3 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  > 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. What's your alternative? Just let sick people loose into the country, exponentially infecting everyone? I'm in the US, and that strategy did not work out very well. 660K deaths and counting. Quarantine has historically been a sensible, effective way to deal with deadly communicable diseases. I wish the US took it as seriously as Australia and NZ did. EDIT: Crap, I just realized I responded to the article's submitter, someone who's already posted the same ax-grind 30 times to the article's threads. Guess I've been had.
- plugger 5y ago
  It is a choice. You choose to submit to two weeks of quarantine in either hotel quarantine (that you pay for) or at home; OR you choose to stay outside of Western Australia and accept the risk of getting Covid from places where community spread is rife. No one is forcing you to return. In fact, there are few return slots available and many people can't get a flight back to Australia from places like the UK or the US. And yet they still try, because comparatively our life out here in the state of Western Australia (bigger than Texas mind you) is FULL OF FREEDOMS BECAUSE WE'RE COMPLETELY OPEN AND FREE OF COMMUNITY SPREAD.

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.
ryandrake 5y ago
> 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. What's your alternative? Just let sick people loose into the country, exponentially infecting everyone? I'm in the US, and that strategy did not work out very well. 660K deaths and counting. Quarantine has historically been a sensible, effective way to deal with deadly communicable diseases. I wish the US took it as seriously as Australia and NZ did. EDIT: Crap, I just realized I responded to the article's submitter, someone who's already posted the same ax-grind 30 times to the article's threads. Guess I've been had.
plugger 5y ago
It is a choice. You choose to submit to two weeks of quarantine in either hotel quarantine (that you pay for) or at home; OR you choose to stay outside of Western Australia and accept the risk of getting Covid from places where community spread is rife. No one is forcing you to return. In fact, there are few return slots available and many people can't get a flight back to Australia from places like the UK or the US. And yet they still try, because comparatively our life out here in the state of Western Australia (bigger than Texas mind you) is FULL OF FREEDOMS BECAUSE WE'RE COMPLETELY OPEN AND FREE OF COMMUNITY SPREAD.