17 ms·

I've lived to see this kind of thing enacted in a good portion of the Anglosphere and my visceral reaction is to engage in a combination of civil disobedience a

I've lived to see this kind of thing enacted in a good portion of the Anglosphere and my visceral reaction is to engage in a combination of civil disobedience and a determination to undermine every overstep made. With regards to things like the Aussie requirement for phone check-ins every 15 minutes or they will deploy police to follow up and confirm your location, turn off the phone and make them eat the cost of having to deploy all available police resources just to see if people are submitting to the whim of the government every 15 minutes. Bonus if you opt to answer the door naked and claim you were busy showering/having sex/aligning your chakras/whatever. Any bureaucracy will naturally follow the path of least resistance. It is your job to make it more painful for them to pursue their goals than it is to leave you alone.

adamjb 5y ago
The phone check in thing is for enforcing the two weeks home quarantine for returned travelers and close contacts of confirmed cases. While there are certainly slippery slope arguments to be made, let's not act like we've already slid down it.
- slowmotiony 5y ago
  > The phone check in thing is for enforcing the two weeks home quarantine for returned travelers and close contacts of confirmed cases. So the government can effectively just inprison you in your own house, with no proof, no recourse and no due process, because they suspect you were near some guy at some particular time some days ago. They don't even ask to get tested first! How can people on hacker news of all places not see this as a massive threat to civil liberty is beyond me.
  - jezzzabell 5y ago
    When the alternative is thousands and thousands of deaths, most of us are willing to temporarily give up a bit of civil liberty.
    - digitalbase 5y ago
      temporarily...almost always those measures stay in place much longer
      - oblio 5y ago
        Based on what examples?
        kongin 5y ago
        WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the war on drugs, the war on terror, now the war on covid.
        oblio 5y ago
        I'm trying super hard to decipher your message. Post WW1 didn't erode rights, it actually increased them. Post WW2, the same. Korea and Vietnam didn't leave behind any long term repression that I remember. War on drugs and terror, ok. Covid is a disease. We have vaccines, we'll have treatment. Just get vaccinated. We've had pandemics before, they always end and I can't remember any rights still taken away abusively after the Spanish Flu or SARS or HIV.
        kongin 5y ago
        You are mistaking extending special rights to minority groups with citizens rights. We have been increasing minority rights as fast as possible with removing all the protections from dictatorships in the name of, I don't even know what. >Post WW1 didn't erode rights, it actually increased them. Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 >Post WW2, the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act And on and on. There are libraries written about this, but no one cares because there has been a bi-partisan consensus that citizen's rights need to be curtailed.
        5y ago
- antattack 5y ago
  Can the quarantine be shortened with negative PCR test?
  - adamjb 5y ago
    Unless the exposure site is identified as a low-risk one where contacts are directed to isolate until they get a negative test, no. You have to do a test when going into iso and you have to get a negative test on day 13 to leave it. There have been plenty of cases where the day 13 test is positive, even when the test at the start was negative.
tikwidd 5y ago
You seem to be referring to the South Australia Home Quarantine app [1]. There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about this app recently. I'd just like to clear up some things: The app only applies to people that need to quarantine, not the general population. The app allows people who are required to isolate to opt to do their isolation at home, rather than stay at a quarantine facility. Nobody is being forced to use the app. It is a way for authorities to make sure people are quarantining correctly, and to follow up cases of contact if people break their isolation bubble. Police are not arresting people for failing to check in. (My guess is that they would reset your isolation duration, follow up contacts and/or move you into a managed quarantine). [1] https://www.covid-19.sa.gov.au/home-quarantine-app https://www.covid-19.sa.gov.au/home-quarantine-app
- Palmik 5y ago
  Even if it's "just" for 2 weeks of quarantine, being able to check-in within 15 minutes seems unreasonable. What about taking a nap, taking a bath, cooking, etc.? Many other countries trust their citizens enough that such draconian measures weren't required even at the height of the pandemic. Not to mention now. I'd be curious how violations to check-in are handled in practice.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > What about taking a nap, taking a bath, cooking, etc.? If you fail to check in, they try again a bit later on, if you fail again it falls back to the non app-enabled method of a police check at your home. The app is voluntary and allows you to be at home rather than in a facility, and to not have random police checks. It's a convenience, not an imposition. > Many other countries trust their citizens enough that such draconian measures weren't required even at the height of the pandemic. In some like the UK, that trust was misplaced, and compliance with isolation rules was under 50%. > I'd be curious how violations to check-in are handled in practice. By a second request and then a police visit, the same police visit you'd get if you opted not to use the app at all.
    - iotku 5y ago
WanderPanda 5y ago
The right to bear arms also seems to fit your framework quite well. If the police knocking on your door has to fear that you appear naked that is unpleasent but merely a nuisance. If you could be armed they will probably think twice if it is worth the risk.
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  I think in practice (from the US) they come in with 10 people, guns drawn, in bulletproof vests ready to fire at anything moving just in case which leads to unfortunate deaths which is why 'Swatting' is so dangerous in the US
  - Clubber 5y ago
    They also murder unarmed people with a frequency I'm not comfortable with, so any argument that guns is what makes the police trigger happy has plenty of counter examples of clearly unarmed people getting killed.
    - amcoastal 5y ago
      Yeah but they always think they have a gun, or so they say. It's not always having a gun pointed at you, it's the threat that it could happen. Very real to American police that keep them on edge, where in other countries that risk is lower so there is less sensitivity to a suspect moving there arm near a pocket or behind their back if they are far away from the officer (which makes it naturally harder to see what they are going for). Not saying it's a good thing, it's just a large contributing factor.
      - Clubber 5y ago
        There was recently a video of US police attacking a lady in a wheel chair with a stun gun because she was filming them detaining and being rough with her pregnant daughter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piU6_8y61Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piU6_8y61Q Here's a recent video of a cop throwing a woman to the cement who was in a fight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCKu-0oAaOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCKu-0oAaOk Here's a compilation of nearly 1000 incidents of police brutalizing BLM protestors and reporters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-brutality-protest https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-br... In these incidents the victim was clearly either unarmed or in no way was threatening the police with a firearm. I think that is just yet another excuse the police use to evade prosecution when brutalizing citizens. This is nothing new, here's the police brutalizing citizens protesting in Chicago in 1968. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XzdltsTfvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XzdltsTfvE
pibechorro 5y ago
This.
krzrak 5y ago
> phone check-ins every 15 minutes or they will deploy police to follow up and confirm your location WHAAAAAAAT??
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

adamjb 5y ago

The phone check in thing is for enforcing the two weeks home quarantine for returned travelers and close contacts of confirmed cases. While there are certainly slippery slope arguments to be made, let's not act like we've already slid down it.

slowmotiony 5y ago
> The phone check in thing is for enforcing the two weeks home quarantine for returned travelers and close contacts of confirmed cases. So the government can effectively just inprison you in your own house, with no proof, no recourse and no due process, because they suspect you were near some guy at some particular time some days ago. They don't even ask to get tested first! How can people on hacker news of all places not see this as a massive threat to civil liberty is beyond me.
- jezzzabell 5y ago
  When the alternative is thousands and thousands of deaths, most of us are willing to temporarily give up a bit of civil liberty.
  - digitalbase 5y ago
    temporarily...almost always those measures stay in place much longer
    - oblio 5y ago
      Based on what examples?
      - kongin 5y ago
        WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the war on drugs, the war on terror, now the war on covid.
        oblio 5y ago
        I'm trying super hard to decipher your message. Post WW1 didn't erode rights, it actually increased them. Post WW2, the same. Korea and Vietnam didn't leave behind any long term repression that I remember. War on drugs and terror, ok. Covid is a disease. We have vaccines, we'll have treatment. Just get vaccinated. We've had pandemics before, they always end and I can't remember any rights still taken away abusively after the Spanish Flu or SARS or HIV.
        kongin 5y ago
        You are mistaking extending special rights to minority groups with citizens rights. We have been increasing minority rights as fast as possible with removing all the protections from dictatorships in the name of, I don't even know what. >Post WW1 didn't erode rights, it actually increased them. Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 >Post WW2, the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act And on and on. There are libraries written about this, but no one cares because there has been a bi-partisan consensus that citizen's rights need to be curtailed.
        5y ago
antattack 5y ago
Can the quarantine be shortened with negative PCR test?
- adamjb 5y ago
  Unless the exposure site is identified as a low-risk one where contacts are directed to isolate until they get a negative test, no. You have to do a test when going into iso and you have to get a negative test on day 13 to leave it. There have been plenty of cases where the day 13 test is positive, even when the test at the start was negative.

tikwidd 5y ago

You seem to be referring to the South Australia Home Quarantine app [1]. There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about this app recently. I'd just like to clear up some things: The app only applies to people that need to quarantine, not the general population. The app allows people who are required to isolate to opt to do their isolation at home, rather than stay at a quarantine facility. Nobody is being forced to use the app. It is a way for authorities to make sure people are quarantining correctly, and to follow up cases of contact if people break their isolation bubble. Police are not arresting people for failing to check in. (My guess is that they would reset your isolation duration, follow up contacts and/or move you into a managed quarantine). [1] https://www.covid-19.sa.gov.au/home-quarantine-app https://www.covid-19.sa.gov.au/home-quarantine-app

Palmik 5y ago
Even if it's "just" for 2 weeks of quarantine, being able to check-in within 15 minutes seems unreasonable. What about taking a nap, taking a bath, cooking, etc.? Many other countries trust their citizens enough that such draconian measures weren't required even at the height of the pandemic. Not to mention now. I'd be curious how violations to check-in are handled in practice.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > What about taking a nap, taking a bath, cooking, etc.? If you fail to check in, they try again a bit later on, if you fail again it falls back to the non app-enabled method of a police check at your home. The app is voluntary and allows you to be at home rather than in a facility, and to not have random police checks. It's a convenience, not an imposition. > Many other countries trust their citizens enough that such draconian measures weren't required even at the height of the pandemic. In some like the UK, that trust was misplaced, and compliance with isolation rules was under 50%. > I'd be curious how violations to check-in are handled in practice. By a second request and then a police visit, the same police visit you'd get if you opted not to use the app at all.
  - iotku 5y ago

WanderPanda 5y ago

The right to bear arms also seems to fit your framework quite well. If the police knocking on your door has to fear that you appear naked that is unpleasent but merely a nuisance. If you could be armed they will probably think twice if it is worth the risk.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
I think in practice (from the US) they come in with 10 people, guns drawn, in bulletproof vests ready to fire at anything moving just in case which leads to unfortunate deaths which is why 'Swatting' is so dangerous in the US
- Clubber 5y ago
  They also murder unarmed people with a frequency I'm not comfortable with, so any argument that guns is what makes the police trigger happy has plenty of counter examples of clearly unarmed people getting killed.
  - amcoastal 5y ago
    Yeah but they always think they have a gun, or so they say. It's not always having a gun pointed at you, it's the threat that it could happen. Very real to American police that keep them on edge, where in other countries that risk is lower so there is less sensitivity to a suspect moving there arm near a pocket or behind their back if they are far away from the officer (which makes it naturally harder to see what they are going for). Not saying it's a good thing, it's just a large contributing factor.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      There was recently a video of US police attacking a lady in a wheel chair with a stun gun because she was filming them detaining and being rough with her pregnant daughter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piU6_8y61Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piU6_8y61Q Here's a recent video of a cop throwing a woman to the cement who was in a fight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCKu-0oAaOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCKu-0oAaOk Here's a compilation of nearly 1000 incidents of police brutalizing BLM protestors and reporters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-brutality-protest https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-br... In these incidents the victim was clearly either unarmed or in no way was threatening the police with a firearm. I think that is just yet another excuse the police use to evade prosecution when brutalizing citizens. This is nothing new, here's the police brutalizing citizens protesting in Chicago in 1968. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XzdltsTfvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XzdltsTfvE

pibechorro 5y ago

This.

krzrak 5y ago

> phone check-ins every 15 minutes or they will deploy police to follow up and confirm your location WHAAAAAAAT??

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]