8 ms·

Australia is a disaster when it comes to electronic freedoms. It might just be a lost cause at this point. A classic example of why you really shouldn't be giv

Australia is a disaster when it comes to electronic freedoms. It might just be a lost cause at this point. A classic example of why you really shouldn't be giving the government too much power, because even so-called "modern democracies" can and will go bad. Backdoors in encryption, free for all to hack citizens, etc. What a mess. Hope some people fight back.

neonate 5y ago
Is it limited to Australia or can they just share whatever with the other 'Five Eyes'?
- corty 5y ago
  Of course they'll share it. First, non-citizens are usually even less protected than citizens. Second, secret services are also extralegal services as long as they can get away with it. Third, if they get caught, they won't be punished. German example: The BND has been caught spying on all Germans' communication (most probably still does so), as well as connections to foreign countries. They are only supposed to watch foreign countries. So they came up with a legal theory, called "Weltraumtheorie", where satellites are in space, so outside the jurisdiction of any state. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltraumtheorie https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltraumtheorie Later on, when this got out, it was just legalized and extended to fibre connections, because, well, that just replaces space, doesn't it?...
  - danuker 5y ago
    Doesn't this backfire? As in, you are free to commit wire fraud, because of this similarity to "international waters"?
    - corty 5y ago
      Theoretically. Practically, that legal theory is just a smokescreen for the willingness of the government to overlook any misdeeds by the secret services. Prosecutors and courts got the hint and didn't investigate any further. However, if you are a non-state-sponsored criminal, of course you will be prosecuted. "Qvod licet iovi, non licet bovi" is a very important legal principle ;) Also, later on, the government just legalized what the BND was doing, thereby invalidating any future attempt at prosecution for that past crime against the BND. Yet still maintaining the illegality for everyone else.
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  It is indeed opening doors for international cooperation: >"I think we've started to fill a void, a niche for the Americans to get around a few legal hurdles domestically" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-10/nsw-operation-ironside-privacy-in-wake-of-afp-raids/100202924 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-10/nsw-operation-ironsid...
- xvector 5y ago
  Oh, it is definitely common for other countries to go through Australia to bypass laws or legal hurdles locally. This has been used to catch many cyber criminals.
m0zg 5y ago
Not just "electronic" freedoms anymore. They're currently locked down with the lockdown enforced by their own military from what I have seen. Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns.
- pugio 5y ago
  You're conflating two very different things. The lockdowns are instituted at the state level, are different in every state, and are with the specific aim of (and in response to) preventing covid transmission. Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing to do with Freedom, or lack of guns. By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    >Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing can do with Freedom Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.
    - pugio 5y ago
      I apologize for my lack of clarity. I intended my capitalization of "Freedom" to stand in for a particular philosophy, which I did not clearly explicate. To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        I say this as a fellow Aussie who thinks both gun control and COVID lockdowns are good, sensible policies (although I'm starting to get sick of the latter): both of those things are absolutely limitations on freedom, even in the libertarian philosophical sense, and at least partly explains why Americans are so strongly against them. Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
It only takes one progressive government to roll it all back. Vote Green.
- l332mn 5y ago
  Care to give some examples of when this has happened?
  - vermilingua 5y ago
    It's never happened because Australians would never vote Green. Aside from having the public image as a bunch of hippies and crackpots, a huge chunk of our voter base just want to sit on their nest eggs, which the Libs (current govt.) promise to help with. Another huge chunk just vote how their parents vote. The only reason Australians (generalising) vote at all, is because we'd get fined if we didn't. With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government, this country exists to hold the status quo.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government That is completely untrue. Informal votes are not counted at all.
      - kwhitefoot 5y ago
        That's odd. In the UK spoiled ballots are quite definitely counted. "The number of Blank Votes and Spoiled Ballots are read out at the count, along with the results and are also included in subsequent reports. Your apathy towards the political parties will be heard not just forgotten." https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        My apologies, bad wording. They're counted here too - just not towards any particular political party.
einarfd 5y ago
> A classic example of why you really shouldn't be giving the government too much power, because even so-called "modern democracies" can and will go bad. I'm not an expert, but I'm under the impression that Australia uses a "first past the post" / "simple majority" voting system. If that is true, calling it a "modern democracy" seems deeply misguided, democracy yes, modern no.
- softveda 5y ago
  Not true at all. Australian federal election House of Representatives uses a preferential voting system where you have to number every candidate in your order of preference 1..N. Also voting (or at least attending) is compulsory.
- saithound 5y ago
  Not even close. The Australian electoral system uses instant-runoff for the House, and single-transferable-vote for the Senate.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    That has almost the same results as first past the post though.
    - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
      Kinda, but that "almost the same" occasionally counts for some significant differences. Australian politics is dominated by the two major parties, but the minor parties form a reasonable percentage of held seats, and occasionally neither major party holds a majority, which leads to a hung parliament where the balance of power is open to negotiation. https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_composition https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representa...
benjaminjt 5y ago
I wrote to my local federal "representative", just as I did with the Assistance and Access Act. I convinced others to contact theirs too. But even if we convince one politician that they should vote no, I strongly suspect they would vote with their party anyway. It just doesn't feel like representative democracy any more.

neonate 5y ago

Is it limited to Australia or can they just share whatever with the other 'Five Eyes'?

corty 5y ago
Of course they'll share it. First, non-citizens are usually even less protected than citizens. Second, secret services are also extralegal services as long as they can get away with it. Third, if they get caught, they won't be punished. German example: The BND has been caught spying on all Germans' communication (most probably still does so), as well as connections to foreign countries. They are only supposed to watch foreign countries. So they came up with a legal theory, called "Weltraumtheorie", where satellites are in space, so outside the jurisdiction of any state. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltraumtheorie https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltraumtheorie Later on, when this got out, it was just legalized and extended to fibre connections, because, well, that just replaces space, doesn't it?...
- danuker 5y ago
  Doesn't this backfire? As in, you are free to commit wire fraud, because of this similarity to "international waters"?
  - corty 5y ago
    Theoretically. Practically, that legal theory is just a smokescreen for the willingness of the government to overlook any misdeeds by the secret services. Prosecutors and courts got the hint and didn't investigate any further. However, if you are a non-state-sponsored criminal, of course you will be prosecuted. "Qvod licet iovi, non licet bovi" is a very important legal principle ;) Also, later on, the government just legalized what the BND was doing, thereby invalidating any future attempt at prosecution for that past crime against the BND. Yet still maintaining the illegality for everyone else.
ajkdhcb2 5y ago
It is indeed opening doors for international cooperation: >"I think we've started to fill a void, a niche for the Americans to get around a few legal hurdles domestically" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-10/nsw-operation-ironside-privacy-in-wake-of-afp-raids/100202924 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-10/nsw-operation-ironsid...
xvector 5y ago
Oh, it is definitely common for other countries to go through Australia to bypass laws or legal hurdles locally. This has been used to catch many cyber criminals.

m0zg 5y ago

Not just "electronic" freedoms anymore. They're currently locked down with the lockdown enforced by their own military from what I have seen. Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns.

pugio 5y ago
You're conflating two very different things. The lockdowns are instituted at the state level, are different in every state, and are with the specific aim of (and in response to) preventing covid transmission. Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing to do with Freedom, or lack of guns. By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing can do with Freedom Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.
  - pugio 5y ago
    I apologize for my lack of clarity. I intended my capitalization of "Freedom" to stand in for a particular philosophy, which I did not clearly explicate. To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      I say this as a fellow Aussie who thinks both gun control and COVID lockdowns are good, sensible policies (although I'm starting to get sick of the latter): both of those things are absolutely limitations on freedom, even in the libertarian philosophical sense, and at least partly explains why Americans are so strongly against them. Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.

jay_kyburz 5y ago

It only takes one progressive government to roll it all back. Vote Green.

l332mn 5y ago
Care to give some examples of when this has happened?
- vermilingua 5y ago
  It's never happened because Australians would never vote Green. Aside from having the public image as a bunch of hippies and crackpots, a huge chunk of our voter base just want to sit on their nest eggs, which the Libs (current govt.) promise to help with. Another huge chunk just vote how their parents vote. The only reason Australians (generalising) vote at all, is because we'd get fined if we didn't. With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government, this country exists to hold the status quo.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government That is completely untrue. Informal votes are not counted at all.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      That's odd. In the UK spoiled ballots are quite definitely counted. "The number of Blank Votes and Spoiled Ballots are read out at the count, along with the results and are also included in subsequent reports. Your apathy towards the political parties will be heard not just forgotten." https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        My apologies, bad wording. They're counted here too - just not towards any particular political party.

einarfd 5y ago

> A classic example of why you really shouldn't be giving the government too much power, because even so-called "modern democracies" can and will go bad. I'm not an expert, but I'm under the impression that Australia uses a "first past the post" / "simple majority" voting system. If that is true, calling it a "modern democracy" seems deeply misguided, democracy yes, modern no.

softveda 5y ago
Not true at all. Australian federal election House of Representatives uses a preferential voting system where you have to number every candidate in your order of preference 1..N. Also voting (or at least attending) is compulsory.
saithound 5y ago
Not even close. The Australian electoral system uses instant-runoff for the House, and single-transferable-vote for the Senate.
- Jensson 5y ago
  That has almost the same results as first past the post though.
  - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
    Kinda, but that "almost the same" occasionally counts for some significant differences. Australian politics is dominated by the two major parties, but the minor parties form a reasonable percentage of held seats, and occasionally neither major party holds a majority, which leads to a hung parliament where the balance of power is open to negotiation. https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_composition https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representa...

benjaminjt 5y ago

I wrote to my local federal "representative", just as I did with the Assistance and Access Act. I convinced others to contact theirs too. But even if we convince one politician that they should vote no, I strongly suspect they would vote with their party anyway. It just doesn't feel like representative democracy any more.