family members of tax evasion. Can they create a fake social
| media account or email account registered to you, and impersonate
| you for the sake of entrapping someone else? Like hey uncle, love
| your new car, got any hot accounting tips? I don't even see
| anything in these laws that says the person whose data they're
| accessing has to be the target of the investigation.
|
| Imagine if at any time in any chat, even with your partner or
| parent or child, you couldn't know whether you were actually
| talking with them or a government agent, perhaps because someone
| they know is tangentially suspected of a crime - without the
| matter even being brought before a judge. Terrifying. This is how
| societies turn into places where everyone is completely fearful
| of saying anything at all.
| azinman2 wrote:
| The law generally allows the state to abuse its people in all
| kinds of ways. That's the social contact: that abuse is seldom,
| and when it occurs the abuser gets punished. If it occurs
| enough then usually something big socially occurs, like a
| revolution.
| throwawayswede wrote:
| A contract is consent in both ways. Most people have not
| consented neither explicitly nor tacitly to any of this. I
| understand what the term means, but most people seem to stick
| with the enlightenment-age definition while in reality what
| we currently have in most states (eastern or western) is not
| a social contract, but a hostage situation.
| asien wrote:
| Reminds me of anti-free speech laws that was almost passed in
| France.
|
| It was designed to help fight << hate speech >>.
|
| It enable police to remove literally ANY content from the interne
| t as long as it was << hateful >> of course there is no legal
| definition of hateful.
|
| I think similar laws have been passed in Belgium and Germany.
|
| I find it funny that has economic growth from the post war era is
| slowing down and climate change is accelerating our fundamentals
| rights and freedom are slowly being taken away from us ,bits by
| bits with more or less the same laws everywhere.
|
| Very strange.
| pessimizer wrote:
| _How "Hate Crimes Against Police" Expose the Fatal Flaw Within
| Hate Crime Statutes_
|
| https://truthout.org/articles/how-hate-crimes-against-police...
|
| _Offenses Against Police Could Be Hate Crime_
|
| https://www.post-journal.com/news/page-one/2020/09/offenses-...
|
| If you squint enough, lese-majeste starts to look like hate
| crime legislation. Paul Kagame maintains his dictatorship on a
| foundation of hate speech and genocide denial accusations.
|
| When the enemy is an abstraction like "hate" there's no way to
| create a bright line between it and "disagreement" or
| "opposition." Are you publicly condemning a politician's
| behavior, or are you inciting hate against him?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| At least in France people will protest. Places like Australia,
| NZ and Canada have far too much trust in the government...
| csomar wrote:
| > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oVOE5Hsl8E
|
| I don't know about the French. For the most part, they
| protest for the wrong reason.
| worker767424 wrote:
| Regarding Australia's limits on protest during the Sydney
| covid lockdown, one official basically said "people can
| exercise their freedom of speech other ways, like writing a
| letter to the newpaper or sending an angry email"
| (paraphrased). I think he seriously thought these circular-
| filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in
| front of government buildings.
| lurquer wrote:
| > I think he seriously thought these circular-filed
| complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front
| of government buildings.
|
| They do carry the same weight.
|
| They are both useless.
|
| Standing around holding signs and marching and chanting has
| never been effective.
|
| Having the crowds filmed and broadcast, on the other hand,
| is effective. If the media isn't making a story out of it,
| it means nothing.
|
| In the 60s and 70s people began to believe marching and
| protesting en mass was effective. But, it was only
| effective because the media, for their own reasons and
| agendas, decided to broadcast the Freedom Marches and anti-
| war marches and all the rest.
|
| I don't believe that prior to the 60s, anyone would have
| considered milling around in front of govt buildings
| effective at all. To be sure, having mobs tearing down the
| buildings was effective and happened frequently.
|
| You could assemble a million protestors in DC and, if it's
| not shown in CNN, you might as well have stayed home.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > "people can exercise their freedom of speech other ways,
| like writing a letter to the newpaper or sending an angry
| email" (paraphrased).
|
| That's what the founding fathers did, ironically. Didn't
| work either.
| rpmisms wrote:
| As an American's American (Guns and Liberty for everyone!) I
| _really_ appreciate the French people 's intolerance of
| government overreach. They say no, and they don't sit down.
| conradfr wrote:
| Your overstimate what we protest for and the effectiveness
| of it.
|
| Also protests have been heavily repressed during Macron,
| it's becoming scary to actually go sometimes.
| Frost1x wrote:
| >Your overstimate what we protest for and the
| effectiveness of it.
|
| I don't keep up with all the protests but it's a far more
| active middle finger against infringement than most
| countries where we sit around and watch our liberties
| erode away in the name of progress and security.
|
| That erosion is really all a front in the US for
| increasing power of already concentrated power and we sit
| back idle and watch it happen as we struggle to stay
| afloat in a set of abstract rules we must follow to
| survive.
|
| When I see France, I at least feel like your citizens
| haven't given up and are still trying to fight for their
| rights. How effective it is is another thing, but at
| least there's some will left. In the US we just bend over
| and say, "oh boy, this again..." We seem to have already
| given up the fight, are unaware, and/or simply don't care
| anymore. I'll take an ineffective attempt at retaining
| rights over complacency any day. It's not like we have
| more clever strategies that are more effective, we just
| don't participate at large, period.
| rpmisms wrote:
| > Your overstimate what we protest for and the
| effectiveness of it.
|
| I don't care, it's the spirit that counts.
|
| > Also protests have been heavily repressed during
| Macron, it's becoming scary to actually go sometimes.
|
| You helped us during our revolution. Maybe it's time to
| become state #51?
| enigma-reload3d wrote:
| WOW, this is unbelievable!
| papito wrote:
| "This is fine, but don't you make me put on that mask, you
| fascists!"
| chroem- wrote:
| Good, I hope this will give Australia the power it needs to
| finally crush disinformation and right wing terrorism. The two go
| hand-in-hand.
| camillomiller wrote:
| My girlfriend is Australian, stranded abroad here in Germany like
| many other Aussies. I've bern following the news from down under
| for quite a while. I have the nagging feeling that Australia is
| currently the Western country with the highest chance of turning
| into Gilead.
| lox wrote:
| Nah, we lack the political motivation for really any major
| change. Australian politics is about not losing vs winning.
| jimpick wrote:
| "Disrupting data" sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
| swader999 wrote:
| One downside to all this surveillance that's never considered are
| the consequences of all this intel after a foreign invasion and
| life for the surveiled after a defeat.
|
| It would be much easier to occupy a foreign territory if all of
| this intel were available as you roll in. Makes one wonder...
| DarkByte wrote:
| The bigger and more important issue here in my opinion is that
| this completely paves and protects the road to breaking Apple
| style CSAM detection systems by any 5 eyes country for other
| uses. Game Over.
| smsm42 wrote:
| Australia is turning itself into a prison state. Citizens are
| allowed to go outside for maximum one or two hours, total
| surveillance, unconstrained searches of the property... About the
| same set of rights as a supermax prison inmate has, it looks
| like.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Minor nitpick: Australia is turning itself back into a prison
| state.
| smsm42 wrote:
| Back then they didn't really have a choice. Now it's all on
| them - they elected those people.
| 0xdeadb00f wrote:
| The part about being "allowed to" go outside isn't true. Take
| it from me, I live here and am free to go wherever I please.
| gorwell wrote:
| This is probably what they are referring to. Some areas are
| limiting outdoor time and fining people who are "outside
| without a reasonable excuse".
|
| "From September 13, NSW residents that are fully vaccinated
| against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms.
|
| Residents of hotspots _can leave home for an hour of
| recreation on top of their exercise hour_ , while people in
| other areas can meet five others outdoors."
|
| https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > will be given new freedoms
|
| Wow, that's Orwellian to say the least.
|
| Freedom is never granted, it is earned.
| tikwidd wrote:
| It's called a lockdown...
| smsm42 wrote:
| The question is not how it's called but whether it's
| happening or not.
| smsm42 wrote:
| So this report, touting additional hour of outside time
| (within the limits of curfew and for fully vaccinated
| families of course, we're not savages!) is a complete
| fabrication?
|
| https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-nsw-
| restrictio...
| 8372049 wrote:
| It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question,
| read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this
| article are incorrect.
|
| It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a
| process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part
| is strongly misleading: (5) If subsection (4)
| applies, the applicant must: (a) provide as much
| information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member
| considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and
| (b) not later than 72 hours after the making of the application,
| send a duly sworn affidavit to the eligible Judge or nominated
| AAT member, whether or not a warrant has been issued.
|
| Subsection (4) is about immediate threats.
|
| The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court
| of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia"
| (Wikipedia).
|
| https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
|
| This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being
| able to arrest you without a court order.
| javajosh wrote:
| 5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced
| because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules,
| giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite.
|
| And then it happens so much it's standard practice and
| attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.
| 8372049 wrote:
| I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval
| and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then
| I don't consider it to be a big problem.
|
| If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads
| would probably roll.
|
| However, in _most_ cases these things are legitimate. I 've
| worked in government and most people have good intentions. We
| don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against the
| legitimate cases, we have to protect ourselves against the
| abuse.
| reilly3000 wrote:
| 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?
| lanevorockz wrote:
| When the system will refuse something that benefits them ? It's
| applied Kafka
| kaminar wrote:
| Just the beginning...it's going to get much worse.
|
| Openvaers.com
| gavinsoady2 wrote:
| comment
| mikaeluman wrote:
| I make the same observation as other people have made. These
| types of laws are being passed with increasing intensity and
| scope in most western countries.
|
| They seem to follow the same idea. Purportedly they are being
| passed to stop crime or at least aid the investigation of
| suspected criminals.
|
| The other set of laws are purportedly meant to stop the spread of
| infectious disease.
|
| But the laws are clearly not well balanced in terms of privacy
| rights and personal freedom.
|
| There is also this ominous synchronization between government and
| trans-national bodies such as the WHO with major technology
| firms; having the latter act as uncritical propaganda arms of the
| former - no matter the evidence or reasons for doubt.
|
| Rather than discussion and reasoning, there is this flow of
| labels thrown around at dissenters, regardless of who they are
| and what they say.
|
| If they critique transwomen competing with women they are called
| transphobic and accused of hate speech.
|
| If they prefer not to take a vaccine shot and/or critique
| lockdowns and restrictions; they are called anti-vaxxers and
| accused of spreading misinformation.
|
| All of this points in the direction of tyranny and
| totalitarianism. All we can do is vote with our feet.
| gavinsoady2 wrote:
| Does this comment add
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going.
|
| > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will
| soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data
| should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious
| crime.
|
| How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating
| items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against
| as the system implicitly trusts police testimony over accused
| benbristow wrote:
| > Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never
| going.
|
| Don't worry, they won't let you in anyway.
|
| Won't even let their own people in (or out) at the minute.
| 8458e112e7b2 wrote:
| Tyrants are going to tyrant.
| catsncomputers wrote:
| Check the source, and try to verify it against any other
| information. I can't seem to find anything from a credible
| source to verify the extent this article claims
|
| EDIT: since I can't directly reply - the article linked below
| directly contradicts the URL on the HN post - it clearly states
| that warrants would be needed. It is also political hyperbole
| and contains very few details about the actual bill. I
| recommend scrolling down to jpollock's response for credible
| sources.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| https://lidia-thorpe.greensmps.org.au/articles/more-
| police-p...
| cryptonector wrote:
| There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit
| itself.
|
| States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish
| to exercise it.
|
| Western states generally have limited their exercise of power,
| and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for
| one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now
| changing.
| bserge wrote:
| They've limited themselves because people wanted it (often
| violently). Now the majority of people are complacent and
| that's when the "leaders" accumulate power.
|
| In Europe for example, complacent with the police taking away
| the homeless, complacent with the laws slowly eroding
| everyone's freedoms, complacent with the healthcare systems
| they pay for believing it helps people.
|
| It's the same old tired trope of "first they came for X, and
| I didn't speak out". In the end there will be no one to speak
| for the majority, either.
|
| We have it coming and we'll get it.
| swader999 wrote:
| And just because you are comfortable with the current
| regime having these powers and all knowing insight into
| your life, it doesn't mean you will be with the next and
| the next...
| idiotsecant wrote:
| >complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for
| believing it helps people.
|
| Odd choice of topics to be outraged about.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| i will add anecdata that I know many healthcare
| professionals in Canada and they are down right burnt out
| and angry (even before Covid19) about how the system is
| giving terrible care to people. They want to do a better
| job but cannot with quotas and rules dictated by the rule
| makers.
|
| Canada may have better outcomes on average, because it
| picks up the very bottom (imagine how easy it is to help
| the bottom quartile of health). But I think it also drops
| the ball on people who are proactively trying to optimize
| their health because then the answer becomes "Not
| indicated, you're not sick enough for us to care"
| bserge wrote:
| I wake up every day hating I'm alive and can only sleep
| with alcohol. Apparently, I'm far from the only one being
| denied proper mental healthcare. So yeah.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent"
| [1]
|
| And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely
| not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false
| convictions.
|
| Here's a youtube of more or less the book:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
|
| [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-
| the-ri...
|
| EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant
| on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute
| demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be
| soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I
| have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without
| first speaking to my lawyer"
|
| People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?"
| Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting
| the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now
| can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
| falcrist wrote:
| The content in the book you're talking about is probably
| better represented by Professor Duane's original viral
| video on the topic:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
|
| I think he wrote that book in part because he was
| frustrated by the lack of nuance in his presentation and
| the fact that it sort of "went viral". 13 million views for
| a lecture about law is pretty astonishing.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Yes, but iirc the best advice at the time of the viral
| video was invoke the 5th, but it has since evolved to do
| not invoke the 5th. Insist on your 6th .
| falcrist wrote:
| There's quite a bit of nuance in that recommendation.
| It's also very much about how you invoke your rights.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Since Salinas v. Texas you cannot stay quiet. You must
| invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak to the
| police, else they can use your silence against you at
| trial(!).
|
| Professor Duane has a video on that topic.
| falcrist wrote:
| I seem to recall the correct thing to do is to ask for
| council.
| cryptonector wrote:
| That too. "I will not speak without a lawyer present"
| should do.
| lisper wrote:
| Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the
| Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment.
| Conservatives hate the ninth.
| munk-a wrote:
| > Ironically , the same conservatives that have been
| trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the
| 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
|
| Just out of curiosity - are you possibly confusing civil
| vs. criminal cases? The 5th amendment does apply in civil
| cases to the extent that you cannot be compelled to testify
| - but a judge can interpret your lack of response in a
| negative light in a civil setting. This differs from
| criminal cases where the lack of testimony is not
| admissible nor can it be considered in determination or
| sentencing.
| cryptonector wrote:
| I think GP must be referring to Scalia's vote in Salinas
| v. Texas, which decided that a defendant's silence can be
| used against them at trial unless they specifically
| invoked their 5th amendment right to be quiet.
| javajosh wrote:
| Indeed. To say it another way, state power is total by
| default. Every individual right is carved out of that default
| total power.
| kook_throwaway wrote:
| The 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution limits
| the US government only to the powers explicitly enumerated
| in article 1 section 8.
|
| But in the real world, unfortunately, you are absolutely
| correct. Even the idea that there are only a short list of
| things that a government can do is a foreign concept to
| most folks.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Unfortunately, a depressing number of people believe that
| an all-powerful government is the solution to all their
| problems. "There outta be a law" runs rampant.
| hammock wrote:
| >There is no defense against a legal power that does not
| limit itself.
|
| Correction: there is no _legal_ defense.
|
| There are other defenses, historically.
| sirmike_ wrote:
| >There are other defenses, historically.
|
| Indeed. Revolution, rebellion. None of these *have* to be
| violent per se. The Pax French have handled massive changes
| in gov without armed conflict in the 20th Century (not
| counting WWII and Nazis occupation.) It will be very
| interesting to see how well their democracy will counter
| this.
| dbcurtis wrote:
| While you are correct, these other defenses are messy and
| miserable to live through. Let's hope we find a less bloody
| path forward.
| xenophonf wrote:
| Don't be coy. You're talking about the violent overthrow of
| the government. And you know what? If you live in any one
| of the western liberal democracies, this response is
| bullshit and you know it. In a democracy, the government is
| _you_ and the _people around you_, and we have all kinds of
| legal defenses against wanna-be autocrats:
|
| - speeches
|
| - rallies
|
| - op-eds
|
| - letters
|
| - phone calls
|
| - commercials
|
| - campaign contributions
|
| - strikes
|
| - sit-ins
|
| - marches
|
| - education
|
| - lawsuits
|
| - appeals
|
| But above all:
|
| - voting
|
| So get up on your soap box, and get people to the ballot
| box.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| > So get up on your soap box, and get people to the
| ballot box.
|
| I think it's important to understand the context of a
| statement like this as it pertains to the United States
| at least. At some point in the last 6 years, the average
| person on both sides of the aisle has felt as if they
| have some reason to be quite skeptical of the security of
| our electoral system. It has been one of _the_ defining
| issues of two consecutive election cycles. Setting aside
| the question of whether or not that skepticism is
| _warranted_ , the rather worrying fact remains: as a
| whole, our belief in the mechanism of voting is probably
| approaching an all time low. This is quite concerning.
| 8372049 wrote:
| This is true. _Coup d 'Etat: A Practical Handbook_
| discusses this further and talks about how seizing power
| in most modern, western democracies is very hard.
| jliptzin wrote:
| It's nothing special anyway, not worth the long flight
| phito wrote:
| Nothing special??? It has some of the most diverse and crazy
| flora and fauna in the world...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence all
| the time anyway.
|
| So it is anyway about trust - and how to check reliable, if
| they deserve trust.
|
| This is how I would choose, which places to visit.
|
| Australia is still quite good on that list, as cases where the
| police officers for example - are the ones doing the kidnapping
| and ransoming and investigation about it all by themself, like
| it is common in other places - are still quite rare.
|
| My experience with australian police officers are a friendly
| warning for me, for ignoring a red light while at foot. And a
| asshole police officer stopping and handing out a hefty fine
| for us, for not "deadstopping" at a stop sign at a empty
| roadcrossing at night - explicitely, because we were driving a
| backpackers car and not a local one (he said so)
|
| So all in all, I would probably visit again.
| CyanBird wrote:
| > Well, the police can also temper with any other evidence
| all the time anyway
|
| Yeah, they do, but that's illegal and NOT encoded in law
|
| So Aus has just made police tampering legal
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Well, I did not read the law in detail, but I am pretty
| sure, that tampering with evidence is not included and
| still forbidden with the threat of criminal investigation
| for the officers doing it.
|
| What is allowed here, is hacking for the police. That
| necessarily can include changing files on the target
| computers (e.g. deleting logs) - this is the way I read
| this. And I would see the point in it - if it really only
| get applied in serious crimes like terrorism to catch the
| whole network for example. (back to trust)
|
| But yes, it maybe makes it more easy to tamper undetected
| with evidence in sneaky ways, but not if for example you
| would log the hacking activities by default of the police.
| In fact, I strongly believe that this should be done, but
| doubt, it will be.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| > tampering with evidence is not included and still
| forbidden
|
| > What is allowed here, is hacking for the police. That
| necessarily can include changing files on the target
| computers (e.g. deleting logs)
|
| How is this _not_ tampering with evidence?
| eplanit wrote:
| There and New Zealand both. The responses (extreme lockdown) of
| both countries to Covid has been nothing short of insane.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Apparently, you're not allowed to go beyond 5km radius of
| your house. Can someone in Australia confirm the details of
| the lockdown?
|
| Virus is here to stay for many years, if not decades. We're
| never going to eliminate it. It is time we push back on
| draconian measures in the name of covid.
|
| Unrelated but I can't even go to bathroom in SF city because
| every restaurant, convenience store, gas station, etc. have
| an excuse to say that because of COVID restrictions,
| restrooms are closed. I was fine with Gov-mandated measures
| last year when we didn't have vaccines. But, I am turning
| against my own self from last year.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I was fine with Gov-mandated measures last year when we
| didn't have vaccines. But, I am turning against my own self
| from last year.
|
| Several zip codes in the Bay are at what... 98% vaccination
| rate? I still don't get how the "much better" governments
| of Australia and New Zealands, held as examples through the
| pandemic, couldn't match the vaccine rollout of... the
| Trump Administration.
| hanoob wrote:
| Maybe because US and Europe hoarded the vaccines?
| https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-
| storie...
|
| I wouldn't give all the credit to the government for the
| low infection rate last year. I think it was mostly fear
| and reaction of people. e.g. by the time government
| started ordering restrictions, most companies had already
| switched to fully remote. Toilet papers were already gone
| from the supermarket shelves. People were already
| bunkering down. Then in a few weeks the infection peaked,
| and 2 months later students were back in school.
|
| Since that initial success, the state governments
| improved their contact tracing process, which was
| successful to eliminate outbreaks every now and then,
| while things were mainly normal for most the year (except
| overseas travel).
|
| Unfortunately, in late June this year, the Delta variant
| arrived to Sydney, and it proved impossible to control.
| The world-class contact-tracing process failed to stop
| the infection rate. So we are still in lock-down, with
| cases still increasing over a 1000 per day in the state
| (NSW).
|
| However, other states in Australia are still enjoying
| full freedom. Probably, because they do snap lock-downs
| (3 to 7 days) whenever a case appears in the community.
|
| Vaccination, the federal government put most of their
| eggs in one basket. It planned to produce and use the AZ
| vaccine, but the AZ blood clot issues, derailed their
| plans. So they stopped or limited AZ, and went begging
| for Pfizer doses. They are struggling to get enough of
| this, so they can acchieve 80% rate, to start re-openning
| the states currently in lock-down.
|
| There might be plenty of vaccines in US and Europe, but
| unfortunately the rest of world can't get enough of it.
|
| I can understand the initial delay in vaccination in AU &
| NZ, because given the scarcity of vaccines, and the high
| death rates in other countries, it would preferable the
| vaccines were given to those countries first.
| zizee wrote:
| It's pretty simple. There have been far fewer cases and
| deaths than in the US. As for the vaccine rollout, it is
| largely a function of the early success in controlling
| infections.
|
| The initial vaccine doses destined for Australia were
| diverted to more urgent areas (which was the right thing
| to do). Then as domestic product of AZ ramped up, a scare
| campaign ramped up (media love to make people worried)
| and the body for recommending vaccines gave advice for
| under 50s to not take AZ (whilst there was no actual
| alternative). Because covid lockdowns were effective, and
| Australians were seeing such low rates, there was
| complacency amongst the population and they were willing
| to wait for their vaccine of choice. Now delta is looking
| like it is making lockdowns less effective, and there is
| ample supply of Pfizer, people are scrambling to get
| vaccinated.
| aplummer wrote:
| The 5km thing is real while the lockdown is in effect. Keep
| in mind it's different to America, you get paid decent
| money from the state to stay at home.
|
| Whether or not the ~20 000 lives saved from these lockdowns
| comes down to opinion in the end.
| eplanit wrote:
| Wow.
|
| I guess if you're going to live under such rules, it's
| easier if you agree with them.
|
| I can only assume that you view the surveillance bill as
| also benevolent.
| aplummer wrote:
| Please don't strawman me, I didn't say I agree with the
| surveillance bill (I do not) and I don't live in
| Australia - my family does though.
|
| It's a different country with a different set of
| tradeoffs, and is also a more free country than the
| United States across many important areas, which is why
| it rates higher in the Cato freedom index than the USA.
|
| It comes down to perspective, to take a separate topic to
| prove my point - You may think their limitation to only
| own bolt actions and shotguns makes them less free. I may
| think they are more free, since they live without the
| fear of death in a mass shooting.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > they live without the fear of death in a mass shooting
|
| I live in the US without the fear of death in a mass
| shooting because I understand statistics.
|
| There was a school shooting in my area a while back.
| There was a huge hue and cry to put uniformed police in
| all the schools. I (annoying person that I am) pointed
| out that statistically the children were much more likely
| to die in a traffic accident on the way to school. This
| did not go over well.
|
| People regularly drown in Lake Washington, too. It
| doesn't even make the news. Nobody cares.
| aplummer wrote:
| > I live in the US without the fear of death in a mass
| shooting because I understand statistics.
|
| Obviously you are making the assumption I do not
| understand statistics, which I do. There are multiple
| preventable causes of death that can simultaneously be
| tragedies, and whataboutism does not negate from the
| extremely high death toll and comparative probability
| from gun violence in the United States.
|
| The comparison to cars is facetious because cars have the
| necessary utility of moving people about around the world
| and are highly regulated, whereas assault rifles have by
| comparison miniscule utility and regulation.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I fear the sweeping new police and surveillance powers
| handed to the government to protect us from a
| statistically nonexistent threat.
| aplummer wrote:
| The nearly 40 thousand victims (4 per 100k) of gun
| violence and suicide-by-firearm each year in the USA may
| be meaningless to you, but they are not statistically
| non-existent any more than their lives were statistically
| non-existent.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I (annoying person that I am) pointed out that
| statistically the children were much more likely to die
| in a traffic accident on the way to school. This did not
| go over well.
|
| Wait until you try to bring up stats on legal vs illegal
| firearm crimes...
| eplanit wrote:
| I'm glad you're opposed to the bill, but what you
| describe sounds to me like a mindset of "I'm free because
| the government (via restrictions on people) helps me feel
| safe". To me, that's not freedom, but dependency.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I may think they are more free, since they live without
| the fear of death in a mass shooting.
|
| Ironically, the surveillance laws were passed right after
| laws to disarm citizens.
| xxpor wrote:
| > Keep in mind it's different to America, you get paid
| decent money from the state to stay at home.
|
| I wish this meme would die. People in the US got paid
| decent money too.
|
| The federal gov spent $3 trillion more on transfer
| payments in Q1 2021 than it did in Q4 2019. This is more
| than a doubling. That's nearly $17,000 for every human in
| the US.
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B087RC1Q027SBEA
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| How can that be possible when we only had like a few
| hundred in checks, or some few hundred in additional
| unemployment for people who were unemployed?
| mlavin wrote:
| There are far more government social programs than
| unenployment benefits and stimulus checks.
| abeyer wrote:
| Not sure if you're being intentionally hyperbolic...
|
| But stimulus checks alone (ie free money for everyone
| under the income threshold of $75k) were over $3000 per
| person.
|
| Additional unemployment was hundreds of dollars _per
| week_, on top of the standing unemployment benefits.
| [deleted]
| pfarrell wrote:
| Pre-covid, there was almost nowhere to go to the bathroom
| in downtown SF either.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I'd be down to fight for Right to Pee:
| https://newrepublic.com/article/162266/doordash-uber-
| eats-de...
| UnseenTraveller wrote:
| I promise you, Australians and Kiwis don't need advice from
| Americans on how to keep citizens safe.
| gagege wrote:
| Many Americans are less concerned about safety than they
| are about tyrants who (as history shows) get a whiff of
| power and don't stop making rules until they have complete
| dominance over every aspect of people's lives. That's much
| scarier and more damaging than a virus which is, for over
| 99% of people, about on par with the flu.
| retrac wrote:
| We should have slammed the international borders shut at the
| first sign of it, and placed any region with outbreaks into
| the strictest lockdown we could humanely devise. Lesson
| learned for next time. Too late for that for most of the
| world. Now we have to learn to live with it somehow.
|
| But it worked for New Zealand. They're in a very odd position
| now. Domestically as long as they can keep it out, they could
| go completely back to normal. Except for international
| travel. (It's been mostly normal most of the time aside from
| that, from what I understand.)
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I'm not sure you realize how much the world is connected
| now. Look up tanker ship traffic to realize how much things
| go back and forth. Locking up a country to outsiders is
| fantasy, and a terrible horrible idea. Even North Korea
| trades with anyone it can. Also, good luck securing the
| Southern Border. Retarding your economy, will cause far
| more death than the 1% claimed for Covid.
| retrac wrote:
| Yes, that's the awkward position they're in.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| New Zealand's (as you describe it) "extreme lockdown" has
| worked. When dealing with a pandemic you are supposed to
| limit potential exposure, and their actions did that.
|
| As a result NZ has had one of the lowest infection rates in
| the world. Also, those actions let them "return to normal"
| quicker then anywhere else.
|
| It worked.
|
| Perhaps you feel that the mid-evil practice of nailing the
| doors and windows shut and posting a guard outside of a
| quarantine house, would be more reasonable? Pray that the
| village stays safe while the sick were imprisoned?
|
| People were inconvenienced. Nothing more.
| j8hn wrote:
| The child poverty rate increased by 10%. I would say that
| an increase of children living in inhumane conditions is
| more than an inconvenience.
| catsncomputers wrote:
| I can't seem to find anything to verify your 10% claim -
| all I can find is stats showing that child poverty
| actually went down.. Are you able to post a source for
| that?
|
| EDIT: since my account has been rate-limited... The msn
| article below was released before the stats and is purely
| speculation. The stats before covid already indicate an
| increase, and NZ has long had fluctuating child poverty
| rates, which the current government is attempting to
| address. However it is essential to realise that this
| increase is largely driven by the effects of the previous
| government, and the housing and rental market - not the
| effects of Covid-19. https://www.cpag.org.nz/the-
| latest/current-statistics/latest...
| [deleted]
| j8hn wrote:
| I've seen it mentioned in the past. Here is an article I
| was able to dig up.
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/number-of-
| children-i...
| duduri2j wrote:
| Claims to have found the opposite online while providing
| no sources, this is just an activist comment.
| j8hn wrote:
| Here is the report from July 26, 2021.
|
| https://www.cpag.org.nz/news/?m=202107
|
| "An additional 18,000 children were probably pushed into
| poverty in the 12 months to March 2021, even without
| taking rising housing costs into account, according to
| new modelling in the report, entitled The first year of
| Covid-19: Initial outcomes of our collective care for
| low-income children in Aotearoa New Zealand"
|
| "This increase in child poverty of around 10% comes at a
| time when property owners have seen their wealth rise at
| an accelerated rate," said McAllister. "Loss of income
| related to job loss was probably inevitable for many
| families; but loss of income to the point of inadequacy -
| or further inadequacy - was due to political decision-
| making.
|
| "The Government avoided one massive health and economic
| crisis but it enabled another one - that of poverty,
| homelessness and inequality - to grow rapidly."
| rangitatanz wrote:
| Most of the people upset about the lockdowns seem to be
| people living outside of New Zealand. Quick search shows
| that currently 85% of New Zealanders agree with the current
| lockdown approach. We've seen what it did to Australia by
| not properly locking down. People are paid a covid support
| wage subsidy through their business to ensure that they
| stay being paid.
| WalterBright wrote:
| If it's true that Covid is not going away, but will be
| endemic, it'll sweep through New Zealand one way or
| another.
| gballan wrote:
| Indeed, but timing is key: whether the sweep is before or
| after the population is substantially vaccinated.
| ManBlanket wrote:
| How about averting the easily exploited, "no cost is too
| great" mentality entirely? If the cost is a disease which
| kills people smack-dab on the average human lifespan, 99%
| of which already had a significant confounding disease. We
| live on an overpopulated planet amidst global ecological
| collapse. Nobody seems to care about the millions, mostly
| children under 5, dying of respiratory illnesses caused by
| pollution or crippled for their entire lives from malaria.
| Nobody seems to care that deaths from child abuse have sky-
| rocketed to unprecedented levels in the last year. Yet here
| we are grieving death in nursing homes, where people go to
| die. Covid is barely a blip in a long succession of
| diseases. Letting it do as much damage as possible is the
| best thing that could have happened to the survivors.
| Especially since for all that door-nailing, mask-wearing,
| and aggressive signage all we managed to do was spread a
| pandemic of emotional toxicity, so long as you weren't from
| a small isolated island. But hey, I guess we got some good
| drama and a reason to shame our friends and neighbors out
| of it.
| swader999 wrote:
| Covid is somewhat better than driving in terms of risk to
| our younger generations and roughly on par with risk to
| our older and yet we go full stop for it.
| simplify wrote:
| Can you explain how people were only "inconvenienced"? Is
| everyone in New Zealand a white collar worker? I don't know
| anything about it, I take it you live there?
| verve_rat wrote:
| They are not dead.
|
| Sure, for people that can't work from home it has been
| harder. But Government support has been set at a level
| well above the unemployment benefit. That is paid to
| employers to pass on to staff so the employment
| relationship is continued with strong encouragement to
| pay at least 80% of the employees normally wages. While
| it has been hard for some it hasn't been impossible.
| There have been no reports of abnormal bankruptcy levels
| (business or personal) or mortgagee sales.
|
| Some people have used the fact that the support is higher
| than the unemployment benefit as evidence that benefits
| are set too low.
|
| In fact, some lower paid workers look forward to a
| lockdown as a 'covid holiday'. That has pissed a few
| people off.
|
| But all of that is way, way better than asking why are
| thousands of Kiwis dead? Did my [Nan|Mum|Brother|best
| friend|insert other person you care about] really need to
| die, 'for the economy'?
| verve_rat wrote:
| And I consider the American response to be 100% bat shit. How
| can you accept hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths?
| At peak you were having a 9/11 every day.
|
| I just... don't get it?
| catsncomputers wrote:
| Since both countries have had issues with vaccine supply,
| both have extremely low vaccination rates. The lockdowns are
| an intermediary measure to prevent loss of life until
| vaccination rates are high enough to warrant leaving it.
|
| Furthermore, the response has enabled New Zealanders to lead
| an almost completely normal life aside from the two lockdowns
| - going to work without even thinking about the necessity of
| masks or social distancing. Attending concerts without a fear
| of contracting Covid-19. Stadiums full of people when the US
| and other countries have been in limbo for 2 years now. Your
| idea of `insane` is quite bizarre to me.
| abraae wrote:
| Nice way to ride your personal hobby horse into town.
| nix23 wrote:
| >power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data
|
| Since when is it legal in any democracy that the police can
| temper (modify, add) or delete proof? That's just beyond my
| understanding.
| pmontra wrote:
| Democratic != righteous, no matter we wish they coincide.
| nix23 wrote:
| That's not what i said.
|
| But strong judiciary and executive (and strong borders
| between them) is a core understanding in every real
| democracy.
|
| If the executive OR the judiciary can do everything (or are
| completely intermingled) you have no democracy but a
| "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ;)
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I do have a question.
|
| 'Data disruption warrant: gives the police the ability to
| "disrupt data" by modifying, copying, adding, or deleting it.'
|
| What does it really mean? Can they now legally change what
| website says to me? Intercept and change what signal message
| says?
|
| I am genuinely trying to understand what functionality hides
| behind this broad language.
| morganvachon wrote:
| I'm not trying to answer your question as I don't know the full
| extent of this new law, but based purely on the article it's
| not hard to imagine the AU government can construct a case
| against a politically subversive but otherwise innocent person
| by planting illegal data/content on their cloud storage and
| social media accounts. The fact that they can do this with zero
| judicial oversight mean that it's not a question of "if" this
| will happen but "when".
| nemo44x wrote:
| It's a good thing everyone surrendered their firearms to this
| same government. Once they know you can't resist anything they
| can do anything to you. I'm guessing NZ is next now that they've
| confiscated nearly every firearm they could.
| UnseenTraveller wrote:
| Guns in the hands of idiots. That always works out well.
| cfcfcf wrote:
| Yes. If we had our firearms we could shoot back. Pew pew!
| ccn0p wrote:
| granted we are in a very different place today in terms of
| warfare technology, history has shown that firing back is
| what has shaped the world we live in today.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Indeed, it seems to work for the Taliban vs. the most
| powerful army on earth.
| hellisothers wrote:
| ... in a foreign occupied country. Aside from snide remarks
| is anybody honestly trying to propose that civilians with
| guns is a deterrent for for anything the government wants
| to do? You may as well be throwing rocks.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| The hypothesis that guns are a deterrent has little to do
| with the citizenry fighting against the army or the
| police. It is about the risk of political assassination
| by a rogue individual every time a politician walks
| outside. If the leaders start to deviate significantly
| from the will of the median person, that risk goes up by
| a lot, hence the deterrent effect. Would Kim Jong Un
| still be around if every person was armed? Perhaps, but
| it'd be quite a bit less likely.
| axguscbklp wrote:
| In some cases, it probably is a deterrent. It is hard to
| know for sure because there is no way to A/B test a
| country. I think that some people probably overestimate
| the degree to which it is a deterrent, but I think it
| would certainly be wrong to say that it is not a
| deterrent at all. In some situations it can probably be a
| very effective deterrent.
| trident5000 wrote:
| I think you really underestimate what an entire populace
| geared with small arms can do if pushed too far. And thats
| the way it should be. The govt should be scared of crossing
| lines that anger the people they are supposed to represent.
| mellavora wrote:
| The point of taking firearms against the government is not that
| you expect to win a firefight. It is that you are willing to
| force the government to shed blood (yours) if it is going to
| achieve its objective. Which means they risk turning you into a
| martyr.
| atok1 wrote:
| NZ also used the FF Tarrant attack on the mosques to take
| everyone's guns.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I've always found talking about firearms in response to a
| legislative body acting to be reactionary and shortsighted, but
| also a little humorous, in a sad kind of way.
|
| I wonder if you realize you're intimating, even obliquely, that
| you'd be willing to kill cops, soldiers, and democratically
| elected officials for performing their duties because you
| individually don't agree with their decisions.
|
| In other words, you're mad at the government for being too
| authoritative, so your reaction is to take the most
| authoritarian step possible and literally murder them for their
| political beliefs.
| nemo44x wrote:
| It's not about shooting them but rather deterring them from
| totalitarian government. That our ruling bodies understand
| there are lines and boundaries.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Yes it is about shooting them, as that's what your
| deterrent is. Your threat is that you'll murder them if
| they don't do things you like.
| nemo44x wrote:
| No you're missing the point I think. The point is that a
| gun let's you defend yourself from tyranny. And that is a
| sufficient number of people find a government tyrannical
| they can choose to organize against them by not following
| their tyrannical laws which are illegitimate. And the
| tyrannical government would have to take up arms against
| these people to enforce their power with the knowledge
| these people can defend themselves.
|
| Guns rights are about defense not coercion per-se. The
| knowledge that the public is already armed is a deterrent
| in even trying to create or enforce law that meets this
| criteria. Thankfully we aren't there and I hope we never
| will, but as they chip chip chip away you start to wonder
| what will be tried next.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I am not missing the point, you are. Guns aren't some
| abstract concept you get to hand-wave away, they have
| exactly one function -- to kill things.
|
| You "defend yourself from tyranny" by killing patriots of
| your own country. That's literally the only way to do it,
| so when you say things like "defend yourself from
| tyranny" you are saying, "I'm willing to murder cops and
| soldiers." because that's who you'll have to "defend
| yourself from tyranny" against.
|
| There is no way around this, it is the direct meaning of
| the words and phrases you're using. What you are doing is
| using the threat of murder to try and get your way in a
| society.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Nah, you're missing the point entirely I think and you're
| trying to use language devices to create a straw man.
|
| You wouldn't be defending yourself from patriots.
| Patriots wouldn't take up arms against an oppressed
| citizenship they swore to protect. You're logic says the
| SS were patriots. They were not (even if their government
| found them to be lawful) and anyone who shot them as they
| raided an innocent persons home is a hero. There are
| innumerable examples of this throughout history and I'd
| argue is the default state of power historically.
|
| Machiavelli wrote hundreds of years ago that liberty can
| only be secured by the passion of a citizenry. That a
| paid militia can never secure it in the long run. This
| type of philosophy is in part what 2a is premised on.
|
| I don't think most anyone says we need to be armed so we
| can threaten violence if we don't get our way on an
| arbitrary issue. I'm not saying Australia doesn't pass
| this particular law if society is armed. But I do think
| I'd feel better about the direction the government is
| going if I knew my neighbors were armed.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Patriots would be the soldiers and cops you'd have to
| murderin order to "escape from tyranny".
|
| It doesn't matter what word you use, you're still
| advocating for the murder of police and military members.
|
| I'm not missing the point because I disagree with you,
| it'd be nice if you stopped trying to suggest that to be
| the case.
| krapp wrote:
| And yet American gun owners also tend to be the Americans
| who most believe their government is already totalitarian.
| Maybe they think waving their guns around just stops things
| from getting worse?
| axguscbklp wrote:
| It possibly does stop things from getting worse, but it
| is hard to know whether it does or it does not because
| there is no way to make a copy of the United States,
| remove private gun ownership in the copy, and then see
| how things play out.
| hajile wrote:
| Brianna Taylor's boyfriend shot a cop breaking into their
| residence. It was classified as self defense. Gun laws in
| California were pushed decades ago to keep black people
| from owning weapons as a tacit acknowledgement that they
| knew they were mistreating people and didn't want those
| people to be able to resist.
|
| No matter what a country dictates, for it to mean
| something, they have to send someone out to your house to
| enforce it. Guns quite literally put a very hard hold on
| how far they will go -- maybe not in passing laws, but
| definitely in enforcing them.
| krapp wrote:
| >Guns quite literally put a very hard hold on how far
| they will go -- maybe not in passing laws, but definitely
| in enforcing them.
|
| No they don't. Let's be real - Some American cops won't
| hesitate to shoot a black person, armed or unarmed. The
| only thing private gun ownership guarantees WRT the state
| is an escalation of force on its part. Remember Waco and
| Ruby Ridge? The government will send tanks and
| flamethrowers at you if they want you bad enough.
|
| As far as Breonna Taylor and police violence against the
| black community goes, political action and protest seem
| to have been more effective at raising awareness and
| putting pressure on government to change policy and
| culture than the ever-present threat of private guns and
| populist violence, and changing culture is how you get to
| police not willing to step over the line.
|
| I'm not saying (since this is bound to be a touchy
| comment) that black people shouldn't arm themselves or
| are never justified in defending themselves against
| police brutality, but I am saying that doing so _has no
| effect_ on the system at large.
| axguscbklp wrote:
| Officials being democratically elected does not necessarily
| mean anything - in theory, a majority of the population could
| vote to literally enslave a minority of the population. I
| think that it is fair for a minority of the population to
| have some threshold beyond which they are willing to use
| force if necessary even if by doing so they are going against
| the wishes of the majority.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 51% of a population having a say over their own lives is
| better than any other system I know of, because every other
| system I know of ends up with substantially less than 51%
| of the population having a say over their own lives. It's
| far from perfect, but I do think we should realize the
| comparison is to other forms of government, not some
| abstract ideal.
|
| And I'm not suggesting that there's _never_ a reason to act
| violently towards a government, I 'm suggesting the people
| who talk about guns in response to legislation don't
| understand what it is they're saying.
|
| To use firearms against your government means killing
| patriots, definitionally. People need to realize this,
| because they generally don't.
| axguscbklp wrote:
| Yes, it likely means killing people who think of
| themselves as patriots. However, many people who work for
| oppressive governments genuinely think of themselves as
| patriots. I do not see why it matters whether using
| firearms against a government means killing patriots or
| not. Many of the people who worked for Nazi Germany and
| Stalin's Soviet Union to oppress their fellow citizens
| were patriots by the standard meaning of the word.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| It often matters to the people making these statements,
| is my point.
|
| I haven't expressed my opinion about it, I'm just saying
| that the folks suggesting using firearms to "stop
| tyranny" very rarely know what they're actually saying.
|
| Some do.
| axguscbklp wrote:
| Psychologically I think it is very easy to resolve any
| possible contradictions. "My side are the real patriots -
| their side are false patriots who are actually
| bootlickers/oppressors/occupiers/traitors/etcetera."
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I think you're getting wrapped up in the word choice
| here. Someone espousing these beliefs is supporting the
| killing of cops and soldiers, an act which is very often
| reprehensible in the same circles.
| gavinsoady2 wrote:
| Did this comment add
| slavboj wrote:
| One intention is for the Australian police to be able to
| fabricate evidence that can then be used to generate American
| warrants and prosecutions, very similar to the way the FBI and
| DNC fabricated the British Steele dossier in order to generate
| FISA warrants and prosecutions of various Trump staffers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-31 23:02 UTC)