5 ms·

We can't blame the LNP for all of this. All of the surveillance related bills passed in the last 10 years have been bipartisan. I'd also go as far as to say th

We can't blame the LNP for all of this. All of the surveillance related bills passed in the last 10 years have been bipartisan. I'd also go as far as to say this is what Australians want. Many people believe these laws won't be used against regular citizens and will assist in law enforcement efforts.

ntSean 5y ago
It isn't the LNP or ALP which decide which security laws are implemented. If you'd like an explainer on how security laws such as TOLA are enacted, this channel is a great resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4rT3-GcHgLIHyrzA8RWzA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4rT3-GcHgLIHyrzA8RWzA
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  It's so pathetic that every video I've seen about these issues, most of the videos on that channel you posted and EFA have like 100-200 views. Democracy dying with a whimper. Complacent is an understatement.
vel0city 5y ago
Laws are always used to prosecute criminals. The tricky thing is the definition of criminal can quickly be changed to include you.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  Or with the Access and Disrupt bill, it’s no longer much of a stretch to ‘add and modify’ some illegal material onto your computers and devices…
  - gruez 5y ago
    Doesn't that obviously fall under entrapment?
    - shakna 5y ago
      How would you know it occurred? The approval system for this is secret. It would require that Signals actively come forward and say that they did this, when some other government body finds the material and charges you with a crime. You would need to both know it happened, and be able to prove it happened, and the usual targets for something like this (journalists) can usually only suspect the former at most. It's one of the most dystopian laws I've ever seen.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      Is entrapment a meaningful legal concept in Australia?
      - shakna 5y ago
        Yes, but not as easy a defense as in the US. Since Ridgeway v The Queen ('95). However, entrapment as a legal defense is less an overall a defense and rather a reason to exclude a particular piece of evidence from the case. There will also likely be no punishment for those who attempted the entrapment, even if the evidence ends up being excluded. Australia does have other mechanisms by which something similar may sometimes be used, such as conflict of interest (such as in the Lawyer X trials) are more appropriate defenses, where the US may simply use entrapment.
    - stephen_g 5y ago
      Only if they admitted to doing it… The Access and Disrupt bill isn’t actually to do with evidence gathering. The way I see it happening is one agency would come up with a cover reason to hack you under that bill, which you or even other parts of the Government like the public prosecutor wouldn’t ever know about (it’s secret and there’s no obligation to inform anybody). As far as most people would be able to tell, the Federal Police would have just raided you on an anonymous tip, seized your computers and found material you never knew was there… It’s still heinous misconduct, but they’ve legalised 80% of the process and the level of secrecy around these agencies is so ridiculously high and the accountability so low, so it’s a lot less of a stretch now than it was just months ago - if they really feel you deserve it…
- belter 5y ago
  You can be 100% sure of that: https://twitter.com/i/status/1447169440949309442 https://twitter.com/i/status/1447169440949309442 https://twitter.com/i/status/1441101624471023621 https://twitter.com/i/status/1441101624471023621
caf 5y ago
We absolutely can blame the LNP, because they are the Goverment, they draft the laws, they introduce them as Government bills in the parliament, they put them on the notice paper, they determine the sitting schedule that allows them to be debated and passed, they have the majority on the House committees that scrutinise them and they direct the Governor-General to provide royal assent. They also are the the Ministers that promulgate regulations under those bills and direct their Departments to implement them. The LNP owns this.
- 0xy 5y ago
  How is one party responsible for a bipartisan bill? The opposition vehemently support surveillance laws and have voted for them repeatedly.
  - askvictor 5y ago
    They have done this so they're not portrayed as soft on terror by the (mainly Murdoch) media. Yes, they're complicit, but I doubt they would have instigated this level of law if they were in power (though it's not out of the question).
  - caf 5y ago
    It wasn't a "bipartisan bill". The Opposition had zero input - they moved amendments that were rejected by the Government. I've explained how the LNP is responsible for it - it was their bill, written by them and passed through a process they control. Make no mistake, they had the numbers to pass it regardless of what the Opposition did on the floor. The Opposition's vote either way was merely symbolic - and frankly I find it hard to fault them for making the cynical political calculation that their future political chances could only be hindered by a pointless vote against it.
    - 0xy 5y ago
      In regards to metadata retention, the shadow Comms Minister at the time outright said Labor had no plans to amend or repeal the legislation if elected. I don't buy this "they're secretly anti-surveillance!" line. They are complicit. It's also puzzling how you imply that amending these bills would fix them. As if one more check and balance would make them not a horrific disaster. In fact, Labor's "amendments" to "fix" the AA bill was adding mandatory judge approval for mass surveillance -- sounds fixed to me! Labor are pro surveillance and have been for a very long time. They have voted for every single surveillance bill. Their MPs ignore feedback about surveillance from constituents. Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak. They won't change anything, they support it. The metadata retention bill that Labor vehemently supported has already been viciously abused. Originally touted as being a bill designed to combat terrorism and child abuse, it's now used to investigate things like littering(!!!). Federal police have been caught using it to stalk girlfriends repeatedly. Labor support this.
stephen_g 5y ago
Yes, well that’s why I want some good independents (even Greens would be better than what we have now) holding the balance of power. The two party system isn’t working.
stephen_g 5y ago
They’re the main ones pushing all these laws in. I am disgusted at Labor for their part but the core responsibility is 100% with the current Government. Just look at what’s happening now - in the last few days - Morrison and Joyce claimed they’re going to bring a bill to outlaw anonymous posting on social media sites - for the sole reason that some people were talking about a rumour that the just departed NSW deputy Premier was allegedly having an affair with Joyce’s daughter… That’s just an insane basis for legislation!
- gonzo41 5y ago
  I really want them to try this. I think it'd be fun for Facebook to geoblock all of Australia.
  - jamil7 5y ago
    Wouldn't Facebook love this?
- ImTheMaddest 5y ago
  I didn't make that comment to have a political discussion, only to remark on the public's attitude to surveillance laws. However, I would like to point out the legislation to force people to provide ID to use social media and dating sites has been in the works for some time. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Familyviolence/Report https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hou... Also note ALP's remarks on the bill, which call for sooner action and do not disagree with the report's findings. Again, I'm not here to discuss partisan politics. I am only saying these laws seem to enjoy wide support.
  - softveda 5y ago
    One thing is that the way Australian political parties work is very different to US. In US although president Biden is a democrat not all the senators from his party approve what he wants, they have some independent positions. So there are people in Democrat party who will speak against some policies. That doesn't usually happen in Australia. If it was then opposition can at least try. The few times that has happened in on personal ideological grounds like same sex marriage etc.
naruhodo 5y ago
They are bipartisan, but that does not necessarily imply that Labor would have enacted the same laws if they were the government. They are waving through these laws so that they cannot be portrayed as "weak on security/law-and-order" by a predominantly hostile (read: News Corp) press. It is extremely disappointing to see Labor raise all sorts of concerns about similar legislation and then wave it through anyway when the Libs refuse to make any amendments.

ntSean 5y ago

It isn't the LNP or ALP which decide which security laws are implemented. If you'd like an explainer on how security laws such as TOLA are enacted, this channel is a great resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4rT3-GcHgLIHyrzA8RWzA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4rT3-GcHgLIHyrzA8RWzA

brokenmachine 5y ago
It's so pathetic that every video I've seen about these issues, most of the videos on that channel you posted and EFA have like 100-200 views. Democracy dying with a whimper. Complacent is an understatement.

vel0city 5y ago

Laws are always used to prosecute criminals. The tricky thing is the definition of criminal can quickly be changed to include you.

stephen_g 5y ago
Or with the Access and Disrupt bill, it’s no longer much of a stretch to ‘add and modify’ some illegal material onto your computers and devices…
- gruez 5y ago
  Doesn't that obviously fall under entrapment?
  - shakna 5y ago
    How would you know it occurred? The approval system for this is secret. It would require that Signals actively come forward and say that they did this, when some other government body finds the material and charges you with a crime. You would need to both know it happened, and be able to prove it happened, and the usual targets for something like this (journalists) can usually only suspect the former at most. It's one of the most dystopian laws I've ever seen.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    Is entrapment a meaningful legal concept in Australia?
    - shakna 5y ago
      Yes, but not as easy a defense as in the US. Since Ridgeway v The Queen ('95). However, entrapment as a legal defense is less an overall a defense and rather a reason to exclude a particular piece of evidence from the case. There will also likely be no punishment for those who attempted the entrapment, even if the evidence ends up being excluded. Australia does have other mechanisms by which something similar may sometimes be used, such as conflict of interest (such as in the Lawyer X trials) are more appropriate defenses, where the US may simply use entrapment.
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    Only if they admitted to doing it… The Access and Disrupt bill isn’t actually to do with evidence gathering. The way I see it happening is one agency would come up with a cover reason to hack you under that bill, which you or even other parts of the Government like the public prosecutor wouldn’t ever know about (it’s secret and there’s no obligation to inform anybody). As far as most people would be able to tell, the Federal Police would have just raided you on an anonymous tip, seized your computers and found material you never knew was there… It’s still heinous misconduct, but they’ve legalised 80% of the process and the level of secrecy around these agencies is so ridiculously high and the accountability so low, so it’s a lot less of a stretch now than it was just months ago - if they really feel you deserve it…
belter 5y ago
You can be 100% sure of that: https://twitter.com/i/status/1447169440949309442 https://twitter.com/i/status/1447169440949309442 https://twitter.com/i/status/1441101624471023621 https://twitter.com/i/status/1441101624471023621

caf 5y ago

We absolutely can blame the LNP, because they are the Goverment, they draft the laws, they introduce them as Government bills in the parliament, they put them on the notice paper, they determine the sitting schedule that allows them to be debated and passed, they have the majority on the House committees that scrutinise them and they direct the Governor-General to provide royal assent. They also are the the Ministers that promulgate regulations under those bills and direct their Departments to implement them. The LNP owns this.

0xy 5y ago
How is one party responsible for a bipartisan bill? The opposition vehemently support surveillance laws and have voted for them repeatedly.
- askvictor 5y ago
  They have done this so they're not portrayed as soft on terror by the (mainly Murdoch) media. Yes, they're complicit, but I doubt they would have instigated this level of law if they were in power (though it's not out of the question).
- caf 5y ago
  It wasn't a "bipartisan bill". The Opposition had zero input - they moved amendments that were rejected by the Government. I've explained how the LNP is responsible for it - it was their bill, written by them and passed through a process they control. Make no mistake, they had the numbers to pass it regardless of what the Opposition did on the floor. The Opposition's vote either way was merely symbolic - and frankly I find it hard to fault them for making the cynical political calculation that their future political chances could only be hindered by a pointless vote against it.
  - 0xy 5y ago
    In regards to metadata retention, the shadow Comms Minister at the time outright said Labor had no plans to amend or repeal the legislation if elected. I don't buy this "they're secretly anti-surveillance!" line. They are complicit. It's also puzzling how you imply that amending these bills would fix them. As if one more check and balance would make them not a horrific disaster. In fact, Labor's "amendments" to "fix" the AA bill was adding mandatory judge approval for mass surveillance -- sounds fixed to me! Labor are pro surveillance and have been for a very long time. They have voted for every single surveillance bill. Their MPs ignore feedback about surveillance from constituents. Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak. They won't change anything, they support it. The metadata retention bill that Labor vehemently supported has already been viciously abused. Originally touted as being a bill designed to combat terrorism and child abuse, it's now used to investigate things like littering(!!!). Federal police have been caught using it to stalk girlfriends repeatedly. Labor support this.

stephen_g 5y ago

Yes, well that’s why I want some good independents (even Greens would be better than what we have now) holding the balance of power. The two party system isn’t working.

stephen_g 5y ago

They’re the main ones pushing all these laws in. I am disgusted at Labor for their part but the core responsibility is 100% with the current Government. Just look at what’s happening now - in the last few days - Morrison and Joyce claimed they’re going to bring a bill to outlaw anonymous posting on social media sites - for the sole reason that some people were talking about a rumour that the just departed NSW deputy Premier was allegedly having an affair with Joyce’s daughter… That’s just an insane basis for legislation!

gonzo41 5y ago
I really want them to try this. I think it'd be fun for Facebook to geoblock all of Australia.
- jamil7 5y ago
  Wouldn't Facebook love this?
ImTheMaddest 5y ago
I didn't make that comment to have a political discussion, only to remark on the public's attitude to surveillance laws. However, I would like to point out the legislation to force people to provide ID to use social media and dating sites has been in the works for some time. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Familyviolence/Report https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hou... Also note ALP's remarks on the bill, which call for sooner action and do not disagree with the report's findings. Again, I'm not here to discuss partisan politics. I am only saying these laws seem to enjoy wide support.
- softveda 5y ago
  One thing is that the way Australian political parties work is very different to US. In US although president Biden is a democrat not all the senators from his party approve what he wants, they have some independent positions. So there are people in Democrat party who will speak against some policies. That doesn't usually happen in Australia. If it was then opposition can at least try. The few times that has happened in on personal ideological grounds like same sex marriage etc.

naruhodo 5y ago

They are bipartisan, but that does not necessarily imply that Labor would have enacted the same laws if they were the government. They are waving through these laws so that they cannot be portrayed as "weak on security/law-and-order" by a predominantly hostile (read: News Corp) press. It is extremely disappointing to see Labor raise all sorts of concerns about similar legislation and then wave it through anyway when the Libs refuse to make any amendments.