7 ms·

it's bipartisan in the interests of pragmatism. Labor were forced to collude because idiot Scomo and his buddies decided to go for the cheap "keep Aussies safe

by ux-app 8y ago

it's bipartisan in the interests of pragmatism. Labor were forced to collude because idiot Scomo and his buddies decided to go for the cheap "keep Aussies safe over Christmas" banter. Labor capitulated with the proviso that the bill be reexamined next year. Let's reserve judgement until then.

aplummer 8y ago
I disagree because 1) Bill Shorten goaded the PM to stay late at parliament and pass the bill “to protect Australians” with no amendments on a vague promise. 2) those with courage resign and sit on the cross bench (as we have seen recently).
- ux-app 8y ago
  > those with courage resign and sit on the cross bench you expect Shorten to go to the cross bench? get real.
  - aplummer 8y ago
    The point I was making is nobody is forced to vote for anything, which is true. Anyone in the ALP could have voted against the bill and moved to the cross bench. The “get real” response is where the courage comes into play.
    - ux-app 8y ago
      This is, at best, a very fringe issue for the voting public. That's sad, and I'm disappointed that it's turned out this way, but seriously, it is the only sane position for Labor to take right now. You can't affect much change from the cross bench and Labor are poised to win in a landslide. Politically it makes no sense to make this an issue. You know it and I know it. Other than political suicide over an issue that 99.99% of Aussies couldn't formulate a coherent argument around, what could Labor have done? And be realistic in your rebuttal. Dying on their sword only to potentially lose the coming election is idiotic, and irrational, regardless of what we, the tech literate think about the issue.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        > Other than political suicide over an issue that 99.99% of Aussies couldn't formulate a coherent argument around, what could Labor have done? So "99.99% of Aussies" don't care that their software industry (or at least, security-related stuff) gets destroyed, and Australian engineers etc become unemployable?
        ux-app 8y ago
        >So "99.99% of Aussies" don't care that their software industry (or at least, security-related stuff) gets destroyed Yes, I'm sorry, but in AU "Information Media and Telecommunications" sector employment made up 1.7% of all employed people [1]. Most Aussies don't care about your nerdy tech job :( and FWIW that makes me really sad. [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/EmployIndustry https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...
        flukus 8y ago
        That goes both ways, you think they're going to care about scomo pushing for this legislation they don't understand? He'd have more success continuing the great onion debate.
        mirimir 8y ago
        Huh. I had no clue. But on the other hand, there's this: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/48791677FF5B2814CA256A1D0001FECD?Opendocument http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/48791677FF5B2814CA... Having a little time, I massaged that. See: https://keybase.pub/mirimir/AU-industries.pdf https://keybase.pub/mirimir/AU-industries.pdf So maybe more like 10% could be affected?
        ux-app 8y ago
        >So maybe more like 10% could be affected? Sorry I didn't have a chance to dig into your data, but even if it were 10%, that leaves 90% who are uninformed/disinterested and are easily swayed by the rhetoric: "If you've got nothing to hide then you are fine", "Do you want to protect ISIS from ASIO eyes?" etc... The for case is so easily won in the public sphere that it's laughable. I wish it were otherwise, but most people cannot understand where we come from because they lack the background knowledge. We're not special in that regard. As tech people we oppose this bill. How many other crappy bills pass without any protest from us nerds, just because we don't understand the particulars of climate/jobs/pollution/forestry/land management/policing/urban development etc.etc.etc.?
ehnto 8y ago
I don't buy it sorry. They failed to protect Australias best interests. This was their opportunity to stop it, not next year. It's not like they haven't had time to examine it, they know exactly what is in the bill. If it is no good then don't let it go on until it is. It's just them trying to save face. By all means the bill is in and the damage shall begin immediately.
- ux-app 8y ago
  > It's just them trying to save face. By all means the bill is in and the damage shall begin immediately. I'm sick of all this idealism. Life is not a Disney movie. Labor did what they could under the circumstances. I hate it as much as anyone else, but c'mon, You can't expect an opposition, who are in a very strong position right now to die on their sword for what is, for the vast majority of Australians, a fringe issue.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    No idealism here mate, we are accusing the Labor party of lying about their motives and reasoning. This bill was bipartisan (shame on both their houses and all that). Saying they would "die on their sword" is wrong. Nobody would care if they said "we're waiting 6 months because we want time to debate". They do that sort of thing all the time, doesn't raise a blip. This is a fringe issue! Nobody understands or cares about cybersecurity, that is the only reason that they can get something like this passed. To claim the Liberals would run a scare campaign is one of the most baldfaced lies since "I thank the honorable [opposition] member for their question" in parliamentary Question Time. Scare campaigns don't need to be run based on facts, politics has moved beyond that. If a scare campaign is in the works it will go ahead regardless. Labour are still going to get called soft on crime if the Liberals think it will win them votes.
    - ux-app 8y ago
      >Saying they would "die on their sword" is wrong. Nobody would care if they said "we're waiting 6 months because we want time to debate". Again, be realistic, and account for the context of the situation. The LNP, in cahoots with our corrupt media made this a "keep Aussies safe over Christmas" issue. No one in Australia is strong enough to take on the Murdoch media cabal. If Labor opposed, and even a minor incident occurred over Christmas they would have jeopardized their chances of election. For what? An issue that the vast majority of Australians don't care about? Idiocy. I'm as disappointed as any other punter, but I've been unable to convince any of the tech-illiterate in my social circle that it matters.
thomasfoster96 8y ago
This is a very sympathetic interpretation of Labor’s actions. Passing a law despite admitting it needed a few amendments at the very least, with a vague verbal agreement that it might be amended sometime in the first half of the next year, is neither a very promising nor a politically responsible course of action for a party hoping (and likely) to govern within six months. It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism.
- ux-app 8y ago
  > It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism. The only reason you can say this is because you have no skin in the game. If you were in Parliament, faced with a fringe issue (I don't think it is, but the vast, vast majority of Aussies do, probably because they don't understand the ramifications), then, unless you wanted to commit political seppuku, you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. Politics isn't like Internet armchair quarterbacking, you do what you can to ensure that a) your position is safe, and b) that you will lose the battle to eventually win the war. The privilege of never compromising on your values is reserved for the rest of us who have nothing to lose by criticizing the process.
  - jpatokal 8y ago
    The Greens voted against it, and do not seemed to have suffered political disembowelment as a result. And yes, I know they're also not in a position to win the next election, but Labor's total capitulation to the Libs here was still pretty darn craven.
    - ux-app 8y ago
      Greens don't count, they have no real political clout, and their tiny base rewards them for an anti-stand.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Your comment only works because Australian politics lacks any real clear distinction between the two major political parties, and also lacks any real leadership. You can choose from any of the following one broad categories of incompetence. So to hell with pragmatism. Politicians deserve, and should be subject to, unrelenting ridicule and scorn.
thiagocsf 8y ago
Labor wasn’t forced to do anything. They chose the easier way out.
flukus 8y ago
Scomo is a political dead man walking and the news that day was mostly about his failure to get legislation through parliament. Another failure would have highlighted this more, potentially even bought down the government. Shorten/Labor let it through because they support it and won't look at it next year. We judge them on their actions not their vague promises.
- ux-app 8y ago
  >Shorten/Labor let it through because they support it yep fair comment, and fwiw I agree with you, but I take issue with people who think it's reasonable for an opposition party to take sides on a complex technical issue that unfortunately boils down to "should we allow ISIS to use whats app?" argument. It's unwinnable. I hate it, but I can't fault them for taking a pragmatic stand. It's a lose-lose for them to block the bill. How could they realign the narrative to make it palatable to joe average brickies apprentice? Sorry, Not possible.
mtgx 8y ago
I can't believe someone actually bought that line. It's an obvious soundbite to make people ignore what they did, just like when they say "we did it for the children." We don't need to "reserve judgement until then". We already know they don't plan on repealing the bill in any meaningful way. They also gave up on creating a new interim bill because "the police wouldn't have access to these powers over summer", which is an even worse excuse than the one that they don't have access for Christmas. These excuses all sound made-up, and like they weren't even trying. Labor did make Liberals compromise on one thing - not allowing the anti-corruption agency access to this power. I guess they gladly "fell on their sword" for that one, huh? This is such a joke, I can't believe people actually take their excuses at face value. There must be bigger partisanship in Australia than I thought, which make people ignore this. Also, 99% of the public comments were against this bill, and Labor ignored that, too. But, ultimately, if Labor did actually believe they were "keeping people safer over Christmas" with this bill which had no debate and was passed at night, then that just shows extreme weakness to compromising. Will they pass any bill the other parties want to pass as long as they threaten Labor with accusations of "not wanting to keep people safe"? Is that how weak of a party they are, that they can't find real arguments against what that is a baseless accusation meant to cause misdirection? One more thing, Australia just became the first western country to allow encryption backdoors, something all security experts have been warning is a very bad, terrible idea, that will both destroy the security of the systems in which those backdoors exist and hurt the tech economy. Even if you believe that Labor's action was genuine, does that really not sound like something you would want your party to "fall on its sword" over? But again, their excuses make no sense, especially in the light of them actually fighting Liberals on disallowing the powers to be used against politicians.
- ux-app 8y ago
  > I can't believe someone actually bought that line. I didn't buy the line, but be realistic, what percentage of Australians could even make a coherent argument against this bill? It's a vanishingly small percentage. I watched some bullshit morning TV segment on this where an EFF spokesperson gave some sound arguments wrt this bills overreach potential and downsides, the opposing argument? "But who can argue against ISIS using whats app?". Boom, argument shut down and the presenter sided with the ISIS argument. It's sad, it sucks, but unfortunately most people are not even able to comprehend the anit-argument because terrorists=bad. > Is that how weak of a party they are, that they can't find real arguments against what that is a baseless accusation meant to cause misdirection? Yes this is modern politics. What is your solution? I don't have one. >One more thing, Australia just became the first western country to allow encryption backdoors, something all security experts have been warning is a very bad, terrible idea, Australia is a piddling little country that is a test bed for the 5eyes. We think we're globally important, but that is simple self-delusion. >But again, their excuses make no sense, especially in the light of them actually fighting Liberals on disallowing the powers to be used against politicians. Yes, absolutely. It makes me sick that there is a provision within the bill to exclude parliamentarians. There is a deep sickness in our democratic process, but how do we expect to fix it?
DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
None of the bill will be used over Xmas. Everyone knows this. Labor blinked. Security is their kryptonite. It's shamful to play around with these laws.

by ux-app 8y ago

aplummer 8y ago

I disagree because 1) Bill Shorten goaded the PM to stay late at parliament and pass the bill “to protect Australians” with no amendments on a vague promise. 2) those with courage resign and sit on the cross bench (as we have seen recently).

ux-app 8y ago
> those with courage resign and sit on the cross bench you expect Shorten to go to the cross bench? get real.
- aplummer 8y ago
  The point I was making is nobody is forced to vote for anything, which is true. Anyone in the ALP could have voted against the bill and moved to the cross bench. The “get real” response is where the courage comes into play.
  - ux-app 8y ago
    This is, at best, a very fringe issue for the voting public. That's sad, and I'm disappointed that it's turned out this way, but seriously, it is the only sane position for Labor to take right now. You can't affect much change from the cross bench and Labor are poised to win in a landslide. Politically it makes no sense to make this an issue. You know it and I know it. Other than political suicide over an issue that 99.99% of Aussies couldn't formulate a coherent argument around, what could Labor have done? And be realistic in your rebuttal. Dying on their sword only to potentially lose the coming election is idiotic, and irrational, regardless of what we, the tech literate think about the issue.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      > Other than political suicide over an issue that 99.99% of Aussies couldn't formulate a coherent argument around, what could Labor have done? So "99.99% of Aussies" don't care that their software industry (or at least, security-related stuff) gets destroyed, and Australian engineers etc become unemployable?
      - ux-app 8y ago
        >So "99.99% of Aussies" don't care that their software industry (or at least, security-related stuff) gets destroyed Yes, I'm sorry, but in AU "Information Media and Telecommunications" sector employment made up 1.7% of all employed people [1]. Most Aussies don't care about your nerdy tech job :( and FWIW that makes me really sad. [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/EmployIndustry https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...
        flukus 8y ago
        That goes both ways, you think they're going to care about scomo pushing for this legislation they don't understand? He'd have more success continuing the great onion debate.
        mirimir 8y ago
        Huh. I had no clue. But on the other hand, there's this: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/48791677FF5B2814CA256A1D0001FECD?Opendocument http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/48791677FF5B2814CA... Having a little time, I massaged that. See: https://keybase.pub/mirimir/AU-industries.pdf https://keybase.pub/mirimir/AU-industries.pdf So maybe more like 10% could be affected?
        ux-app 8y ago
        >So maybe more like 10% could be affected? Sorry I didn't have a chance to dig into your data, but even if it were 10%, that leaves 90% who are uninformed/disinterested and are easily swayed by the rhetoric: "If you've got nothing to hide then you are fine", "Do you want to protect ISIS from ASIO eyes?" etc... The for case is so easily won in the public sphere that it's laughable. I wish it were otherwise, but most people cannot understand where we come from because they lack the background knowledge. We're not special in that regard. As tech people we oppose this bill. How many other crappy bills pass without any protest from us nerds, just because we don't understand the particulars of climate/jobs/pollution/forestry/land management/policing/urban development etc.etc.etc.?

ehnto 8y ago

I don't buy it sorry. They failed to protect Australias best interests. This was their opportunity to stop it, not next year. It's not like they haven't had time to examine it, they know exactly what is in the bill. If it is no good then don't let it go on until it is. It's just them trying to save face. By all means the bill is in and the damage shall begin immediately.

ux-app 8y ago
> It's just them trying to save face. By all means the bill is in and the damage shall begin immediately. I'm sick of all this idealism. Life is not a Disney movie. Labor did what they could under the circumstances. I hate it as much as anyone else, but c'mon, You can't expect an opposition, who are in a very strong position right now to die on their sword for what is, for the vast majority of Australians, a fringe issue.
- roenxi 8y ago
  No idealism here mate, we are accusing the Labor party of lying about their motives and reasoning. This bill was bipartisan (shame on both their houses and all that). Saying they would "die on their sword" is wrong. Nobody would care if they said "we're waiting 6 months because we want time to debate". They do that sort of thing all the time, doesn't raise a blip. This is a fringe issue! Nobody understands or cares about cybersecurity, that is the only reason that they can get something like this passed. To claim the Liberals would run a scare campaign is one of the most baldfaced lies since "I thank the honorable [opposition] member for their question" in parliamentary Question Time. Scare campaigns don't need to be run based on facts, politics has moved beyond that. If a scare campaign is in the works it will go ahead regardless. Labour are still going to get called soft on crime if the Liberals think it will win them votes.
  - ux-app 8y ago
    >Saying they would "die on their sword" is wrong. Nobody would care if they said "we're waiting 6 months because we want time to debate". Again, be realistic, and account for the context of the situation. The LNP, in cahoots with our corrupt media made this a "keep Aussies safe over Christmas" issue. No one in Australia is strong enough to take on the Murdoch media cabal. If Labor opposed, and even a minor incident occurred over Christmas they would have jeopardized their chances of election. For what? An issue that the vast majority of Australians don't care about? Idiocy. I'm as disappointed as any other punter, but I've been unable to convince any of the tech-illiterate in my social circle that it matters.

thomasfoster96 8y ago

This is a very sympathetic interpretation of Labor’s actions. Passing a law despite admitting it needed a few amendments at the very least, with a vague verbal agreement that it might be amended sometime in the first half of the next year, is neither a very promising nor a politically responsible course of action for a party hoping (and likely) to govern within six months. It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism.

ux-app 8y ago
> It’s legislative and electoral cowardice more than political pragmatism. The only reason you can say this is because you have no skin in the game. If you were in Parliament, faced with a fringe issue (I don't think it is, but the vast, vast majority of Aussies do, probably because they don't understand the ramifications), then, unless you wanted to commit political seppuku, you'd have done the rational thing and supported this bill. Politics isn't like Internet armchair quarterbacking, you do what you can to ensure that a) your position is safe, and b) that you will lose the battle to eventually win the war. The privilege of never compromising on your values is reserved for the rest of us who have nothing to lose by criticizing the process.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  The Greens voted against it, and do not seemed to have suffered political disembowelment as a result. And yes, I know they're also not in a position to win the next election, but Labor's total capitulation to the Libs here was still pretty darn craven.
  - ux-app 8y ago
    Greens don't count, they have no real political clout, and their tiny base rewards them for an anti-stand.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Your comment only works because Australian politics lacks any real clear distinction between the two major political parties, and also lacks any real leadership. You can choose from any of the following one broad categories of incompetence. So to hell with pragmatism. Politicians deserve, and should be subject to, unrelenting ridicule and scorn.

thiagocsf 8y ago

Labor wasn’t forced to do anything. They chose the easier way out.

flukus 8y ago

Scomo is a political dead man walking and the news that day was mostly about his failure to get legislation through parliament. Another failure would have highlighted this more, potentially even bought down the government. Shorten/Labor let it through because they support it and won't look at it next year. We judge them on their actions not their vague promises.

ux-app 8y ago
>Shorten/Labor let it through because they support it yep fair comment, and fwiw I agree with you, but I take issue with people who think it's reasonable for an opposition party to take sides on a complex technical issue that unfortunately boils down to "should we allow ISIS to use whats app?" argument. It's unwinnable. I hate it, but I can't fault them for taking a pragmatic stand. It's a lose-lose for them to block the bill. How could they realign the narrative to make it palatable to joe average brickies apprentice? Sorry, Not possible.

mtgx 8y ago

I can't believe someone actually bought that line. It's an obvious soundbite to make people ignore what they did, just like when they say "we did it for the children." We don't need to "reserve judgement until then". We already know they don't plan on repealing the bill in any meaningful way. They also gave up on creating a new interim bill because "the police wouldn't have access to these powers over summer", which is an even worse excuse than the one that they don't have access for Christmas. These excuses all sound made-up, and like they weren't even trying. Labor did make Liberals compromise on one thing - not allowing the anti-corruption agency access to this power. I guess they gladly "fell on their sword" for that one, huh? This is such a joke, I can't believe people actually take their excuses at face value. There must be bigger partisanship in Australia than I thought, which make people ignore this. Also, 99% of the public comments were against this bill, and Labor ignored that, too. But, ultimately, if Labor did actually believe they were "keeping people safer over Christmas" with this bill which had no debate and was passed at night, then that just shows extreme weakness to compromising. Will they pass any bill the other parties want to pass as long as they threaten Labor with accusations of "not wanting to keep people safe"? Is that how weak of a party they are, that they can't find real arguments against what that is a baseless accusation meant to cause misdirection? One more thing, Australia just became the first western country to allow encryption backdoors, something all security experts have been warning is a very bad, terrible idea, that will both destroy the security of the systems in which those backdoors exist and hurt the tech economy. Even if you believe that Labor's action was genuine, does that really not sound like something you would want your party to "fall on its sword" over? But again, their excuses make no sense, especially in the light of them actually fighting Liberals on disallowing the powers to be used against politicians.

ux-app 8y ago
> I can't believe someone actually bought that line. I didn't buy the line, but be realistic, what percentage of Australians could even make a coherent argument against this bill? It's a vanishingly small percentage. I watched some bullshit morning TV segment on this where an EFF spokesperson gave some sound arguments wrt this bills overreach potential and downsides, the opposing argument? "But who can argue against ISIS using whats app?". Boom, argument shut down and the presenter sided with the ISIS argument. It's sad, it sucks, but unfortunately most people are not even able to comprehend the anit-argument because terrorists=bad. > Is that how weak of a party they are, that they can't find real arguments against what that is a baseless accusation meant to cause misdirection? Yes this is modern politics. What is your solution? I don't have one. >One more thing, Australia just became the first western country to allow encryption backdoors, something all security experts have been warning is a very bad, terrible idea, Australia is a piddling little country that is a test bed for the 5eyes. We think we're globally important, but that is simple self-delusion. >But again, their excuses make no sense, especially in the light of them actually fighting Liberals on disallowing the powers to be used against politicians. Yes, absolutely. It makes me sick that there is a provision within the bill to exclude parliamentarians. There is a deep sickness in our democratic process, but how do we expect to fix it?

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago

None of the bill will be used over Xmas. Everyone knows this. Labor blinked. Security is their kryptonite. It's shamful to play around with these laws.