4 ms·

Not only are criminals misusing technology to have conversations that the Australian Government can't listen to, they're also taking clever physical countermeas

Not only are criminals misusing technology to have conversations that the Australian Government can't listen to, they're also taking clever physical countermeasures like having conversations in person -- sometimes completely out of earshot of their own devices! If we as a society (quite reasonably) conclude that our government should have access to criminals' communications, allowing savvy criminals to make use of "non-electronic backdoors" is obviously out of the question. Anyone want to propose an enforcement mechanism? Maybe listening devices implanted in everyone, or just everywhere in our homes?

ag71668 8y ago
How do we the citizens fight these laws? They are bipartisan and get shoved through the pipeline so quickly that rights groups don't even have time to react, never mind the electorate. Domestic surveillance seems to be an example of where democracy is completely circumvented.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  The same way you fight any sort of problem like this. Become the squeaky wheel in your electorate. Highlight clearly the problems that both sides are bringing in together and build a momentum such that the sitting member knows he won't get in and neither will his opposition party person, if they continue to support such notions. If it means a loss for the major parties by having, say, an independent taking over, then both sides will start to listen. However, that kind of activism is very hard work and you have to be prepared for the rest of your electorate to be blaise about the subject matter.
  - chii 8y ago
    > rest of your electorate to be blaise about the subject matter. This is definitely the root problem of democracy of today. Lives are comfortable enough for most that they don't really need to care for these issues (until it's too late).
- acct1771 8y ago
  Are you Aussie? If so...definitely not guns!
chongli 8y ago
It doesn't work that way. Governments are interested in preserving order. The purpose of dragnet surveillance isn't to catch every single criminal and create some kind of crime-free utopia, it's to create a chilling effect on moderate dissent. It's a little nudge to remind everyone to stay in line. It also has the added benefit of moving the Overton window towards authoritarianism. This puts anyone who uses sophisticated encryption to hide their communications squarely in the radical camp, making them easier to marginalize.
- forgotmysn 8y ago
  i think he was being sarcastic.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chii 8y ago
    but the reply brings up a really good point - the purpose of the legislation is not what is stated (or implied) by the legislation. Using this mechanism to achieve a chilling effect on activism has a huge detrimental impact on democracy. We must be careful whenever a politician attempts to trade liberty for security - for fools who agree will soon have neither.
- dmurray 8y ago
  Insisting on having always-on listening devices everywhere would also chill "moderate dissent". Those who appear to be disabling the devices or having surreptitious conversations away from them could benefit from some "little nudges". Perhaps some re-education camps where participants would be reminded that they have nothing to fear. Attendance at the camps would be voluntary, just marketed to those who seem to avoid surveillance - but as an extra incentive, it could improve your social credit score which would be useful when opening a bank account, applying for a job or buying public transport tickets.
- panemcircensis 8y ago
  We need a virus, that emulates encrypted communication and is otherwise harmless.
phs318u 8y ago
The media industry was onto this 16 years ago. The answer? A DRM helmet fitted at birth. https://web.archive.org/web/20020802214412/http://www.oreillynet.com/1540.html https://web.archive.org/web/20020802214412/http://www.oreill... ;)

ag71668 8y ago

How do we the citizens fight these laws? They are bipartisan and get shoved through the pipeline so quickly that rights groups don't even have time to react, never mind the electorate. Domestic surveillance seems to be an example of where democracy is completely circumvented.

oldandtired 8y ago
The same way you fight any sort of problem like this. Become the squeaky wheel in your electorate. Highlight clearly the problems that both sides are bringing in together and build a momentum such that the sitting member knows he won't get in and neither will his opposition party person, if they continue to support such notions. If it means a loss for the major parties by having, say, an independent taking over, then both sides will start to listen. However, that kind of activism is very hard work and you have to be prepared for the rest of your electorate to be blaise about the subject matter.
- chii 8y ago
  > rest of your electorate to be blaise about the subject matter. This is definitely the root problem of democracy of today. Lives are comfortable enough for most that they don't really need to care for these issues (until it's too late).
acct1771 8y ago
Are you Aussie? If so...definitely not guns!

chongli 8y ago

It doesn't work that way. Governments are interested in preserving order. The purpose of dragnet surveillance isn't to catch every single criminal and create some kind of crime-free utopia, it's to create a chilling effect on moderate dissent. It's a little nudge to remind everyone to stay in line. It also has the added benefit of moving the Overton window towards authoritarianism. This puts anyone who uses sophisticated encryption to hide their communications squarely in the radical camp, making them easier to marginalize.

forgotmysn 8y ago
i think he was being sarcastic.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chii 8y ago
  but the reply brings up a really good point - the purpose of the legislation is not what is stated (or implied) by the legislation. Using this mechanism to achieve a chilling effect on activism has a huge detrimental impact on democracy. We must be careful whenever a politician attempts to trade liberty for security - for fools who agree will soon have neither.
dmurray 8y ago
Insisting on having always-on listening devices everywhere would also chill "moderate dissent". Those who appear to be disabling the devices or having surreptitious conversations away from them could benefit from some "little nudges". Perhaps some re-education camps where participants would be reminded that they have nothing to fear. Attendance at the camps would be voluntary, just marketed to those who seem to avoid surveillance - but as an extra incentive, it could improve your social credit score which would be useful when opening a bank account, applying for a job or buying public transport tickets.
panemcircensis 8y ago
We need a virus, that emulates encrypted communication and is otherwise harmless.

phs318u 8y ago

The media industry was onto this 16 years ago. The answer? A DRM helmet fitted at birth. https://web.archive.org/web/20020802214412/http://www.oreillynet.com/1540.html https://web.archive.org/web/20020802214412/http://www.oreill... ;)