7 ms·

I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google or even worse Facebook. The way the article has twisted the words in Google's favou

by jp0d 6y ago

I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google or even worse Facebook. The way the article has twisted the words in Google's favour is commendable though. Marketing really is everything.

iamshs 6y ago
Looking at how many people opted out of MyHealth over the concerns of Government having their data, I think your reason will not resonate with many.
- mickotron 6y ago
  I really hope they made good on that. Can we confirm that if we opted out, we indeed don't have a my health record, or whether they just set one up regardless?
  - shakna 6y ago
    They may have set one up regardless, as the basic registration data comes from MyGov, and you may have a user. However, it would require your health professional to upload data to the service - and most have simply refused. But to actually check if one's MyHealth record exists and has data, one must first opt-in to MyHealth, which is a bit chicken/egg.
AbrahamParangi 6y ago
I can't agree, but to each his own.
shakna 6y ago
> I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google or even worse Facebook. I would not. The Australian government seems entirely incapable of creating any technical project of a decent size correctly. The list of disasters is quite long, but a few from recent memory are ones such as the census website which collapsed when people tried to use it [0] and the myGov project which has had so many data breaches [1]. Atop of which, the government's usual response to someone exposing flaws, is to attack them. Whilst I don't want Google or Facebook to have my data, because they will use it in ways I don't appreciate, my government will leak it. And then claim it wasn't serious and excuse themselves from any repercussions. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-up-and-running-in-australia/7722738 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-up-a... [1] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-in-mygov-site-exposed-millions-of-australians-private-information-20140514-zrczw.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-in-... [2]
- ImaCake 6y ago
  I run on the assumption that the government has my data anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether they get it directly or via google. Since google wants to target me with ads, I preference removing google as a middle man. Bonus points for removing the only half-decent excuse for collecting that data anyway, so now the surveillance state is a bit less defensible.
andreilys 6y ago
I feel less comfortable handing my data over to an entity that has a monopoly on violence but that’s just me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
0xy 6y ago
Really? They regularly have huge data breaches and are totally incompetent at protecting data and security in general. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/03/home-affairs-data-breach-may-have-exposed-personal-details-of-700000-migrants https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/03/home-affa...
triceratops 6y ago
The government that mandates backdoors in every software product? That government?[1] 1. https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...
- cyphar 6y ago
  While I vocally opposed that piece of legislation (and are included in the public comments collection), that is not an accurate description of the law. The government that can force you to add backdoors in certain circumstances, and you cannot tell people about it. Yes that is utterly abhorrent, but that isn't the same as "government mandated backdoors in every software product" -- though funnily enough, the US Senate actually did try to pass a law like that in June[1]. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encryption-bill-even-worse-earn-it-and-thats-saying-something https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encry...
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    If you aren't allowed to know the difference, there's no meaningful difference, and certainly not a difference worth defending.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Sorry, you're right. The government that can demand backdoors in any software product. That's a lot better. /s I didn't say the US Senate is a lot better, but to be completely fair there isn't a backdoor law in the US yet. It's possible Australia was the testing ground for that type of legislation though.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      I didn't say it was better, I said that the description wasn't correct. If we're going to criticise something, we should describe it accurately -- otherwise our opponents can simply say "they're being hysterical and don't know what they're talking about". Heck, that's exactly what the ASD did when the vast majority of people were screaming about employees being individually targeted by the legislation (which wasn't accurate). Now, the ASD also did misrepresent the legislation too -- but now it's less obvious to the general public who is actually being sincere.
stirlo 6y ago
Considering Google and Facebook are willing participants in PRISM [1] it can't be any worse [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Media_disclosure_of_PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...
- archgoon 6y ago
  > The actual collection process is done by the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) of the FBI, which on behalf of the NSA sends the selectors to the U.S. internet service providers, which were previously served with a Section 702 Directive. Under this directive, the provider is legally obliged to hand over (to DITU) all communications to or from the selectors provided by the government. Being legally compelled to provide data isn't the same as being 'willing'.
jp0d 6y ago
I don't understand why my comment got down voted. But yes, as one of you have pointed out, it's just my opinion. And I don't think the original draft of this law as much to do with giving your data to the govt, but more about Google/Fb being more transparent with the conditions under which, our data will be used by them. I'm not a legal expert and I may have misunderstood some of it. It's my opinion that big monopolies like Google, Facebook and Amazon should be regulated in some ways and be held accountable. I honestly don't have an answer to the question "What if govt loses your data"! https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...
- spacehunt 6y ago
  The context you're missing is that in Australia, the "big monopoly" is News Corp and not FAANG.
  - jp0d 6y ago
    Thanks mate. Yes that's true.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
jp0d 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374

by jp0d 6y ago

iamshs 6y ago

Looking at how many people opted out of MyHealth over the concerns of Government having their data, I think your reason will not resonate with many.

mickotron 6y ago
I really hope they made good on that. Can we confirm that if we opted out, we indeed don't have a my health record, or whether they just set one up regardless?
- shakna 6y ago
  They may have set one up regardless, as the basic registration data comes from MyGov, and you may have a user. However, it would require your health professional to upload data to the service - and most have simply refused. But to actually check if one's MyHealth record exists and has data, one must first opt-in to MyHealth, which is a bit chicken/egg.

AbrahamParangi 6y ago

I can't agree, but to each his own.

shakna 6y ago

> I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google or even worse Facebook. I would not. The Australian government seems entirely incapable of creating any technical project of a decent size correctly. The list of disasters is quite long, but a few from recent memory are ones such as the census website which collapsed when people tried to use it [0] and the myGov project which has had so many data breaches [1]. Atop of which, the government's usual response to someone exposing flaws, is to attack them. Whilst I don't want Google or Facebook to have my data, because they will use it in ways I don't appreciate, my government will leak it. And then claim it wasn't serious and excuse themselves from any repercussions. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-up-and-running-in-australia/7722738 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-up-a... [1] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-in-mygov-site-exposed-millions-of-australians-private-information-20140514-zrczw.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-in-... [2]

ImaCake 6y ago
I run on the assumption that the government has my data anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether they get it directly or via google. Since google wants to target me with ads, I preference removing google as a middle man. Bonus points for removing the only half-decent excuse for collecting that data anyway, so now the surveillance state is a bit less defensible.

andreilys 6y ago

I feel less comfortable handing my data over to an entity that has a monopoly on violence but that’s just me.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

0xy 6y ago

Really? They regularly have huge data breaches and are totally incompetent at protecting data and security in general. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/03/home-affairs-data-breach-may-have-exposed-personal-details-of-700000-migrants https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/03/home-affa...

triceratops 6y ago

The government that mandates backdoors in every software product? That government?[1] 1. https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...

cyphar 6y ago
While I vocally opposed that piece of legislation (and are included in the public comments collection), that is not an accurate description of the law. The government that can force you to add backdoors in certain circumstances, and you cannot tell people about it. Yes that is utterly abhorrent, but that isn't the same as "government mandated backdoors in every software product" -- though funnily enough, the US Senate actually did try to pass a law like that in June[1]. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encryption-bill-even-worse-earn-it-and-thats-saying-something https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encry...
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  If you aren't allowed to know the difference, there's no meaningful difference, and certainly not a difference worth defending.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- triceratops 6y ago
  Sorry, you're right. The government that can demand backdoors in any software product. That's a lot better. /s I didn't say the US Senate is a lot better, but to be completely fair there isn't a backdoor law in the US yet. It's possible Australia was the testing ground for that type of legislation though.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    I didn't say it was better, I said that the description wasn't correct. If we're going to criticise something, we should describe it accurately -- otherwise our opponents can simply say "they're being hysterical and don't know what they're talking about". Heck, that's exactly what the ASD did when the vast majority of people were screaming about employees being individually targeted by the legislation (which wasn't accurate). Now, the ASD also did misrepresent the legislation too -- but now it's less obvious to the general public who is actually being sincere.

stirlo 6y ago

Considering Google and Facebook are willing participants in PRISM [1] it can't be any worse [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Media_disclosure_of_PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...

archgoon 6y ago
> The actual collection process is done by the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) of the FBI, which on behalf of the NSA sends the selectors to the U.S. internet service providers, which were previously served with a Section 702 Directive. Under this directive, the provider is legally obliged to hand over (to DITU) all communications to or from the selectors provided by the government. Being legally compelled to provide data isn't the same as being 'willing'.

jp0d 6y ago

I don't understand why my comment got down voted. But yes, as one of you have pointed out, it's just my opinion. And I don't think the original draft of this law as much to do with giving your data to the govt, but more about Google/Fb being more transparent with the conditions under which, our data will be used by them. I'm not a legal expert and I may have misunderstood some of it. It's my opinion that big monopolies like Google, Facebook and Amazon should be regulated in some ways and be held accountable. I honestly don't have an answer to the question "What if govt loses your data"! https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...

spacehunt 6y ago
The context you're missing is that in Australia, the "big monopoly" is News Corp and not FAANG.
- jp0d 6y ago
  Thanks mate. Yes that's true.

Rebelgecko 6y ago

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...

jp0d 6y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374