2 ms·

According to here https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/domestic-travel https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/domestic-tr... there are no

According to here https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/domestic-travel https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/domestic-tr... there are no longer any restrictions on interstate travel related to covid. Rounding a temporary restriction during a crisis up to "that boat has sailed" seems overly dramatic.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
It still mandated that you sign a contract with one of those two companies giving up your right to privacy.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Mandated, if you wanted/needed to travel during a pandemic.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    And de facto mandated if you wanted to enter a shop to get food or groceries. The law said they had to provide a paper sign in, but the only way to get one was to argue with the poor minimum wage worker who had no idea what you were talking about until you got a manager who would just tell you to leave half the time.
kiawe_fire 4y ago
So requiring people accept Google or Apple’s terms and conditions and being forced to own and use one of their products, on a whim, during a crisis, is less egregious than doing so long term? “That ship has sailed” essentially means that it has already happened, and precedent has been set. Which… it has. That it was (initially) done as a temporary measure doesn’t change that.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > on a whim it wasn't on a whim. > ... is less egregious than doing so long term? obviously it is, yes. For example, plenty of people just avoided travel during that time and managed to not have to use an app. If it was ongoing that wouldn't be the case. The precedent that has been set is: if there is ever another crisis of that scale, using a smartphone app to try to mitigate it is one of the options on the table. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

2 ms·

According to here https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/domestic-travel https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/domestic-tr... there are no

by kennywinker 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago
It still mandated that you sign a contract with one of those two companies giving up your right to privacy.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Mandated, if you wanted/needed to travel during a pandemic.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    And de facto mandated if you wanted to enter a shop to get food or groceries. The law said they had to provide a paper sign in, but the only way to get one was to argue with the poor minimum wage worker who had no idea what you were talking about until you got a manager who would just tell you to leave half the time.
kiawe_fire 4y ago
So requiring people accept Google or Apple’s terms and conditions and being forced to own and use one of their products, on a whim, during a crisis, is less egregious than doing so long term? “That ship has sailed” essentially means that it has already happened, and precedent has been set. Which… it has. That it was (initially) done as a temporary measure doesn’t change that.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > on a whim it wasn't on a whim. > ... is less egregious than doing so long term? obviously it is, yes. For example, plenty of people just avoided travel during that time and managed to not have to use an app. If it was ongoing that wouldn't be the case. The precedent that has been set is: if there is ever another crisis of that scale, using a smartphone app to try to mitigate it is one of the options on the table. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.