5 ms·

The average person doesn't care about government snooping. They have a million other worries in their life. Sure, they might watch the news and see a new report

The average person doesn't care about government snooping. They have a million other worries in their life. Sure, they might watch the news and see a new report on a Snowden leak, but they probably don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other, and so they'll just ignore and go on with their daily life.

gilgoomesh 12y ago
I think the average person hears "new terrorism laws", doesn't hear any other words, and is happy because they think it means the government is rounding up brown people and imprisoning them for being brown. As far as I can tell from mainstream journalism here in Australia, that's the top priority for most people. It doesn't matter if the brown people are immigrants, refugees, terrorists or locals.
- logicchains 12y ago
  As an Australian I concur with the parent statement.
- px1999 12y ago
  That's definitely my experience in attempting to deal with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (trying to get tourist visas for my brown de-facto partner); and also my experience when talking to Australians outside my immediate clique. I'm an Australian who lives/works overseas but spends quite a bit of time in Australia, and it's quite sickening to return every 6 months to a more polarised, racist, and terrified public -- and it's sure as hell not Al Qaeda, Daesh or any other external group that's causing the problems, it's the mainstream media.
jjsalamon 12y ago
> The average person doesn't care about government snooping. Last week New Zealand re-elected their head office just days after government spying came to light. The majority of voters don't care. To quote another reddit thread: > The big reveal was actually that New Zealand was conducting mass surveillance of its population when it's PM and gov't promised it wasn't.[1] Last year New Zealand was voted 'freest country.'[2] [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2gf9p3/the_kim_dotcom_big_reveal_is_out_an_email_which/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2gf9p3/the_kim_do... [2] http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=19171 http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.as...
- MattHeard 12y ago
  > after government spying came to light It's complicated. Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald released proof about plans for mass surveillance, but most voters were satisfied with Prime Minister Key's explanation that the plans were not implemented. If the mass surveillance system was implemented, there wasn't any evidence provided from Mr. Snowden's cache of documents. And, like you said, the majority of voters didn't care.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    They covered that in their talk. It 100% was implemented. You can watch the talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA
    - lemming 12y ago
      Really? I watched the talk, I didn't see any evidence or concrete claim that it was actually implemented. I'm 100% against surveillance, BTW. I don't think what Snowden and the PM were saying were so incompatible - it's a word game. Sir Bruce Ferguson (ex head of the GCSB) said on RNZ that surveillance is an agent actively looking at data, so "mass surveillance" would be agents actively looking at 4.4M peoples' data. Clearly that's not happening, so John Key can claim that there's no mass surveillance here with no conflict. Snowden said he routinely saw New Zealanders' data, but the Americans can collect all that data with impunity since we're all filthy foreigners to them - there was no evidence presented that it's the GCSB actually collecting it. This is why surveillance, like tax, needs international laws these days - domestic law is mostly irrelevant unless you're the US. In our case the US can collect our data with no issues since basically all our internet goes through there, and we can just ask them for it if we want it. Everyone can say they're not doing any wrong with no fear of contradiction, and everyone is happy. Except us, of course, because, you know, we're being constantly monitored.
      - jjsalamon 12y ago
        Surveillance aside, You do realize computers can aggregate data? It doesn't take 4 million agents to look at 4 million citizens (or 2 million, or 1 million...). The data can sit there and be deciphered any number of ways. The word game is two sides of a coin.
prawn 12y ago
And when they watch the news, there might be a cursory story about the laws passing, but it's so bland and brief it doesn't stick. There's other news to watch like Grand Final preparations or Brownlow fashion aftermath! Then even if you do care, what can you realistically do?
the_rosentotter 12y ago
"You may not think about politics, but politics think about you."

gilgoomesh 12y ago

I think the average person hears "new terrorism laws", doesn't hear any other words, and is happy because they think it means the government is rounding up brown people and imprisoning them for being brown. As far as I can tell from mainstream journalism here in Australia, that's the top priority for most people. It doesn't matter if the brown people are immigrants, refugees, terrorists or locals.

logicchains 12y ago
As an Australian I concur with the parent statement.
px1999 12y ago
That's definitely my experience in attempting to deal with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (trying to get tourist visas for my brown de-facto partner); and also my experience when talking to Australians outside my immediate clique. I'm an Australian who lives/works overseas but spends quite a bit of time in Australia, and it's quite sickening to return every 6 months to a more polarised, racist, and terrified public -- and it's sure as hell not Al Qaeda, Daesh or any other external group that's causing the problems, it's the mainstream media.

jjsalamon 12y ago

> The average person doesn't care about government snooping. Last week New Zealand re-elected their head office just days after government spying came to light. The majority of voters don't care. To quote another reddit thread: > The big reveal was actually that New Zealand was conducting mass surveillance of its population when it's PM and gov't promised it wasn't.[1] Last year New Zealand was voted 'freest country.'[2] [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2gf9p3/the_kim_dotcom_big_reveal_is_out_an_email_which/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2gf9p3/the_kim_do... [2] http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=19171 http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.as...

MattHeard 12y ago
> after government spying came to light It's complicated. Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald released proof about plans for mass surveillance, but most voters were satisfied with Prime Minister Key's explanation that the plans were not implemented. If the mass surveillance system was implemented, there wasn't any evidence provided from Mr. Snowden's cache of documents. And, like you said, the majority of voters didn't care.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  They covered that in their talk. It 100% was implemented. You can watch the talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA
  - lemming 12y ago
    Really? I watched the talk, I didn't see any evidence or concrete claim that it was actually implemented. I'm 100% against surveillance, BTW. I don't think what Snowden and the PM were saying were so incompatible - it's a word game. Sir Bruce Ferguson (ex head of the GCSB) said on RNZ that surveillance is an agent actively looking at data, so "mass surveillance" would be agents actively looking at 4.4M peoples' data. Clearly that's not happening, so John Key can claim that there's no mass surveillance here with no conflict. Snowden said he routinely saw New Zealanders' data, but the Americans can collect all that data with impunity since we're all filthy foreigners to them - there was no evidence presented that it's the GCSB actually collecting it. This is why surveillance, like tax, needs international laws these days - domestic law is mostly irrelevant unless you're the US. In our case the US can collect our data with no issues since basically all our internet goes through there, and we can just ask them for it if we want it. Everyone can say they're not doing any wrong with no fear of contradiction, and everyone is happy. Except us, of course, because, you know, we're being constantly monitored.
    - jjsalamon 12y ago
      Surveillance aside, You do realize computers can aggregate data? It doesn't take 4 million agents to look at 4 million citizens (or 2 million, or 1 million...). The data can sit there and be deciphered any number of ways. The word game is two sides of a coin.

prawn 12y ago

And when they watch the news, there might be a cursory story about the laws passing, but it's so bland and brief it doesn't stick. There's other news to watch like Grand Final preparations or Brownlow fashion aftermath! Then even if you do care, what can you realistically do?

the_rosentotter 12y ago

"You may not think about politics, but politics think about you."