4 ms·

>“[These laws] represent, in my view, significant expansions of the existing powers of law enforcement agencies away from a traditional focus on investigation a

>“[These laws] represent, in my view, significant expansions of the existing powers of law enforcement agencies away from a traditional focus on investigation and the collection of admissible evidence of specific offenses to disruption, to attack, to take-over, to take-down,” Dr Mann said. Yikes. This is like government being infested by cancel culture (attack w/ no evidence needed, pile on & take down). What phenomenon is driving this? e.g political opportunism under the pretense of covid / protection?

choeger 5y ago
It's just the logical consequence of unchecked abilities. If there was a counter force, e.g., personal liability for abuse, things might be different. But since lawmakers can basically do whatever they want and, worst case, maybe have their laws retracted later by some court, they will invariably pile surveillance measure on top of intervention measure on top of loisening some restrictions so they at least did something while in office. Later, of course, some politician will abuse this power. But then it's too late. You cannot assemble anymore because your messengers will be disabled/censored. You cannot speak freely anymore because your home assistant will rat you, apple style. You cannot even move freely anymore because your car and your public transportation will be tied to your digital persona and your social score. Of course you can forget about paying for something because both cash and cryptocurrency will be outlawed.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
Australia has always been quietly very authoritarian. It tries to pretend that it's all beer and barbecue on the beach, but having an open alcohol container in a public place is illegal, and barbecues are only allowed in specific places (and the beach isn't one of them). There's a term for it: Wowsers [0] - people who police others' behaviour. The Wowsers and the Larrikins [1] battle for Australia's soul. The Wowsers are winning. Appealing to Australia's Wowsers is always politically beneficial. Any law that strengthens police powers goes over really well. And then add Murdoch, who owns all the newspapers, controls both major parties, and hates the internet with a passion (because it's destroying his business and power base). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  > weird how a foundational myth of australia is that we’re a nation of subversive larrikins, when in actuality everyone here is an ultracop @tfswebb https://twitter.com/tfswebb/status/976299234491121665 https://twitter.com/tfswebb/status/976299234491121665
febeling 5y ago
> What phenomenon is driving this? Read Davidson/Rees-Mogg: Sovereign Individual (1999) Basic thesis: violence's utility declines in the information age. The institutions that are built on it, like nation states, go through a phase of decline and decay, during which they make rather more arbitrary use of force in a desperate attempt to resist obsolescence.
- partomniscient 5y ago
  Co-written by the guy who fell asleep in parliament. Is he named Jacob or William. What is this bullshit? It's just like Boris. I mean Alexander. Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. Jacob William Rees-Mogg. How are we governed by people who can't even consistently name themselves? Or are they going for plausible deniability?
  - sk0g 5y ago
    Don't know about you mate, but I didn't get an input when my parents named me. Attacking someone for their name is a flimsy stand. If they have done something dodgy, that would go much further to supporting any argument you may be making.
    - partomniscient 5y ago
      Its not their particular name. It's their inconsistency in using it. I think previous iterations of existence use names to transfer karmic information for individuals, but we're now at the point that the system is understood well enough by the systemised to game the system itself. I often wonder about the importance of naming things. Its also a key problem in Computer Science. Namespacing is useful up to a point. Value can change depending on context. In the first season of The Crown they make you notice that the Queen double 'Elizabeth'ed herself. But if the value the name had no longer applies given the actions of the namee carrying out other actions instead, is the name still meaningful or valid or just historically valid or muddled? I think there's more going on here than you think.
      - 5y ago
refurb 5y ago
I might be entirely wrong, but I wonder if it’s shared culture with other SE Asian countries? Having spend time in SE Asia, I’ve found the “collective mindset” to be inaccurate. People there are just as likely to screw over their fellow man as any other country. What’s different is the deference to authority. When the govt cracks down, people don’t really complain or push back. They accept it much more readily. Not sure if it’s the belief that leaders need an “iron will” or what, but it’s very different than North America or Europe where protesting the govt is almost expected.
- sk0g 5y ago
  Maybe, but that's what comes to my mind first. The media/NewsCorp basically program the country to accept whatever they want passed, seemingly overnight. Most people are quite apathetic politically too, or just willing to accept whatever they hear on TV.
- HKH2 5y ago
  They're collective in that they're strongly monocultural.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Singapore isn’t and still highly collective.
    - HKH2 5y ago
      It seems about as multicultural as HK is, which is not very. You can tell by the amount of racism that is permitted. Also, can a White person truly be Singaporean?
      - refurb 5y ago
        I mean Singapore has 4 official languages, 3 major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay and Indian), and ~50% of the population are foreigners. And yes, you a white person can be Singaporean. There aren't many, but there are Singaporean politicians who are white but Singaporean by birth.

choeger 5y ago

It's just the logical consequence of unchecked abilities. If there was a counter force, e.g., personal liability for abuse, things might be different. But since lawmakers can basically do whatever they want and, worst case, maybe have their laws retracted later by some court, they will invariably pile surveillance measure on top of intervention measure on top of loisening some restrictions so they at least did something while in office. Later, of course, some politician will abuse this power. But then it's too late. You cannot assemble anymore because your messengers will be disabled/censored. You cannot speak freely anymore because your home assistant will rat you, apple style. You cannot even move freely anymore because your car and your public transportation will be tied to your digital persona and your social score. Of course you can forget about paying for something because both cash and cryptocurrency will be outlawed.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

Australia has always been quietly very authoritarian. It tries to pretend that it's all beer and barbecue on the beach, but having an open alcohol container in a public place is illegal, and barbecues are only allowed in specific places (and the beach isn't one of them). There's a term for it: Wowsers [0] - people who police others' behaviour. The Wowsers and the Larrikins [1] battle for Australia's soul. The Wowsers are winning. Appealing to Australia's Wowsers is always politically beneficial. Any law that strengthens police powers goes over really well. And then add Murdoch, who owns all the newspapers, controls both major parties, and hates the internet with a passion (because it's destroying his business and power base). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin

madeofpalk 5y ago
> weird how a foundational myth of australia is that we’re a nation of subversive larrikins, when in actuality everyone here is an ultracop @tfswebb https://twitter.com/tfswebb/status/976299234491121665 https://twitter.com/tfswebb/status/976299234491121665

febeling 5y ago

> What phenomenon is driving this? Read Davidson/Rees-Mogg: Sovereign Individual (1999) Basic thesis: violence's utility declines in the information age. The institutions that are built on it, like nation states, go through a phase of decline and decay, during which they make rather more arbitrary use of force in a desperate attempt to resist obsolescence.

partomniscient 5y ago
Co-written by the guy who fell asleep in parliament. Is he named Jacob or William. What is this bullshit? It's just like Boris. I mean Alexander. Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. Jacob William Rees-Mogg. How are we governed by people who can't even consistently name themselves? Or are they going for plausible deniability?
- sk0g 5y ago
  Don't know about you mate, but I didn't get an input when my parents named me. Attacking someone for their name is a flimsy stand. If they have done something dodgy, that would go much further to supporting any argument you may be making.
  - partomniscient 5y ago
    Its not their particular name. It's their inconsistency in using it. I think previous iterations of existence use names to transfer karmic information for individuals, but we're now at the point that the system is understood well enough by the systemised to game the system itself. I often wonder about the importance of naming things. Its also a key problem in Computer Science. Namespacing is useful up to a point. Value can change depending on context. In the first season of The Crown they make you notice that the Queen double 'Elizabeth'ed herself. But if the value the name had no longer applies given the actions of the namee carrying out other actions instead, is the name still meaningful or valid or just historically valid or muddled? I think there's more going on here than you think.
    - 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

I might be entirely wrong, but I wonder if it’s shared culture with other SE Asian countries? Having spend time in SE Asia, I’ve found the “collective mindset” to be inaccurate. People there are just as likely to screw over their fellow man as any other country. What’s different is the deference to authority. When the govt cracks down, people don’t really complain or push back. They accept it much more readily. Not sure if it’s the belief that leaders need an “iron will” or what, but it’s very different than North America or Europe where protesting the govt is almost expected.

sk0g 5y ago
Maybe, but that's what comes to my mind first. The media/NewsCorp basically program the country to accept whatever they want passed, seemingly overnight. Most people are quite apathetic politically too, or just willing to accept whatever they hear on TV.
HKH2 5y ago
They're collective in that they're strongly monocultural.
- refurb 5y ago
  Singapore isn’t and still highly collective.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    It seems about as multicultural as HK is, which is not very. You can tell by the amount of racism that is permitted. Also, can a White person truly be Singaporean?
    - refurb 5y ago
      I mean Singapore has 4 official languages, 3 major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay and Indian), and ~50% of the population are foreigners. And yes, you a white person can be Singaporean. There aren't many, but there are Singaporean politicians who are white but Singaporean by birth.