18 ms·

Surveilance bill rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours

508 points by ghoda 5y ago

eplanit 5y ago
There and New Zealand both. The responses (extreme lockdown) of both countries to Covid has been nothing short of insane.
- retrac 5y ago
  We should have slammed the international borders shut at the first sign of it, and placed any region with outbreaks into the strictest lockdown we could humanely devise. Lesson learned for next time. Too late for that for most of the world. Now we have to learn to live with it somehow. But it worked for New Zealand. They're in a very odd position now. Domestically as long as they can keep it out, they could go completely back to normal. Except for international travel. (It's been mostly normal most of the time aside from that, from what I understand.)
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    I'm not sure you realize how much the world is connected now. Look up tanker ship traffic to realize how much things go back and forth. Locking up a country to outsiders is fantasy, and a terrible horrible idea. Even North Korea trades with anyone it can. Also, good luck securing the Southern Border. Retarding your economy, will cause far more death than the 1% claimed for Covid.
    - retrac 5y ago
      Yes, that's the awkward position they're in.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  And I consider the American response to be 100% bat shit. How can you accept hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths? At peak you were having a 9/11 every day. I just... don't get it?
- abraae 5y ago
  Nice way to ride your personal hobby horse into town.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Apparently, you're not allowed to go beyond 5km radius of your house. Can someone in Australia confirm the details of the lockdown? Virus is here to stay for many years, if not decades. We're never going to eliminate it. It is time we push back on draconian measures in the name of covid. Unrelated but I can't even go to bathroom in SF city because every restaurant, convenience store, gas station, etc. have an excuse to say that because of COVID restrictions, restrooms are closed. I was fine with Gov-mandated measures last year when we didn't have vaccines. But, I am turning against my own self from last year.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    The 5km thing is real while the lockdown is in effect. Keep in mind it’s different to America, you get paid decent money from the state to stay at home. Whether or not the ~20 000 lives saved from these lockdowns comes down to opinion in the end.
    - eplanit 5y ago
      Wow. I guess if you're going to live under such rules, it's easier if you agree with them. I can only assume that you view the surveillance bill as also benevolent.
      - aplummer 5y ago
        Please don't strawman me, I didn't say I agree with the surveillance bill (I do not) and I don't live in Australia - my family does though. It's a different country with a different set of tradeoffs, and is also a more free country than the United States across many important areas, which is why it rates higher in the Cato freedom index than the USA. It comes down to perspective, to take a separate topic to prove my point - You may think their limitation to only own bolt actions and shotguns makes them less free. I may think they are more free, since they live without the fear of death in a mass shooting.
        WalterBright 5y ago
- UI_at_80x24 5y ago
  New Zealand's (as you describe it) "extreme lockdown" has worked. When dealing with a pandemic you are supposed to limit potential exposure, and their actions did that. As a result NZ has had one of the lowest infection rates in the world. Also, those actions let them "return to normal" quicker then anywhere else. It worked. Perhaps you feel that the mid-evil practice of nailing the doors and windows shut and posting a guard outside of a quarantine house, would be more reasonable? Pray that the village stays safe while the sick were imprisoned? People were inconvenienced. Nothing more.
  - j8hn 5y ago
    The child poverty rate increased by 10%. I would say that an increase of children living in inhumane conditions is more than an inconvenience.
    - catsncomputers 5y ago
      I can't seem to find anything to verify your 10% claim - all I can find is stats showing that child poverty actually went down.. Are you able to post a source for that? EDIT: since my account has been rate-limited... The msn article below was released before the stats and is purely speculation. The stats before covid already indicate an increase, and NZ has long had fluctuating child poverty rates, which the current government is attempting to address. However it is essential to realise that this increase is largely driven by the effects of the previous government, and the housing and rental market - not the effects of Covid-19. https://www.cpag.org.nz/the-latest/current-statistics/latest-child-poverty-figures/ https://www.cpag.org.nz/the-latest/current-statistics/latest...
      - j8hn 5y ago
        I've seen it mentioned in the past. Here is an article I was able to dig up. https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/number-of-children-in-poverty-rapidly-grew-in-first-year-of-covid-19-due-to-govt-neglect-report/ar-AAMzOpP https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/number-of-children-i...
      - 5y ago
- catsncomputers 5y ago
  Since both countries have had issues with vaccine supply, both have extremely low vaccination rates. The lockdowns are an intermediary measure to prevent loss of life until vaccination rates are high enough to warrant leaving it. Furthermore, the response has enabled New Zealanders to lead an almost completely normal life aside from the two lockdowns - going to work without even thinking about the necessity of masks or social distancing. Attending concerts without a fear of contracting Covid-19. Stadiums full of people when the US and other countries have been in limbo for 2 years now. Your idea of `insane` is quite bizarre to me.
- UnseenTraveller 5y ago
  I promise you, Australians and Kiwis don't need advice from Americans on how to keep citizens safe.
  - gagege 5y ago
    Many Americans are less concerned about safety than they are about tyrants who (as history shows) get a whiff of power and don't stop making rules until they have complete dominance over every aspect of people's lives. That's much scarier and more damaging than a virus which is, for over 99% of people, about on par with the flu.
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN for flamewar. Not what this site is for. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- dang 5y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28372706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28372706 and marked it off topic.
ghoda 5y ago
I don't know where this is going. Perhaps prepping for the global warming riots. Is there a way out of surveillance?
- TheChaplain 5y ago
  Vote. Or be more active in politics.
  - agilob 5y ago
    and if that doesn't work wait 4 or 5 more years and vote again, hope for the better!
  - hulitu 5y ago
    Too late.
  - sweettea 5y ago
    Voting is how this mess started... how is voting harder going to fix what voting created? Nothing short of a common national ethos of trust in an almost unremovable leader can solve this problem. A leader who can listen to experts and make a choice, even if unpopular, without fear of next election and without the need to aggrandize more power and wealth.
    - soco 5y ago
      That's the kind of rationalization which got Europe into WW2...
    - mLuby 5y ago
      "Fear of the next election" is one of the few things that keeps elected leaders in line. You want a wise, just dictator for life, and maybe you luck out and get one who reigns beneficently for a few decades, but who's to say their successor will be as good, or the next one, and on and on until you inevitably get a Stalin. Put another way: if the leader dies, and heir A spends all their effort on ruling effectively, and heir B spends all their effort on beating heir A to the throne, how can heir A succeed? You'd need metrics for being a good ruler which are immune to Goodhart's Law. Given that—over time—power inevitably centralizes and inevitably is abused, those tendencies must be counterbalanced; or else power must be regularly reset by more crude means.
andy_ppp 5y ago
Is there anywhere where you aren’t being watched now?
- swayson 5y ago
  Brain waves, atleast for now.
- seph-reed 5y ago
  if you hike more than 6 miles from any given trail-head, there will still be people but they usually aren't the kind to have their phone out. if you start from a place without reception, doubly so.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. As long as there is correct judicial oversight of these capabilities, then this is the correct way for things to be. Nobody should have an expectation of being able to conduct criminal business without surveillance. The issue comes in when the justice system is not providing correct oversight for this capability. That is wrong and should be vigorously opposed. The capabilities themselves I have no problem with.
  - MontagFTB 5y ago
    Would this philosophy extend to phones then, too? Assuming a phone is being used for criminal business. A Ring camera, assuming the house is being used for criminal conduct? I’m playing devil’s advocate, and am interested in a stance arrived at reasonably.
    - mLuby 5y ago
      Yes, it would. Wouldn't detectives watching through your windows as you type on your phone be functionally the same as having your phone surveilled? Warranted, targeted surveillance is less bad than surveilling everyone to see if they are committing crimes, which less bad than recording what everyone did so they can be charged with crimes retroactively, which is less bad than charging people for crimes they're only predicted to commit.
peytoncasper 5y ago
Interesting. I’m not from Australia but I thought the concept of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal interesting. It seems like a way to offload work from the main court system. According to Wikipedia it also does seem to have oversight by the Federal Court of Australia. [1] While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn’t any detail in the article but I would hope there is a massive audit trail on the ability to modify data or impersonate someone online. Anyone have any additional details on the AAT’s effect on the average Australian citizen? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Appeals_Tribunal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Appeals_Tribuna...
- throwawaymanbot 5y ago
  This is worse than FISA. Once again, in a 5 eye country the china like surveillance infrastructure has been rubber stamped.
- ohhhhhh 5y ago
  FISA court is unconstitutional too.. and is was literally used to frame Trump
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Not to directly answer your question, but my trust of "the system" in general is severely shaken by recent cases involving the treatment of whistleblowers. Australia's powers-that-be seem to be promoting a chilling effect on any revelations that may cause negative publicity about said powers-that-be. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witness-k-and-the-outrageous-spy-scandal-that-failed-to-shame-australia https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witne... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-29/prosecutors-proceed-case-against-ato-whistleblower-richard-boyle/100105710 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-29/prosecutors-proceed-c...
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  >The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. This is your daily reminder that FISA was originally created as a way to provide oversight for intelligence agencies after things like MK Ultra and COINTELPRO. Instead it became a rubber stamp legitimizing their actions.
kaminar 5y ago
Just the beginning...it's going to get much worse. Openvaers.com
maerF0x0 5y ago
Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts police testimony over accused
- cryptonector 5y ago
  There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1] And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions. Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-right-to-remain-innocent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri... EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer" People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
    - lisper 5y ago
      Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment. Conservatives hate the ninth.
nemo44x 5y ago
It's a good thing everyone surrendered their firearms to this same government. Once they know you can't resist anything they can do anything to you. I'm guessing NZ is next now that they've confiscated nearly every firearm they could.
- cfcfcf 5y ago
  Yes. If we had our firearms we could shoot back. Pew pew!
  - ccn0p 5y ago
    granted we are in a very different place today in terms of warfare technology, history has shown that firing back is what has shaped the world we live in today.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Indeed, it seems to work for the Taliban vs. the most powerful army on earth.
    - hellisothers 5y ago
      … in a foreign occupied country. Aside from snide remarks is anybody honestly trying to propose that civilians with guns is a deterrent for for anything the government wants to do? You may as well be throwing rocks.
      - axguscbklp 5y ago
        In some cases, it probably is a deterrent. It is hard to know for sure because there is no way to A/B test a country. I think that some people probably overestimate the degree to which it is a deterrent, but I think it would certainly be wrong to say that it is not a deterrent at all. In some situations it can probably be a very effective deterrent.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        The hypothesis that guns are a deterrent has little to do with the citizenry fighting against the army or the police. It is about the risk of political assassination by a rogue individual every time a politician walks outside. If the leaders start to deviate significantly from the will of the median person, that risk goes up by a lot, hence the deterrent effect. Would Kim Jong Un still be around if every person was armed? Perhaps, but it'd be quite a bit less likely.
throwawayswede 5y ago
Over the past two years, Australian and New Zealand's governments have become great examples of how statism can take over so quickly. As an outsider, I feel really sad for people in Australia and New Zealand.
- celticninja 5y ago
  What have NZ done?
yakz 5y ago
I guess my days as a paying customer of FastMail are coming to an end. I don’t expect to ever become a legitimate target of Australian law enforcement, but there is always abuse.
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  TIL Fastmail is an Australian company. I wonder if this bill applies to data hosted outside of Australia for international clients by a company based in Australia? I'd really like to know what they have to say about this.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    As far as I know, Fastmail has been backdoored for a few years now by Australian government (and hence I assume the USA, too). It is Fastmail’s biggest disadvantage, in my opinion.
    - throwawayswede 5y ago
      While that may be true (and I'm sort of disappointed to find this out), I don't think there's any server _at all_ that I'd trust if I'm worried about certain governments snooping in on my email. That level of communication would prompt me to use PGP.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Yes, that is is why I continue to be a Fastmail customer. I do not think there is a comparable alternative with no government snooping.
      - christophilus 5y ago
        Snooping is one thing. Full blown legal access for law enforcement to view and tamper is another.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
bpodgursky 5y ago
What is it about Australia that is driving it to be so uniquely totalitarian among the English-speaking countries? I always envisioned it culturally more individualistic than the UK, but they've gone even farther down the path of state control and surveillance.
- atok1 5y ago
  It's because AU is used as a test bed for all the really fucked up laws that the powers that be would love to pass, but can't due to significant citizen pushback and/or armed citizens.
- HKH2 5y ago
  Individualism in Australia is usually about fighting social control, but that just leads to being under government control. We have fewer cultural roots so it makes the above process faster.
ccn0p 5y ago
this seems to coincide with some pretty aggressive [arguable very over-reaching] lockdowns in the country as well... not looking good.
jdkee 5y ago
In the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- jldugger 5y ago
  And the EU has GDPR. Which is intended to protect its citizens globally. It seems like AU parliament is doing their best to ensure their chartered companies be unable to serve European customers.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Why was this downvoted? Anyways, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about alterations by LEAs to seized documents. That hadn't been invented yet, I guess, back in 1789. Though arguably Due Process requires a well-behaved justice system that wouldn't do that.
jpollock 5y ago
edit: found information about emergency authorisation Here's the bill under discussion [1] : This article states that it brings in new warrants, and makes no mention of "without a judge's warrant" [2]. Perhaps the original article is keying off of: "(aab) to establish procedures for certain law enforcement officers of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission to obtain warrants and emergency authorisations" [3] "emergency authorisations" would appear to not require a warrant, but it does include language of "it is not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a <warrant>" [4] However, I'm not Australian, and definitely not a lawyer. [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6623 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... [2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/even-hacking-field-government-surveillance-bill-passed-parliament https://www.natlawreview.com/article/even-hacking-field-gove... [3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... [4] https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/360document/legauUio1949041sl318346247/section-33-when-application-may-be-made-for-emergency-authorisation/overview https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/360document/legauUio1949041sl318...
soco 5y ago
In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  I would expect as much, just based on how badly direct democracies have performed historically. John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy." In the past, democracy was viewed as a form of government that republics devolved into.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    This was covered by Plato 2,500 years ago. But we don’t learn about that ancient outdated stuff anymore, as it isn’t beneficial for the economy.
  - stereolambda 5y ago
    Well, it's interesting, then, that Switzerland is one of the oldest political regimes in Europe. This kind of rhetoric tends to come from elitist thinkers that would want a guarantee of power over people because they think they are right and somehow destined to have it. If we are on topic of exchanging opinions of famous men, I think Machiavelli said that the people can be misled and go astray but are not prevented by pride from correcting themselves, like rulers would.
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      > Switzerland is one of the oldest political regimes in Europe. The age of their regime has nothing to do with their history of practicing direct democracy, that happened well after the founding of the US. > This kind of rhetoric tends to come from elitist thinkers that would want a guarantee of power over people because they think they are right and somehow destined to have it. On the contrary, I'm just defending the wisdom of the existing constitutional republic framework that we have currently. There's obvious value in constitutional safeguards against the whims of the mob, while still giving the citizenry a say in the long-term direction of the state.
asien 5y ago
Reminds me of anti-free speech laws that was almost passed in France. It was designed to help fight « hate speech ». It enable police to remove literally ANY content from the interne t as long as it was « hateful » of course there is no legal definition of hateful. I think similar laws have been passed in Belgium and Germany. I find it funny that has economic growth from the post war era is slowing down and climate change is accelerating our fundamentals rights and freedom are slowly being taken away from us ,bits by bits with more or less the same laws everywhere. Very strange.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  At least in France people will protest. Places like Australia, NZ and Canada have far too much trust in the government...
  - worker767424 5y ago
    Regarding Australia's limits on protest during the Sydney covid lockdown, one official basically said "people can exercise their freedom of speech other ways, like writing a letter to the newpaper or sending an angry email" (paraphrased). I think he seriously thought these circular-filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front of government buildings.
    - lurquer 5y ago
      > I think he seriously thought these circular-filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front of government buildings. They do carry the same weight. They are both useless. Standing around holding signs and marching and chanting has never been effective. Having the crowds filmed and broadcast, on the other hand, is effective. If the media isn’t making a story out of it, it means nothing. In the 60s and 70s people began to believe marching and protesting en mass was effective. But, it was only effective because the media, for their own reasons and agendas, decided to broadcast the Freedom Marches and anti-war marches and all the rest. I don’t believe that prior to the 60s, anyone would have considered milling around in front of govt buildings effective at all. To be sure, having mobs tearing down the buildings was effective and happened frequently. You could assemble a million protestors in DC and, if it’s not shown in CNN, you might as well have stayed home.
enigma-reload3d 5y ago
WOW, this is unbelievable!
ceilingcorner 5y ago
Crime rates have been going down for decades in the Western world (including Oz). Yet governments continue to pass surveillance laws to “fight crime.” If that doesn’t highlight their true aims, I don’t know what else does.
- krona 5y ago
  Perceptual and judgment creep. Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aap8731 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aap8731
- christophilus 5y ago
  They’ll claim the drop in crime is a direct result of their draconian overreach. So, if a little has worked so well, why not heap more on? Incidentally, it’s really hard to counter this reasoning, no matter what subject it is applied to. The truth is, we don’t know what crime would have done without such a system in place. It may have dropped even further. It’s the typical causation / correlation confusion.
adamiscool8 5y ago
All the countries and regions that have been "soft" captured by China over the last decade+ will do similar.
Animats 5y ago
Why is Australia trying so hard to become an authoritarian state? It's an island nation with few serious internal or external enemies.[1] [1] https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/australias-enemies-looking-where-the-light-shines-brightest https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/australias-enemies-looking-w...
- bserge 5y ago
  Perfect place for that, tbf
ChrisKnott 5y ago
In what way was this bill "rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours"? The bill in question is dated 2020 and the committee was requesting submissions by 12th February[0] [0] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/IdentifyandDisruptBill https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...
- sjy 5y ago
  You’re quite right, but it is exceptional that the bill passed the House of Representatives on the same day as its second reading speech, and passed the Senate on the following day [1]. This means that there was little time for debate and amendment within Parliament itself, including by minor parties [2] and independents [3] not represented on the committee that reviewed the first draft of the bill. [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6623 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... [2] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0023%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... [3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0025%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
  - basisword 5y ago
    Doesn’t it pass that quickly because it got enough votes? In other words there wasn’t enough dissent to require further readings and debate because enough people were happy with it.
    - sjy 5y ago
      That’s a necessary condition for any bill to pass, but as explained in [2] and [3], this one followed an exceptional procedure which reduced the opportunity for parliamentarians outside the two major parties to consider, propose and persuade others to endorse amendments to the bill. The opposition was also “concerned” about aspects of it, but voted yes because of the “tension between how quickly criminals can adapt their trade craft and how long it takes to properly scrutinise and introduce the legislation required to counteract and disrupt criminal activity” [4]. [4] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0022;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0025%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
narrator 5y ago
Something really bizarre and unsettling is happening in Australia. Despite a small number of covid deaths, they have by far the most totalitarian lockdowns and are pursuing some of the most extreme social control measures of any country on earth. They are building quarantine imprisonment camps, doing national manhunts for people who aren't quarantining, arresting people for anti-government speech, using the military to limit movement. You are not even allowed to leave the country anymore! Things really happened so fast and with so little debate that it rivals the speed and severity of loss of rights that occurs in a communist revolution. What the heck is even going on there?
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  Hyperbole, mostly Versions of all of those things exist, but not in the way you describe them.
  - narrator 5y ago
    I have been reading message boards where Aussies are saying they are no longer allowed to leave the country for any reason. Isn't that like the old Soviet Union and North Korea?
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      There are exemptions to the travel restrictions[1] So "not allowed to leave for any reason" is hyperbole. It has a grain of truth but like the other things on your list is a gross exaggeration. It's almost as if you shouldn't take everything you read online at face value [1] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
      - narrator 5y ago
        You could get an exit visa from the Soviet Union under certain circumstances too. Just cause there's an exemption doesn't mean it's all ok.
papito 5y ago
"This is fine, but don't you make me put on that mask, you fascists!"
DarkByte 5y ago
The bigger and more important issue here in my opinion is that this completely paves and protects the road to breaking Apple style CSAM detection systems by any 5 eyes country for other uses. Game Over.
smsm42 5y ago
Australia is turning itself into a prison state. Citizens are allowed to go outside for maximum one or two hours, total surveillance, unconstrained searches of the property... About the same set of rights as a supermax prison inmate has, it looks like.
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  The part about being "allowed to" go outside isn't true. Take it from me, I live here and am free to go wherever I please.
  - gorwell 5y ago
    This is probably what they are referring to. Some areas are limiting outdoor time and fining people who are "outside without a reasonable excuse". "From September 13, NSW residents that are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms. Residents of hotspots can leave home for an hour of recreation on top of their exercise hour, while people in other areas can meet five others outdoors." https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163 https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163
    - tikwidd 5y ago
      It's called a lockdown...
      - smsm42 5y ago
        The question is not how it's called but whether it's happening or not.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > will be given new freedoms Wow, that's Orwellian to say the least. Freedom is never granted, it is earned.
      - tikwidd 5y ago
slavboj 5y ago
One intention is for the Australian police to be able to fabricate evidence that can then be used to generate American warrants and prosecutions, very similar to the way the FBI and DNC fabricated the British Steele dossier in order to generate FISA warrants and prosecutions of various Trump staffers.
dang 5y ago
Recent and related: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364140 - Aug 2021 (77 comments) ‘Extraordinary’ hacking powers pass Australian Parliament - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311722 - Aug 2021 (212 comments) Australia is becoming a surveillance state - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139048 - Aug 2021 (423 comments)
- 8372050 5y ago
  418 votes submitted 3 hours ago and the story can't be found on the front page The top commenter is throwaway created an hour ago Curious how ranking works on HN. If that hasn't been answered already.
  - dang 5y ago
    It set off the flamewar detector. Comment ranking doesn't depend on account age.
  - vayeate 5y ago
    i recommend using hckrnews.com as your front page for many reasons, including this one
justinjoshuak 5y ago
This is an important piece of legislation - however OP doesn't provide the best link (it's a blog post from a company that sells encrypted email service?). This should be a helpful - it's a list of politician speeches when the bill was debated in parliament. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary%20Business/Bills%20Legislation/Bills%20Search%20Results/Result/Second%20Reading%20Speeches?BillId=r6623 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary%20Business/Bills%20Legi... For non-Australians, politicians with (LP) or (LNP) belong to the party in government. For example, speech by government party member: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/11b18738-de56-4d82-82f6-2c10fddd6b2b/0024/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr... Speech from opposition party (that still supported the bill):https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797/0022/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards... Speech from a third party: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797/0023/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards...
swader999 5y ago
One downside to all this surveillance that's never considered are the consequences of all this intel after a foreign invasion and life for the surveiled after a defeat. It would be much easier to occupy a foreign territory if all of this intel were available as you roll in. Makes one wonder...
8372049 5y ago
It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question, read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this article are incorrect. It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading: (5) If subsection (4) applies, the applicant must: (a) provide as much information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and (b) not later than 72 hours after the making of the application, send a duly sworn affidavit to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member, whether or not a warrant has been issued. Subsection (4) is about immediate threats. The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia). https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being able to arrest you without a court order.
- javajosh 5y ago
  5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules, giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite. And then it happens so much it's standard practice and attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.
  - 8372049 5y ago
    I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then I don't consider it to be a big problem. If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads would probably roll. However, in most cases these things are legitimate. I've worked in government and most people have good intentions. We don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against the legitimate cases, we have to protect ourselves against the abuse.
    - lobocinza 5y ago
reilly3000 5y ago
I’m appalled at this legislation, but also curious about how they intend to do this. Are they going to be compelling service providers to comply with specific requests, or give them admin accounts, or…? Do targets of their activities receive notification when their online content is modified or removed? What recourse is there in cases of abuse of these powers?
lanevorockz 5y ago
When the system will refuse something that benefits them ? It’s applied Kafka
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I do have a question. 'Data disruption warrant: gives the police the ability to "disrupt data" by modifying, copying, adding, or deleting it.' What does it really mean? Can they now legally change what website says to me? Intercept and change what signal message says? I am genuinely trying to understand what functionality hides behind this broad language.
- morganvachon 5y ago
  I'm not trying to answer your question as I don't know the full extent of this new law, but based purely on the article it's not hard to imagine the AU government can construct a case against a politically subversive but otherwise innocent person by planting illegal data/content on their cloud storage and social media accounts. The fact that they can do this with zero judicial oversight mean that it's not a question of "if" this will happen but "when".
atok1 5y ago
Always remember that Session is also developed in AU.... Makes me really consider the information I was told about FM.
noduerme 5y ago
I'm most curious about what they mean by "ADDING" data... Does this mean the police can create a social media account in your name? Imagine for instance that they suspect one of your family members of tax evasion. Can they create a fake social media account or email account registered to you, and impersonate you for the sake of entrapping someone else? Like hey uncle, love your new car, got any hot accounting tips? I don't even see anything in these laws that says the person whose data they're accessing has to be the target of the investigation. Imagine if at any time in any chat, even with your partner or parent or child, you couldn't know whether you were actually talking with them or a government agent, perhaps because someone they know is tangentially suspected of a crime - without the matter even being brought before a judge. Terrifying. This is how societies turn into places where everyone is completely fearful of saying anything at all.
- azinman2 5y ago
  The law generally allows the state to abuse its people in all kinds of ways. That’s the social contact: that abuse is seldom, and when it occurs the abuser gets punished. If it occurs enough then usually something big socially occurs, like a revolution.
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    A contract is consent in both ways. Most people have not consented neither explicitly nor tacitly to any of this. I understand what the term means, but most people seem to stick with the enlightenment-age definition while in reality what we currently have in most states (eastern or western) is not a social contract, but a hostage situation.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      I think you and the parent you're responding to agree more than you realize. They're describing the modern nation state as if totalitarianism and a Hobbesian state of nature were the only two alternatives, sprinkled with revolution. You're describing it as if the social contract was premised on mutual consent, missing the larger point that consent of the governed has historically been just a stopgap against revolution. (Really, if you believe you're in a hostage situation then revolution is the only way out). I agree and disagree with both of you. They're right that institutional power can and does get away with trampling the social contract, to the degree it feels it can. You're right that the contract itself is (supposedly) premised on mutual consent. But both of these strike me as defeatist postures. They both have in common the idea that the contract is with the state which holds all the power. What I think you both miss is that every state and every government is just made up of people. Whatever durability liberal democracy has, or the fact that it's emerged repeatedly over a couple millenia and shown itself capable of out-producing and out-warring autocracies, is not as much premised on a Hobbesian contract or a legal contract, or even the consent of the governed, so much as it is on the consent of those in government, their own sense of social status, and the degree to which that status results from their exclusion of the people they govern or their need for approval from those people. To the extent that all these incursions on privacy are still being done in the name of protecting children or stopping terrorism, as phony as that is, it gives the people in power a psychological pass for doing what would otherwise be Stasi or KGB style intrusion. It makes them acceptable at parties and makes them able to believe that they're "the good guys". The collapse of the USSR came about because the individuals tasked with oppressing the population - from Gorbachev down to the border guards - could no longer view themselves as the good guys if they did these things to their countrymen. The last stages of an oppressive society are where fear of punishment is no longer as bad as the need to escape oppression. For reasons that dovetail with the simplified explanations offered about what governments naturally do, etc, it's easy for a free society like Australia to slip into totalitarianism, and quite hard for it to get out. But all it really boils down to - and I mean, even down to the level of these universal observations we're all making in online comments, and up to the Congress or parliament or the inner circle of the CCP, is an individual dick measuring popularity contest. If the people in power are made to feel they are the bad guys, they'll overthrow the system. But that does require the revolution coming for its own. In this case, it will be no time at all before some MP gets entrapped by one of these things... the question on the table is really who is in charge there now and where does power flow from?
chroem- 5y ago
Good, I hope this will give Australia the power it needs to finally crush disinformation and right wing terrorism. The two go hand-in-hand.
jimpick 5y ago
“Disrupting data” sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
gavinsoady2 5y ago
comment
mikaeluman 5y ago
I make the same observation as other people have made. These types of laws are being passed with increasing intensity and scope in most western countries. They seem to follow the same idea. Purportedly they are being passed to stop crime or at least aid the investigation of suspected criminals. The other set of laws are purportedly meant to stop the spread of infectious disease. But the laws are clearly not well balanced in terms of privacy rights and personal freedom. There is also this ominous synchronization between government and trans-national bodies such as the WHO with major technology firms; having the latter act as uncritical propaganda arms of the former - no matter the evidence or reasons for doubt. Rather than discussion and reasoning, there is this flow of labels thrown around at dissenters, regardless of who they are and what they say. If they critique transwomen competing with women they are called transphobic and accused of hate speech. If they prefer not to take a vaccine shot and/or critique lockdowns and restrictions; they are called anti-vaxxers and accused of spreading misinformation. All of this points in the direction of tyranny and totalitarianism. All we can do is vote with our feet.
gavinsoady2 5y ago
Does this comment add
gavinsoady2 5y ago
Did this comment add
BoppreH 5y ago
Can we change the URL of this post to a more normal news website? The current one is a blog post from an email provider company, not a journalistic entity. It has unnecessary hyperbole ("End of Human Rights"), and has a clear conflict of interest given that they provide secure email services and one of their main competitors (FastMail) is Australian. (though I do share their concerns) I find @jpollock's links a good replacement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
christophilus 5y ago
Serious question. How concerned should I be if my email is hosted by an Australian company?
camillomiller 5y ago
My girlfriend is Australian, stranded abroad here in Germany like many other Aussies. I’ve bern following the news from down under for quite a while. I have the nagging feeling that Australia is currently the Western country with the highest chance of turning into Gilead.
- lox 5y ago
  Nah, we lack the political motivation for really any major change. Australian politics is about not losing vs winning.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  Gilead...? You mean Gulag?
  - arthens 5y ago
    I assumed they meant this https://the-handmaids-tale.fandom.com/wiki/Republic_of_Gilead_(Series) https://the-handmaids-tale.fandom.com/wiki/Republic_of_Gilea...
  - camillomiller 5y ago
    Yep, as per the other comment. Reference to the Handmaid's Tale.
desertraven 5y ago
As an Australian, how concerned should I be about this authoritarian trend? I've heard people saying that Australia is used as a test-bed for government policy. I've also heard the creep of China could be the cause of this trend. I've seen how quickly a functioning country can dissolve (Syria, Ukraine, Hong Kong). Just how concerned should we be about this? And apart from voting, is there any kind of action that can be taken?
- audit 5y ago
  I do not think Australia will dissolve into a civil war supported by external proxys (like it is in Syria). Instead, I think it will turn into East Germany with the Stasi. It will be a society of informants... https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/ten-terrifying-facts-about-east-germanys-stasi-surveillance/ https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/ten-terrifying-f... >" ....If someone looked like he might challenge the Communist Party’s legitimacy or control, the Stasi systematically destroyed his life. They used blackmail, social shame, threats, and torture. Careers, reputations, relationships, and lives were exploded to destabilize and delegitimize a critic. Some forms of harassment were almost comical: agents spread rumors about their targets, flooded their mailboxes with pornography, moved things around in their apartments, or deflated their bicycle tires day after day. Others were life-altering: Individuals labeled as subversives were banned from higher education, forced into unemployment, and forcibly committed to asylums. Many suffered long-term psychological trauma, loss of earnings, and intense social shame as a result of Stasi lies. .... " Take a look at where Australia is galloping to... No physical cash, no meaningful firearm ownership, passport-system for everything (social credit score). Kids are not to be raised by parents, instead, huge economic insentives and constraints to send them to federal kindergardens (making the care 'affordeable' while parents must work .. is a way to do this...) Laws are designed such that they can be selective applied, everything is up to a discretion of a prosecuture or a judge.. and so on.

508 points by ghoda 5y ago

There and New Zealand both. The responses (extreme lockdown) of both countries to Covid has been nothing short of insane.

retrac 5y ago
We should have slammed the international borders shut at the first sign of it, and placed any region with outbreaks into the strictest lockdown we could humanely devise. Lesson learned for next time. Too late for that for most of the world. Now we have to learn to live with it somehow. But it worked for New Zealand. They're in a very odd position now. Domestically as long as they can keep it out, they could go completely back to normal. Except for international travel. (It's been mostly normal most of the time aside from that, from what I understand.)
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  I'm not sure you realize how much the world is connected now. Look up tanker ship traffic to realize how much things go back and forth. Locking up a country to outsiders is fantasy, and a terrible horrible idea. Even North Korea trades with anyone it can. Also, good luck securing the Southern Border. Retarding your economy, will cause far more death than the 1% claimed for Covid.
  - retrac 5y ago
    Yes, that's the awkward position they're in.
verve_rat 5y ago
And I consider the American response to be 100% bat shit. How can you accept hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths? At peak you were having a 9/11 every day. I just... don't get it?
abraae 5y ago
Nice way to ride your personal hobby horse into town.
systemvoltage 5y ago
Apparently, you're not allowed to go beyond 5km radius of your house. Can someone in Australia confirm the details of the lockdown? Virus is here to stay for many years, if not decades. We're never going to eliminate it. It is time we push back on draconian measures in the name of covid. Unrelated but I can't even go to bathroom in SF city because every restaurant, convenience store, gas station, etc. have an excuse to say that because of COVID restrictions, restrooms are closed. I was fine with Gov-mandated measures last year when we didn't have vaccines. But, I am turning against my own self from last year.
- aplummer 5y ago
  The 5km thing is real while the lockdown is in effect. Keep in mind it’s different to America, you get paid decent money from the state to stay at home. Whether or not the ~20 000 lives saved from these lockdowns comes down to opinion in the end.
  - eplanit 5y ago
    Wow. I guess if you're going to live under such rules, it's easier if you agree with them. I can only assume that you view the surveillance bill as also benevolent.
    - aplummer 5y ago
      Please don't strawman me, I didn't say I agree with the surveillance bill (I do not) and I don't live in Australia - my family does though. It's a different country with a different set of tradeoffs, and is also a more free country than the United States across many important areas, which is why it rates higher in the Cato freedom index than the USA. It comes down to perspective, to take a separate topic to prove my point - You may think their limitation to only own bolt actions and shotguns makes them less free. I may think they are more free, since they live without the fear of death in a mass shooting.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
UI_at_80x24 5y ago
New Zealand's (as you describe it) "extreme lockdown" has worked. When dealing with a pandemic you are supposed to limit potential exposure, and their actions did that. As a result NZ has had one of the lowest infection rates in the world. Also, those actions let them "return to normal" quicker then anywhere else. It worked. Perhaps you feel that the mid-evil practice of nailing the doors and windows shut and posting a guard outside of a quarantine house, would be more reasonable? Pray that the village stays safe while the sick were imprisoned? People were inconvenienced. Nothing more.
- j8hn 5y ago
  The child poverty rate increased by 10%. I would say that an increase of children living in inhumane conditions is more than an inconvenience.
  - catsncomputers 5y ago
    I can't seem to find anything to verify your 10% claim - all I can find is stats showing that child poverty actually went down.. Are you able to post a source for that? EDIT: since my account has been rate-limited... The msn article below was released before the stats and is purely speculation. The stats before covid already indicate an increase, and NZ has long had fluctuating child poverty rates, which the current government is attempting to address. However it is essential to realise that this increase is largely driven by the effects of the previous government, and the housing and rental market - not the effects of Covid-19. https://www.cpag.org.nz/the-latest/current-statistics/latest-child-poverty-figures/ https://www.cpag.org.nz/the-latest/current-statistics/latest...
    - j8hn 5y ago
      I've seen it mentioned in the past. Here is an article I was able to dig up. https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/number-of-children-in-poverty-rapidly-grew-in-first-year-of-covid-19-due-to-govt-neglect-report/ar-AAMzOpP https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/number-of-children-i...
    - 5y ago
catsncomputers 5y ago
Since both countries have had issues with vaccine supply, both have extremely low vaccination rates. The lockdowns are an intermediary measure to prevent loss of life until vaccination rates are high enough to warrant leaving it. Furthermore, the response has enabled New Zealanders to lead an almost completely normal life aside from the two lockdowns - going to work without even thinking about the necessity of masks or social distancing. Attending concerts without a fear of contracting Covid-19. Stadiums full of people when the US and other countries have been in limbo for 2 years now. Your idea of `insane` is quite bizarre to me.
UnseenTraveller 5y ago
I promise you, Australians and Kiwis don't need advice from Americans on how to keep citizens safe.
- gagege 5y ago
  Many Americans are less concerned about safety than they are about tyrants who (as history shows) get a whiff of power and don't stop making rules until they have complete dominance over every aspect of people's lives. That's much scarier and more damaging than a virus which is, for over 99% of people, about on par with the flu.
- dang 5y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN for flamewar. Not what this site is for. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
dang 5y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28372706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28372706 and marked it off topic.

ghoda 5y ago

I don't know where this is going. Perhaps prepping for the global warming riots. Is there a way out of surveillance?

TheChaplain 5y ago
Vote. Or be more active in politics.
- agilob 5y ago
  and if that doesn't work wait 4 or 5 more years and vote again, hope for the better!
- hulitu 5y ago
  Too late.
- sweettea 5y ago
  Voting is how this mess started... how is voting harder going to fix what voting created? Nothing short of a common national ethos of trust in an almost unremovable leader can solve this problem. A leader who can listen to experts and make a choice, even if unpopular, without fear of next election and without the need to aggrandize more power and wealth.
  - soco 5y ago
    That's the kind of rationalization which got Europe into WW2...
  - mLuby 5y ago
    "Fear of the next election" is one of the few things that keeps elected leaders in line. You want a wise, just dictator for life, and maybe you luck out and get one who reigns beneficently for a few decades, but who's to say their successor will be as good, or the next one, and on and on until you inevitably get a Stalin. Put another way: if the leader dies, and heir A spends all their effort on ruling effectively, and heir B spends all their effort on beating heir A to the throne, how can heir A succeed? You'd need metrics for being a good ruler which are immune to Goodhart's Law. Given that—over time—power inevitably centralizes and inevitably is abused, those tendencies must be counterbalanced; or else power must be regularly reset by more crude means.

andy_ppp 5y ago

Is there anywhere where you aren’t being watched now?

swayson 5y ago
Brain waves, atleast for now.
seph-reed 5y ago
if you hike more than 6 miles from any given trail-head, there will still be people but they usually aren't the kind to have their phone out. if you start from a place without reception, doubly so.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
If the police have a warrant to watch you, then, no. But that is as it should be. As long as there is correct judicial oversight of these capabilities, then this is the correct way for things to be. Nobody should have an expectation of being able to conduct criminal business without surveillance. The issue comes in when the justice system is not providing correct oversight for this capability. That is wrong and should be vigorously opposed. The capabilities themselves I have no problem with.
- MontagFTB 5y ago
  Would this philosophy extend to phones then, too? Assuming a phone is being used for criminal business. A Ring camera, assuming the house is being used for criminal conduct? I’m playing devil’s advocate, and am interested in a stance arrived at reasonably.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    Yes, it would. Wouldn't detectives watching through your windows as you type on your phone be functionally the same as having your phone surveilled? Warranted, targeted surveillance is less bad than surveilling everyone to see if they are committing crimes, which less bad than recording what everyone did so they can be charged with crimes retroactively, which is less bad than charging people for crimes they're only predicted to commit.

peytoncasper 5y ago

Interesting. I’m not from Australia but I thought the concept of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal interesting. It seems like a way to offload work from the main court system. According to Wikipedia it also does seem to have oversight by the Federal Court of Australia. [1] While I agree that this seems like a massive overstep. The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. There wasn’t any detail in the article but I would hope there is a massive audit trail on the ability to modify data or impersonate someone online. Anyone have any additional details on the AAT’s effect on the average Australian citizen? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Appeals_Tribunal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Appeals_Tribuna...

throwawaymanbot 5y ago
This is worse than FISA. Once again, in a 5 eye country the china like surveillance infrastructure has been rubber stamped.
ohhhhhh 5y ago
FISA court is unconstitutional too.. and is was literally used to frame Trump
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Not to directly answer your question, but my trust of "the system" in general is severely shaken by recent cases involving the treatment of whistleblowers. Australia's powers-that-be seem to be promoting a chilling effect on any revelations that may cause negative publicity about said powers-that-be. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witness-k-and-the-outrageous-spy-scandal-that-failed-to-shame-australia https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witne... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-29/prosecutors-proceed-case-against-ato-whistleblower-richard-boyle/100105710 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-29/prosecutors-proceed-c...
HideousKojima 5y ago
>The actual body seems similar to the FISA court in the US. This is your daily reminder that FISA was originally created as a way to provide oversight for intelligence agencies after things like MK Ultra and COINTELPRO. Instead it became a rubber stamp legitimizing their actions.

kaminar 5y ago

Just the beginning...it's going to get much worse. Openvaers.com

maerF0x0 5y ago

Well, just added Australia to the list of places I'm never going. > The two Australian law enforcement bodies AFP and ACIC will soon have the power to modify, add, copy, or delete your data should you become a suspect in the investigation of a serious crime. How would one prove the bodies didnt add/modify incriminating items? in the US that would be nigh impossible to argue against as the system implicitly trusts police testimony over accused

cryptonector 5y ago
There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1] And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions. Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-right-to-remain-innocent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri... EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer" People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
  - lisper 5y ago
    Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment. Conservatives hate the ninth.

nemo44x 5y ago

It's a good thing everyone surrendered their firearms to this same government. Once they know you can't resist anything they can do anything to you. I'm guessing NZ is next now that they've confiscated nearly every firearm they could.

cfcfcf 5y ago
Yes. If we had our firearms we could shoot back. Pew pew!
- ccn0p 5y ago
  granted we are in a very different place today in terms of warfare technology, history has shown that firing back is what has shaped the world we live in today.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Indeed, it seems to work for the Taliban vs. the most powerful army on earth.
  - hellisothers 5y ago
    … in a foreign occupied country. Aside from snide remarks is anybody honestly trying to propose that civilians with guns is a deterrent for for anything the government wants to do? You may as well be throwing rocks.
    - axguscbklp 5y ago
      In some cases, it probably is a deterrent. It is hard to know for sure because there is no way to A/B test a country. I think that some people probably overestimate the degree to which it is a deterrent, but I think it would certainly be wrong to say that it is not a deterrent at all. In some situations it can probably be a very effective deterrent.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      The hypothesis that guns are a deterrent has little to do with the citizenry fighting against the army or the police. It is about the risk of political assassination by a rogue individual every time a politician walks outside. If the leaders start to deviate significantly from the will of the median person, that risk goes up by a lot, hence the deterrent effect. Would Kim Jong Un still be around if every person was armed? Perhaps, but it'd be quite a bit less likely.

throwawayswede 5y ago

Over the past two years, Australian and New Zealand's governments have become great examples of how statism can take over so quickly. As an outsider, I feel really sad for people in Australia and New Zealand.

celticninja 5y ago
What have NZ done?

yakz 5y ago

I guess my days as a paying customer of FastMail are coming to an end. I don’t expect to ever become a legitimate target of Australian law enforcement, but there is always abuse.

throwawayswede 5y ago
TIL Fastmail is an Australian company. I wonder if this bill applies to data hosted outside of Australia for international clients by a company based in Australia? I'd really like to know what they have to say about this.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  As far as I know, Fastmail has been backdoored for a few years now by Australian government (and hence I assume the USA, too). It is Fastmail’s biggest disadvantage, in my opinion.
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    While that may be true (and I'm sort of disappointed to find this out), I don't think there's any server _at all_ that I'd trust if I'm worried about certain governments snooping in on my email. That level of communication would prompt me to use PGP.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Yes, that is is why I continue to be a Fastmail customer. I do not think there is a comparable alternative with no government snooping.
    - christophilus 5y ago
      Snooping is one thing. Full blown legal access for law enforcement to view and tamper is another.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago

What is it about Australia that is driving it to be so uniquely totalitarian among the English-speaking countries? I always envisioned it culturally more individualistic than the UK, but they've gone even farther down the path of state control and surveillance.

atok1 5y ago
It's because AU is used as a test bed for all the really fucked up laws that the powers that be would love to pass, but can't due to significant citizen pushback and/or armed citizens.
HKH2 5y ago
Individualism in Australia is usually about fighting social control, but that just leads to being under government control. We have fewer cultural roots so it makes the above process faster.

ccn0p 5y ago

this seems to coincide with some pretty aggressive [arguable very over-reaching] lockdowns in the country as well... not looking good.

jdkee 5y ago

In the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

jldugger 5y ago
And the EU has GDPR. Which is intended to protect its citizens globally. It seems like AU parliament is doing their best to ensure their chartered companies be unable to serve European customers.
cryptonector 5y ago
Why was this downvoted? Anyways, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about alterations by LEAs to seized documents. That hadn't been invented yet, I guess, back in 1789. Though arguably Due Process requires a well-behaved justice system that wouldn't do that.

jpollock 5y ago

edit: found information about emergency authorisation Here's the bill under discussion [1] : This article states that it brings in new warrants, and makes no mention of "without a judge's warrant" [2]. Perhaps the original article is keying off of: "(aab) to establish procedures for certain law enforcement officers of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission to obtain warrants and emergency authorisations" [3] "emergency authorisations" would appear to not require a warrant, but it does include language of "it is not practicable in the circumstances to apply for a <warrant>" [4] However, I'm not Australian, and definitely not a lawyer. [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6623 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... [2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/even-hacking-field-government-surveillance-bill-passed-parliament https://www.natlawreview.com/article/even-hacking-field-gove... [3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... [4] https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/360document/legauUio1949041sl318346247/section-33-when-application-may-be-made-for-emergency-authorisation/overview https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/360document/legauUio1949041sl318...

soco 5y ago

In similar news the well-known direct democracy of Switzerland just voted a new rule giving police similar surveillance powers without judicial oversight. So it's obviously the people wishing to be better surveilled and we're the outliers here.

mullingitover 5y ago
I would expect as much, just based on how badly direct democracies have performed historically. John Adams said, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy." In the past, democracy was viewed as a form of government that republics devolved into.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  This was covered by Plato 2,500 years ago. But we don’t learn about that ancient outdated stuff anymore, as it isn’t beneficial for the economy.
- stereolambda 5y ago
  Well, it's interesting, then, that Switzerland is one of the oldest political regimes in Europe. This kind of rhetoric tends to come from elitist thinkers that would want a guarantee of power over people because they think they are right and somehow destined to have it. If we are on topic of exchanging opinions of famous men, I think Machiavelli said that the people can be misled and go astray but are not prevented by pride from correcting themselves, like rulers would.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > Switzerland is one of the oldest political regimes in Europe. The age of their regime has nothing to do with their history of practicing direct democracy, that happened well after the founding of the US. > This kind of rhetoric tends to come from elitist thinkers that would want a guarantee of power over people because they think they are right and somehow destined to have it. On the contrary, I'm just defending the wisdom of the existing constitutional republic framework that we have currently. There's obvious value in constitutional safeguards against the whims of the mob, while still giving the citizenry a say in the long-term direction of the state.

asien 5y ago

Reminds me of anti-free speech laws that was almost passed in France. It was designed to help fight « hate speech ». It enable police to remove literally ANY content from the interne t as long as it was « hateful » of course there is no legal definition of hateful. I think similar laws have been passed in Belgium and Germany. I find it funny that has economic growth from the post war era is slowing down and climate change is accelerating our fundamentals rights and freedom are slowly being taken away from us ,bits by bits with more or less the same laws everywhere. Very strange.

Mikeb85 5y ago
At least in France people will protest. Places like Australia, NZ and Canada have far too much trust in the government...
- worker767424 5y ago
  Regarding Australia's limits on protest during the Sydney covid lockdown, one official basically said "people can exercise their freedom of speech other ways, like writing a letter to the newpaper or sending an angry email" (paraphrased). I think he seriously thought these circular-filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front of government buildings.
  - lurquer 5y ago
    > I think he seriously thought these circular-filed complaints carry the same weight as a protesters in front of government buildings. They do carry the same weight. They are both useless. Standing around holding signs and marching and chanting has never been effective. Having the crowds filmed and broadcast, on the other hand, is effective. If the media isn’t making a story out of it, it means nothing. In the 60s and 70s people began to believe marching and protesting en mass was effective. But, it was only effective because the media, for their own reasons and agendas, decided to broadcast the Freedom Marches and anti-war marches and all the rest. I don’t believe that prior to the 60s, anyone would have considered milling around in front of govt buildings effective at all. To be sure, having mobs tearing down the buildings was effective and happened frequently. You could assemble a million protestors in DC and, if it’s not shown in CNN, you might as well have stayed home.

enigma-reload3d 5y ago

WOW, this is unbelievable!

ceilingcorner 5y ago

Crime rates have been going down for decades in the Western world (including Oz). Yet governments continue to pass surveillance laws to “fight crime.” If that doesn’t highlight their true aims, I don’t know what else does.

krona 5y ago
Perceptual and judgment creep. Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aap8731 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aap8731
christophilus 5y ago
They’ll claim the drop in crime is a direct result of their draconian overreach. So, if a little has worked so well, why not heap more on? Incidentally, it’s really hard to counter this reasoning, no matter what subject it is applied to. The truth is, we don’t know what crime would have done without such a system in place. It may have dropped even further. It’s the typical causation / correlation confusion.

adamiscool8 5y ago

All the countries and regions that have been "soft" captured by China over the last decade+ will do similar.

Animats 5y ago

Why is Australia trying so hard to become an authoritarian state? It's an island nation with few serious internal or external enemies.[1] [1] https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/australias-enemies-looking-where-the-light-shines-brightest https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/australias-enemies-looking-w...

bserge 5y ago
Perfect place for that, tbf

ChrisKnott 5y ago

In what way was this bill "rushed through Australian parliament in 24 hours"? The bill in question is dated 2020 and the committee was requesting submissions by 12th February[0] [0] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/IdentifyandDisruptBill https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...

sjy 5y ago
You’re quite right, but it is exceptional that the bill passed the House of Representatives on the same day as its second reading speech, and passed the Senate on the following day [1]. This means that there was little time for debate and amendment within Parliament itself, including by minor parties [2] and independents [3] not represented on the committee that reviewed the first draft of the bill. [1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6623 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... [2] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0023%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... [3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0025%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
- basisword 5y ago
  Doesn’t it pass that quickly because it got enough votes? In other words there wasn’t enough dissent to require further readings and debate because enough people were happy with it.
  - sjy 5y ago
    That’s a necessary condition for any bill to pass, but as explained in [2] and [3], this one followed an exceptional procedure which reduced the opportunity for parliamentarians outside the two major parties to consider, propose and persuade others to endorse amendments to the bill. The opposition was also “concerned” about aspects of it, but voted yes because of the “tension between how quickly criminals can adapt their trade craft and how long it takes to properly scrutinise and introduce the legislation required to counteract and disrupt criminal activity” [4]. [4] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0022;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797%2F0025%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

narrator 5y ago

Something really bizarre and unsettling is happening in Australia. Despite a small number of covid deaths, they have by far the most totalitarian lockdowns and are pursuing some of the most extreme social control measures of any country on earth. They are building quarantine imprisonment camps, doing national manhunts for people who aren't quarantining, arresting people for anti-government speech, using the military to limit movement. You are not even allowed to leave the country anymore! Things really happened so fast and with so little debate that it rivals the speed and severity of loss of rights that occurs in a communist revolution. What the heck is even going on there?

cookie_monsta 5y ago
Hyperbole, mostly Versions of all of those things exist, but not in the way you describe them.
- narrator 5y ago
  I have been reading message boards where Aussies are saying they are no longer allowed to leave the country for any reason. Isn't that like the old Soviet Union and North Korea?
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    There are exemptions to the travel restrictions[1] So "not allowed to leave for any reason" is hyperbole. It has a grain of truth but like the other things on your list is a gross exaggeration. It's almost as if you shouldn't take everything you read online at face value [1] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
    - narrator 5y ago
      You could get an exit visa from the Soviet Union under certain circumstances too. Just cause there's an exemption doesn't mean it's all ok.

papito 5y ago

"This is fine, but don't you make me put on that mask, you fascists!"

DarkByte 5y ago

The bigger and more important issue here in my opinion is that this completely paves and protects the road to breaking Apple style CSAM detection systems by any 5 eyes country for other uses. Game Over.

smsm42 5y ago

Australia is turning itself into a prison state. Citizens are allowed to go outside for maximum one or two hours, total surveillance, unconstrained searches of the property... About the same set of rights as a supermax prison inmate has, it looks like.

0xdeadb00f 5y ago
The part about being "allowed to" go outside isn't true. Take it from me, I live here and am free to go wherever I please.
- gorwell 5y ago
  This is probably what they are referring to. Some areas are limiting outdoor time and fining people who are "outside without a reasonable excuse". "From September 13, NSW residents that are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms. Residents of hotspots can leave home for an hour of recreation on top of their exercise hour, while people in other areas can meet five others outdoors." https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163 https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/1430707532134236163
  - tikwidd 5y ago
    It's called a lockdown...
    - smsm42 5y ago
      The question is not how it's called but whether it's happening or not.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > will be given new freedoms Wow, that's Orwellian to say the least. Freedom is never granted, it is earned.
    - tikwidd 5y ago

slavboj 5y ago

One intention is for the Australian police to be able to fabricate evidence that can then be used to generate American warrants and prosecutions, very similar to the way the FBI and DNC fabricated the British Steele dossier in order to generate FISA warrants and prosecutions of various Trump staffers.

dang 5y ago

Recent and related: Australian Police get online account takeover, data disruption powers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364140 - Aug 2021 (77 comments) ‘Extraordinary’ hacking powers pass Australian Parliament - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311722 - Aug 2021 (212 comments) Australia is becoming a surveillance state - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139048 - Aug 2021 (423 comments)

8372050 5y ago
418 votes submitted 3 hours ago and the story can't be found on the front page The top commenter is throwaway created an hour ago Curious how ranking works on HN. If that hasn't been answered already.
- dang 5y ago
  It set off the flamewar detector. Comment ranking doesn't depend on account age.
- vayeate 5y ago
  i recommend using hckrnews.com as your front page for many reasons, including this one

justinjoshuak 5y ago

This is an important piece of legislation - however OP doesn't provide the best link (it's a blog post from a company that sells encrypted email service?). This should be a helpful - it's a list of politician speeches when the bill was debated in parliament. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary%20Business/Bills%20Legislation/Bills%20Search%20Results/Result/Second%20Reading%20Speeches?BillId=r6623 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary%20Business/Bills%20Legi... For non-Australians, politicians with (LP) or (LNP) belong to the party in government. For example, speech by government party member: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/11b18738-de56-4d82-82f6-2c10fddd6b2b/0024/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr... Speech from opposition party (that still supported the bill):https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797/0022/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards... Speech from a third party: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/38aecaea-ebc3-40c8-b36a-5c9638090797/0023/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards...

swader999 5y ago

One downside to all this surveillance that's never considered are the consequences of all this intel after a foreign invasion and life for the surveiled after a defeat. It would be much easier to occupy a foreign territory if all of this intel were available as you roll in. Makes one wonder...

8372049 5y ago

It took me just a couple of minutes to find the bill in question, read up on it and find that most of the claims made in this article are incorrect. It's not "rushed through parliament in 24 hours", it's been in a process since at least December 2020. The 'without a judge' part is strongly misleading: (5) If subsection (4) applies, the applicant must: (a) provide as much information as the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member considers is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and (b) not later than 72 hours after the making of the application, send a duly sworn affidavit to the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member, whether or not a warrant has been issued. Subsection (4) is about immediate threats. The AAT's decisions "are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia" (Wikipedia). https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6623_aspassed%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... This is just the digital equivalent of a police officer being able to arrest you without a court order.

javajosh 5y ago
5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules, giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite. And then it happens so much it's standard practice and attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.
- 8372049 5y ago
  I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then I don't consider it to be a big problem. If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads would probably roll. However, in most cases these things are legitimate. I've worked in government and most people have good intentions. We don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against the legitimate cases, we have to protect ourselves against the abuse.
  - lobocinza 5y ago

reilly3000 5y ago

I’m appalled at this legislation, but also curious about how they intend to do this. Are they going to be compelling service providers to comply with specific requests, or give them admin accounts, or…? Do targets of their activities receive notification when their online content is modified or removed? What recourse is there in cases of abuse of these powers?

lanevorockz 5y ago

When the system will refuse something that benefits them ? It’s applied Kafka

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

I do have a question. 'Data disruption warrant: gives the police the ability to "disrupt data" by modifying, copying, adding, or deleting it.' What does it really mean? Can they now legally change what website says to me? Intercept and change what signal message says? I am genuinely trying to understand what functionality hides behind this broad language.

morganvachon 5y ago
I'm not trying to answer your question as I don't know the full extent of this new law, but based purely on the article it's not hard to imagine the AU government can construct a case against a politically subversive but otherwise innocent person by planting illegal data/content on their cloud storage and social media accounts. The fact that they can do this with zero judicial oversight mean that it's not a question of "if" this will happen but "when".

atok1 5y ago

Always remember that Session is also developed in AU.... Makes me really consider the information I was told about FM.

noduerme 5y ago

I'm most curious about what they mean by "ADDING" data... Does this mean the police can create a social media account in your name? Imagine for instance that they suspect one of your family members of tax evasion. Can they create a fake social media account or email account registered to you, and impersonate you for the sake of entrapping someone else? Like hey uncle, love your new car, got any hot accounting tips? I don't even see anything in these laws that says the person whose data they're accessing has to be the target of the investigation. Imagine if at any time in any chat, even with your partner or parent or child, you couldn't know whether you were actually talking with them or a government agent, perhaps because someone they know is tangentially suspected of a crime - without the matter even being brought before a judge. Terrifying. This is how societies turn into places where everyone is completely fearful of saying anything at all.

azinman2 5y ago
The law generally allows the state to abuse its people in all kinds of ways. That’s the social contact: that abuse is seldom, and when it occurs the abuser gets punished. If it occurs enough then usually something big socially occurs, like a revolution.
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  A contract is consent in both ways. Most people have not consented neither explicitly nor tacitly to any of this. I understand what the term means, but most people seem to stick with the enlightenment-age definition while in reality what we currently have in most states (eastern or western) is not a social contract, but a hostage situation.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    I think you and the parent you're responding to agree more than you realize. They're describing the modern nation state as if totalitarianism and a Hobbesian state of nature were the only two alternatives, sprinkled with revolution. You're describing it as if the social contract was premised on mutual consent, missing the larger point that consent of the governed has historically been just a stopgap against revolution. (Really, if you believe you're in a hostage situation then revolution is the only way out). I agree and disagree with both of you. They're right that institutional power can and does get away with trampling the social contract, to the degree it feels it can. You're right that the contract itself is (supposedly) premised on mutual consent. But both of these strike me as defeatist postures. They both have in common the idea that the contract is with the state which holds all the power. What I think you both miss is that every state and every government is just made up of people. Whatever durability liberal democracy has, or the fact that it's emerged repeatedly over a couple millenia and shown itself capable of out-producing and out-warring autocracies, is not as much premised on a Hobbesian contract or a legal contract, or even the consent of the governed, so much as it is on the consent of those in government, their own sense of social status, and the degree to which that status results from their exclusion of the people they govern or their need for approval from those people. To the extent that all these incursions on privacy are still being done in the name of protecting children or stopping terrorism, as phony as that is, it gives the people in power a psychological pass for doing what would otherwise be Stasi or KGB style intrusion. It makes them acceptable at parties and makes them able to believe that they're "the good guys". The collapse of the USSR came about because the individuals tasked with oppressing the population - from Gorbachev down to the border guards - could no longer view themselves as the good guys if they did these things to their countrymen. The last stages of an oppressive society are where fear of punishment is no longer as bad as the need to escape oppression. For reasons that dovetail with the simplified explanations offered about what governments naturally do, etc, it's easy for a free society like Australia to slip into totalitarianism, and quite hard for it to get out. But all it really boils down to - and I mean, even down to the level of these universal observations we're all making in online comments, and up to the Congress or parliament or the inner circle of the CCP, is an individual dick measuring popularity contest. If the people in power are made to feel they are the bad guys, they'll overthrow the system. But that does require the revolution coming for its own. In this case, it will be no time at all before some MP gets entrapped by one of these things... the question on the table is really who is in charge there now and where does power flow from?

chroem- 5y ago

Good, I hope this will give Australia the power it needs to finally crush disinformation and right wing terrorism. The two go hand-in-hand.

jimpick 5y ago

“Disrupting data” sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.

gavinsoady2 5y ago

comment

mikaeluman 5y ago

I make the same observation as other people have made. These types of laws are being passed with increasing intensity and scope in most western countries. They seem to follow the same idea. Purportedly they are being passed to stop crime or at least aid the investigation of suspected criminals. The other set of laws are purportedly meant to stop the spread of infectious disease. But the laws are clearly not well balanced in terms of privacy rights and personal freedom. There is also this ominous synchronization between government and trans-national bodies such as the WHO with major technology firms; having the latter act as uncritical propaganda arms of the former - no matter the evidence or reasons for doubt. Rather than discussion and reasoning, there is this flow of labels thrown around at dissenters, regardless of who they are and what they say. If they critique transwomen competing with women they are called transphobic and accused of hate speech. If they prefer not to take a vaccine shot and/or critique lockdowns and restrictions; they are called anti-vaxxers and accused of spreading misinformation. All of this points in the direction of tyranny and totalitarianism. All we can do is vote with our feet.

gavinsoady2 5y ago

Does this comment add

gavinsoady2 5y ago

Did this comment add

BoppreH 5y ago

Can we change the URL of this post to a more normal news website? The current one is a blog post from an email provider company, not a journalistic entity. It has unnecessary hyperbole ("End of Human Rights"), and has a clear conflict of interest given that they provide secure email services and one of their main competitors (FastMail) is Australian. (though I do share their concerns) I find @jpollock's links a good replacement.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

christophilus 5y ago

Serious question. How concerned should I be if my email is hosted by an Australian company?

camillomiller 5y ago

My girlfriend is Australian, stranded abroad here in Germany like many other Aussies. I’ve bern following the news from down under for quite a while. I have the nagging feeling that Australia is currently the Western country with the highest chance of turning into Gilead.

lox 5y ago
Nah, we lack the political motivation for really any major change. Australian politics is about not losing vs winning.
inter_netuser 5y ago
Gilead...? You mean Gulag?
- arthens 5y ago
  I assumed they meant this https://the-handmaids-tale.fandom.com/wiki/Republic_of_Gilead_(Series) https://the-handmaids-tale.fandom.com/wiki/Republic_of_Gilea...
- camillomiller 5y ago
  Yep, as per the other comment. Reference to the Handmaid's Tale.

desertraven 5y ago

As an Australian, how concerned should I be about this authoritarian trend? I've heard people saying that Australia is used as a test-bed for government policy. I've also heard the creep of China could be the cause of this trend. I've seen how quickly a functioning country can dissolve (Syria, Ukraine, Hong Kong). Just how concerned should we be about this? And apart from voting, is there any kind of action that can be taken?

audit 5y ago
I do not think Australia will dissolve into a civil war supported by external proxys (like it is in Syria). Instead, I think it will turn into East Germany with the Stasi. It will be a society of informants... https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/ten-terrifying-facts-about-east-germanys-stasi-surveillance/ https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/ten-terrifying-f... >" ....If someone looked like he might challenge the Communist Party’s legitimacy or control, the Stasi systematically destroyed his life. They used blackmail, social shame, threats, and torture. Careers, reputations, relationships, and lives were exploded to destabilize and delegitimize a critic. Some forms of harassment were almost comical: agents spread rumors about their targets, flooded their mailboxes with pornography, moved things around in their apartments, or deflated their bicycle tires day after day. Others were life-altering: Individuals labeled as subversives were banned from higher education, forced into unemployment, and forcibly committed to asylums. Many suffered long-term psychological trauma, loss of earnings, and intense social shame as a result of Stasi lies. .... " Take a look at where Australia is galloping to... No physical cash, no meaningful firearm ownership, passport-system for everything (social credit score). Kids are not to be raised by parents, instead, huge economic insentives and constraints to send them to federal kindergardens (making the care 'affordeable' while parents must work .. is a way to do this...) Laws are designed such that they can be selective applied, everything is up to a discretion of a prosecuture or a judge.. and so on.