8 ms·

The opening paragraph of the article describes what is actually happening and it's far less ominous that what the comments here suggest. "In an official statem

by amanzi 5y ago

The opening paragraph of the article describes what is actually happening and it's far less ominous that what the comments here suggest. "In an official statement, the State Government announced a contract to a Western Australian (WA) company for $1.1 million to develop a new smartphone app that uses facial recognition and GPS tracking technology to monitor people who are ordered to self-quarantine at home, reported InDaily." So this isn't an app meant to enforce state-wide quarantines or to enforce any additional restrictions or controls on the general public. This app is to enable those who are specifically ordered to self-quarantine (e.g. arriving from a Covid-hotspot, or close contacts of Covid-positive cases) to be able to check-in so that they can self-quarantine at home instead of at a managed isolation facility.

notatoad 5y ago
yeah, there's been a lot of freaking out about this, but it's much less oppressive than being forced to stay in a quarantine hotel.
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  Read out loud what you are saying. You are saying that government ordering you to quarantine in your house, with facial recognition and GPS tracking in your own home, is less oppressive than being forced to stay in one of their quarantine hotels. And you're saying that in response to all the "freaking out" about this. Keep in mind that when quarantined this way, if you fail to respond to their random, RANDOM, pings...they will send police officers to your house to do an in-person quarantine check. And not only that, but these so-called leaders of Australia are celebrating it and rubbing it in Australian faces. Source: Returning travelers quarantining at home will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall explained. “I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-australia-still-liberal-democracy/619940/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a... You see that? South Australians should feel pretty proud that they're the national pilot for this. What an honor.
  - bigiain 5y ago
    > Read out loud what you are saying. You are saying that government ordering you to quarantine in your house, with facial recognition and GPS tracking in your own home, is less oppressive than being forced to stay in one of their quarantine hotels. And you're saying that in response to all the "freaking out" about this. A slightly different reading of what they're saying is: "The government ifs offering to allow you to quarantine in your home instead of the otherwise mandatory 2 week stay in a sealed room in quarantine hotel, if you agree to download and use this app." And given that, rightly or wrongly, many Australian states are charging several thousand dollars for hotel quarantine, it's clearly a choice many people might choose to make.
    - throwawayfear 5y ago
      It is not a choice no matter how often the people defending it insist it's a choice. It's no more a choice than someone holding a gun to your head and asking you which poison you'd like to drink. On what planet do we live, where all of a sudden that statement even in your version of the reading is in ANY way more palatable or reassuring? The government is offering you these choices: 1) Quarantine in a guarded quarantine hotel for two weeks in a sealed room or 2) Quarantine in your home with facial recognition and GPS tracking and random pings that send the police to your home if you do not respond within 15 minutes This is not a choice. This is the government giving you a false dilemma because it's tricking people into tolerating its massively expanded surveillance systems that it wants to build, and the normalization thereof. These things will not go away, just like the narrative until now has constantly shifted to keep the situation ongoing while power continues to consolidate. These systems will be used for worse once they exist.
      - bigiain 5y ago
        > On what planet do we live, where all of a sudden that statement even in your version of the reading is in ANY way more palatable or reassuring? The government is offering you these choices: > 1) Quarantine in a guarded quarantine hotel for two weeks in a sealed room Where I am (Australia, the place where this is happening), right now that is current reality on the planet we live on, and is the _only_ choice offered. I cannot leave Sydney for any reason, without being required to spend two weeks in a sealed room at my own expense. It's not just state or federal borders, it's travel within the state of NSW - I cannot go further than maybe 30-40km in any direction from my house without a "permissible reason" which pretty much means "essential work". Bereavement, family visits, or wanting to stab all my household and neighbours in the face do not count as "permissible reasons". That is, as you rightly allude to, in now way palatable or reassuring. But is is in fact the ground truth where I live. As much as I despise option #2, I would seriously consider making that choice for myself - in spite of the acknowledged normalisation of massive surveillance overreach it would represent.
everettp 5y ago
Moreover, it appears to be an optional way of allowing returned travellers to serve out their quarantine period at a place of their choosing rather than in a state-run, guarded, hotel room, or without regular police visits to their home. I would have thought HN would regard this as a sensible and efficient use of technology.
- umvi 5y ago
  > rather than in a state-run, guarded, hotel room, or without regular police visits to their home Ah yes these are totally normal things for a democratic country to do
  - rossy 5y ago
    Mandatory quarantine is an absolutely reasonable thing to do during a pandemic, and it's not new. Australia did it for the Spanish flu as well.
  - ephextom 5y ago
    Quarantine has been used in all kinds of societies for thousands of years during times of infectious outbreak. It’s described in the Bible, and it was used in the USA during the Spanish Flu. What is the point of quarantine without systems to ensure it is obeyed?
    - hilbert42 5y ago
      Exactly, for the life of me I cannot understand why some people just don't understand that. It's tragic really because many people have lost their lives through the bloodyminded actions of those who who've callous regard for others.
      - throwawayfear 5y ago
        Your post could word for word be used for the opposite narrative too. Many people have lost their lives through the bloodyminded actions of those clamoring for a totalitarian regime and its systems of enslavement.
umvi 5y ago
Still, it lays infrastructure for future abuse. When the covid Zeta mutation comes around, it might be tempting to scale it up to the general public. "Sir, if we make the general public use this, it will save 24% more lives"
- hug 5y ago
  > "Sir, if we make the general public use this, it will save 24% more lives" Oh no saving lives! What a terrible use of tech. Would it make you feel better if I told you that if we save their lives we can serve them more ads?
  - throwawayfear 5y ago
    Do you think they'd roll out tyranny in broad daylight without trying to find a convenient excuse with which to fool the gullible? Of course they'll say it's to save lives. Just like the "think of the children" laws are always supposedly about protecting children. Like Apple and CSAM being obvious surveillance tools being introduced in the name of protecting children.
    - hug 5y ago
      Deaths per capita in Australia is at 10% of the US. If the US had managed to keep things as low as Australia, there would be just under half a million less deaths. Seriously. Half a million. And for that, you won't stay inside your house for two weeks, because you're worried it's a slippery slope of some sort. What need for me to be gullible to think "I'd rather five hundred thousand less of my countrymen had died this year", and not go out? What need for me to be gullible to think that you should do it to? What need for me to be gullible to look at my government forcing you to do it too and saying "that's a good move"? The quarantine system is quite literally saving lives, and the things that we can do to improve that system should be done. This is not trusting the government, and it's not "ignoring tyranny". It's how society ought to work.
      - throwawayfear 5y ago
Teever 5y ago
Why can't they use ankle monitors that they give people who are under house arrest?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- plugger 5y ago
  Because they're not criminals and that's a monitoring system for criminals?

by amanzi 5y ago

notatoad 5y ago

yeah, there's been a lot of freaking out about this, but it's much less oppressive than being forced to stay in a quarantine hotel.

throwawayfear 5y ago
Read out loud what you are saying. You are saying that government ordering you to quarantine in your house, with facial recognition and GPS tracking in your own home, is less oppressive than being forced to stay in one of their quarantine hotels. And you're saying that in response to all the "freaking out" about this. Keep in mind that when quarantined this way, if you fail to respond to their random, RANDOM, pings...they will send police officers to your house to do an in-person quarantine check. And not only that, but these so-called leaders of Australia are celebrating it and rubbing it in Australian faces. Source: Returning travelers quarantining at home will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall explained. “I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-australia-still-liberal-democracy/619940/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a... You see that? South Australians should feel pretty proud that they're the national pilot for this. What an honor.
- bigiain 5y ago
  > Read out loud what you are saying. You are saying that government ordering you to quarantine in your house, with facial recognition and GPS tracking in your own home, is less oppressive than being forced to stay in one of their quarantine hotels. And you're saying that in response to all the "freaking out" about this. A slightly different reading of what they're saying is: "The government ifs offering to allow you to quarantine in your home instead of the otherwise mandatory 2 week stay in a sealed room in quarantine hotel, if you agree to download and use this app." And given that, rightly or wrongly, many Australian states are charging several thousand dollars for hotel quarantine, it's clearly a choice many people might choose to make.
  - throwawayfear 5y ago
    It is not a choice no matter how often the people defending it insist it's a choice. It's no more a choice than someone holding a gun to your head and asking you which poison you'd like to drink. On what planet do we live, where all of a sudden that statement even in your version of the reading is in ANY way more palatable or reassuring? The government is offering you these choices: 1) Quarantine in a guarded quarantine hotel for two weeks in a sealed room or 2) Quarantine in your home with facial recognition and GPS tracking and random pings that send the police to your home if you do not respond within 15 minutes This is not a choice. This is the government giving you a false dilemma because it's tricking people into tolerating its massively expanded surveillance systems that it wants to build, and the normalization thereof. These things will not go away, just like the narrative until now has constantly shifted to keep the situation ongoing while power continues to consolidate. These systems will be used for worse once they exist.
    - bigiain 5y ago
      > On what planet do we live, where all of a sudden that statement even in your version of the reading is in ANY way more palatable or reassuring? The government is offering you these choices: > 1) Quarantine in a guarded quarantine hotel for two weeks in a sealed room Where I am (Australia, the place where this is happening), right now that is current reality on the planet we live on, and is the _only_ choice offered. I cannot leave Sydney for any reason, without being required to spend two weeks in a sealed room at my own expense. It's not just state or federal borders, it's travel within the state of NSW - I cannot go further than maybe 30-40km in any direction from my house without a "permissible reason" which pretty much means "essential work". Bereavement, family visits, or wanting to stab all my household and neighbours in the face do not count as "permissible reasons". That is, as you rightly allude to, in now way palatable or reassuring. But is is in fact the ground truth where I live. As much as I despise option #2, I would seriously consider making that choice for myself - in spite of the acknowledged normalisation of massive surveillance overreach it would represent.

everettp 5y ago

Moreover, it appears to be an optional way of allowing returned travellers to serve out their quarantine period at a place of their choosing rather than in a state-run, guarded, hotel room, or without regular police visits to their home. I would have thought HN would regard this as a sensible and efficient use of technology.

umvi 5y ago
> rather than in a state-run, guarded, hotel room, or without regular police visits to their home Ah yes these are totally normal things for a democratic country to do
- rossy 5y ago
  Mandatory quarantine is an absolutely reasonable thing to do during a pandemic, and it's not new. Australia did it for the Spanish flu as well.
- ephextom 5y ago
  Quarantine has been used in all kinds of societies for thousands of years during times of infectious outbreak. It’s described in the Bible, and it was used in the USA during the Spanish Flu. What is the point of quarantine without systems to ensure it is obeyed?
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    Exactly, for the life of me I cannot understand why some people just don't understand that. It's tragic really because many people have lost their lives through the bloodyminded actions of those who who've callous regard for others.
    - throwawayfear 5y ago
      Your post could word for word be used for the opposite narrative too. Many people have lost their lives through the bloodyminded actions of those clamoring for a totalitarian regime and its systems of enslavement.

umvi 5y ago

Still, it lays infrastructure for future abuse. When the covid Zeta mutation comes around, it might be tempting to scale it up to the general public. "Sir, if we make the general public use this, it will save 24% more lives"

hug 5y ago
> "Sir, if we make the general public use this, it will save 24% more lives" Oh no saving lives! What a terrible use of tech. Would it make you feel better if I told you that if we save their lives we can serve them more ads?
- throwawayfear 5y ago
  Do you think they'd roll out tyranny in broad daylight without trying to find a convenient excuse with which to fool the gullible? Of course they'll say it's to save lives. Just like the "think of the children" laws are always supposedly about protecting children. Like Apple and CSAM being obvious surveillance tools being introduced in the name of protecting children.
  - hug 5y ago
    Deaths per capita in Australia is at 10% of the US. If the US had managed to keep things as low as Australia, there would be just under half a million less deaths. Seriously. Half a million. And for that, you won't stay inside your house for two weeks, because you're worried it's a slippery slope of some sort. What need for me to be gullible to think "I'd rather five hundred thousand less of my countrymen had died this year", and not go out? What need for me to be gullible to think that you should do it to? What need for me to be gullible to look at my government forcing you to do it too and saying "that's a good move"? The quarantine system is quite literally saving lives, and the things that we can do to improve that system should be done. This is not trusting the government, and it's not "ignoring tyranny". It's how society ought to work.
    - throwawayfear 5y ago

Teever 5y ago

Why can't they use ankle monitors that they give people who are under house arrest?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
plugger 5y ago
Because they're not criminals and that's a monitoring system for criminals?