Australia is becoming a surveillance state(ia.acs.org.au)
ia.acs.org.au
Australia is becoming a surveillance state
https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2021/australia-is-becoming-a-surveillance-state.html
433 comments
I think this is nicely said. I grew up in a Western European country where I was used to most people caring about big societal issues such as health, environment, civil rights and privacy. In most European countries there is real competition between newspapers and an, at least in some places, a tradition of democratic participation.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the “free press” is effectively owned by Rupert Murdoch, the government needs to make voting for federal elections compulsory in order to get people to take a stance / have an opinion (yes, you will get a fine if you don’t vote!), and our leading politicians still debate whether climate change is real or not. What matters to the average John / Jane is not public health, wars, civil rights, or media diversity but whether you get to watch the “footy” on Wednesday nights. I say this as a European who has resettled in Australia and become a citizen. The country has welcomed me and given me a good life style, but how I wish sometimes Australia would wake up to the things that really matter.
I did the opposite, moved to Germany from Australia. Now I look at my home country and im shocked about how things are degrading there
As a German living in Australia, I’m shocked what happened to Germany.
Politics turned to Left-wing/Green party vs AFD and there is no middle ground anymore. The FDP basically disappeared and there’s a cliff in society over things like the refugee crisis and Merkel’s “everyone is welcome here” politics.
If I’d ever come back to Europe, I’d settle in Switzerland. It just is the better Germany(at least to me).
Politics turned to Left-wing/Green party vs AFD and there is no middle ground anymore. The FDP basically disappeared and there’s a cliff in society over things like the refugee crisis and Merkel’s “everyone is welcome here” politics.
If I’d ever come back to Europe, I’d settle in Switzerland. It just is the better Germany(at least to me).
What do you mean the FDP disappeared? They're at >12% in current estimates, which is higher than in the 2017/2013 elections. They've only been ranked higher in 2009 (14.6%, financial crisis), and in 1961 (12.8%).
> Merkel’s “everyone is welcome here” politics.
> I’d settle in Switzerland
Is this intentionally ironic?
Is this intentionally ironic?
> Is this intentionally ironic?
There is no contradiction. If you want to come to Canada, for example, you have to qualify for one of the programs, e.g. "Express Entry". That is, have education or better yet Canadian education, at least bachelor's degree but better PhD, experience or better yet Canadian experience, profession in a shortage list, proficiency of English and French, enough money for a year, be <35 y.o., have a husband/wife who also has all of those. If I have none of those, should I be welcome? What if I'm part of ISIS and has been sent to found an HQ in Toronto? You wouldn't invite everyone to your house indiscriminately. Why would you to your country (and then also feed them and house)?
There is no contradiction. If you want to come to Canada, for example, you have to qualify for one of the programs, e.g. "Express Entry". That is, have education or better yet Canadian education, at least bachelor's degree but better PhD, experience or better yet Canadian experience, profession in a shortage list, proficiency of English and French, enough money for a year, be <35 y.o., have a husband/wife who also has all of those. If I have none of those, should I be welcome? What if I'm part of ISIS and has been sent to found an HQ in Toronto? You wouldn't invite everyone to your house indiscriminately. Why would you to your country (and then also feed them and house)?
Refugees and skilled migration are different things.
Exactly. Germans don’t need a visa to work in Switzerland.
> there is no middle ground anymore
Isn't there a grand coalition in Germany for most of the last 15 years between the center-left and center-right which did very well?
Isn't there a grand coalition in Germany for most of the last 15 years between the center-left and center-right which did very well?
Grand coalition is basically political stand still. That isn't too negative in these times though.
If it „did very well“ is, of course, a matter of your political views but Merkel’s coalition of the largest center right (CDU) und center left party (SPD) is exactly the reason why the political fringe on both ends of the spectrum has been radicalizing in the recent years. Merkel’s conservative voter base crumbles and she keeps on losing to the right.
The social democratic party has been losing voters, too, even more dramatically so to both the right and green/radical left. Both major parties became somewhat co-dependent clinging to their dwindling power over this country.
With all the scaremongering about a growing right wing party like the AfD, many Germans fail to realize its supporters have always been there and never grew in numbers but before Merkel had been represented by a caucus inside the most popular parties. There have been various connections inside the CDU and the “Seeheimer Kreis” in the SPD that have become marginalized during the Merkel years with her overly pragmatic and uninspired way of administering a whole country and not committing to any visible political principles.
As a famous German conservative politician of the 1970s once said: „There must never be a political party establishing itself on the right side of the CDU“ (or it‘ll be the end of its dominating power). Exactly that, leaving room for the AfD, was one of Merkel‘s biggest mistakes and it’s going to haunt Germany‘s politics for many years to come.
With all the scaremongering about a growing right wing party like the AfD, many Germans fail to realize its supporters have always been there and never grew in numbers but before Merkel had been represented by a caucus inside the most popular parties. There have been various connections inside the CDU and the “Seeheimer Kreis” in the SPD that have become marginalized during the Merkel years with her overly pragmatic and uninspired way of administering a whole country and not committing to any visible political principles.
As a famous German conservative politician of the 1970s once said: „There must never be a political party establishing itself on the right side of the CDU“ (or it‘ll be the end of its dominating power). Exactly that, leaving room for the AfD, was one of Merkel‘s biggest mistakes and it’s going to haunt Germany‘s politics for many years to come.
> our leading politicians still debate whether climate change is real or not.
But the Great Barrier Reef is definitely no endangered, because UNESCO says so!!!
Australia is a joke of a country. It's just a Texas with ocean.
But the Great Barrier Reef is definitely no endangered, because UNESCO says so!!!
Australia is a joke of a country. It's just a Texas with ocean.
> Australia is a joke of a country. It's just a Texas with ocean.
Unfortunately it's worse than that, at least Texas has significant fiber infrastructure and quality high-speed Internet, some basic understanding of personal freedom and respect for individual privacy, and low enough property costs and taxes that normal average people can survive comfortably there, not just those blessed with a corporate job. Also in Texas, hobbies aren't banned simply because it might upset some Karens.
Australia is following in the footsteps of the worst facets of China, with also having the worst facets of Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...
Unfortunately it's worse than that, at least Texas has significant fiber infrastructure and quality high-speed Internet, some basic understanding of personal freedom and respect for individual privacy, and low enough property costs and taxes that normal average people can survive comfortably there, not just those blessed with a corporate job. Also in Texas, hobbies aren't banned simply because it might upset some Karens.
Australia is following in the footsteps of the worst facets of China, with also having the worst facets of Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...
> with also having the worst facets of Texas
Excluding the gun deaths and socialised health care of course. Those are two things that Australia has unambiguously gotten right that Texas and/or the US seems incapable of addressing.
Excluding the gun deaths and socialised health care of course. Those are two things that Australia has unambiguously gotten right that Texas and/or the US seems incapable of addressing.
> Australia is a joke of a country. It's just a Texas with ocean.
It's called California.
It's called California.
I can't imagine living in a place where everyone is constantly moralizing about things like "media diversity". How exhausting.
What do you mean by "moralizing"?
To me, "moralizing" is when I tell you to not do something that I don't like but which doesn't directly affect me. Like, don't drink alcohol to excess, or don't cheat at cards, or don't swear in front of kids, or always tell the truth.
I have an opinion that media diversity benefits society, and I don't consider that "moralizing". I consider it caring about my community, and I consider opposing media monopoly to be fighting back against an individual who would denigrate society for his own ends. That's not moralizing - that's standing up for ourselves.
To me, "moralizing" is when I tell you to not do something that I don't like but which doesn't directly affect me. Like, don't drink alcohol to excess, or don't cheat at cards, or don't swear in front of kids, or always tell the truth.
I have an opinion that media diversity benefits society, and I don't consider that "moralizing". I consider it caring about my community, and I consider opposing media monopoly to be fighting back against an individual who would denigrate society for his own ends. That's not moralizing - that's standing up for ourselves.
That's not the definition of "moralizing".
> Moralize definition, to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way
Which is roughly what you (and the rest of the social justice crowd and, apparently, western Europe) just did.
> Moralize definition, to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way
Which is roughly what you (and the rest of the social justice crowd and, apparently, western Europe) just did.
I don't think I'd class "being concerned that the overwhelming majority of the media is owned and controlled by a single individual" as "moralising"
I'd point out the extreme irony of this comment, but I suspect it'll fall on deaf ears.
Nah go on
I think the disconnect tends to be the assumption that "moralizing" is bad, thus if one is justified in their proposal, they aren't moralizing. That isn't the case. To be moralize, you just need to be making an argument on moral grounds, repeatedly.
The abolition (of slavery) movement in the 19th century was a moralizing one. And they were very right!
The irony is when one proclaims not to be moralizing in their argument, but are indeed making a moral argument, insistently, including the insistence they aren't moralizing.
The challenge is that to anyone who doesn't want to hear the message, having something be repeated continuously is frustratingly annoying. And it sure doesn't help any overall movement when specific extremes of that movement, or cherry-picked instances of that movement can be highlighted as representing the whole thing. This is certainly factor in the increasing polarization of society, for if the other-side is full of moralizing assholes, why should I bother listening to them? Especially if they are just going to keep repeating their same tired BS? This can apply to both sides of some many contemporary debates - independent of the merit of either side!
The abolition (of slavery) movement in the 19th century was a moralizing one. And they were very right!
The irony is when one proclaims not to be moralizing in their argument, but are indeed making a moral argument, insistently, including the insistence they aren't moralizing.
The challenge is that to anyone who doesn't want to hear the message, having something be repeated continuously is frustratingly annoying. And it sure doesn't help any overall movement when specific extremes of that movement, or cherry-picked instances of that movement can be highlighted as representing the whole thing. This is certainly factor in the increasing polarization of society, for if the other-side is full of moralizing assholes, why should I bother listening to them? Especially if they are just going to keep repeating their same tired BS? This can apply to both sides of some many contemporary debates - independent of the merit of either side!
> the government needs to make voting for federal elections compulsory in order to get people to take a stance / have an opinion (yes, you will get a fine if you don’t vote!)
This seems like such a bad idea. Ideally, the democratic process taps ‘the wisdom of crowds’ and allows a society to make reasonable decisions. But all human beings are not capable of contributing to good decision making. Roughly the 15% of people have IQs below 85, making them effectively mentally retarded. And beyond that, a huge number of people are grossly uninformed about contemporary political issues, history, science, etc. The best contribution that some folks can make to the democratic process is not participating in the democratic process.
Moreover, if you force the unintelligent and uninformed to vote, you’re empowering the media to run the country. When someone’s politics are uninformed by firmly held principals and a solid understanding of history and current events, they will be more susceptible to be steered by biased media.
This seems like such a bad idea. Ideally, the democratic process taps ‘the wisdom of crowds’ and allows a society to make reasonable decisions. But all human beings are not capable of contributing to good decision making. Roughly the 15% of people have IQs below 85, making them effectively mentally retarded. And beyond that, a huge number of people are grossly uninformed about contemporary political issues, history, science, etc. The best contribution that some folks can make to the democratic process is not participating in the democratic process.
Moreover, if you force the unintelligent and uninformed to vote, you’re empowering the media to run the country. When someone’s politics are uninformed by firmly held principals and a solid understanding of history and current events, they will be more susceptible to be steered by biased media.
I'm Australian. Respectfully, you're totally wrong.
Government should be for everyone. Parties should have a platform that is for a majority. For the most part, Australia has populist fairly centrist small c conservative governments.
It's getting bad at the moment here mostly because the current governing party is past due for it's turn on the opposition benches. And it also seems that everyone's having a go at being corrupt at the moment. Hopefully we get ontop of that.
Anyway, folk with low IQ's making bad choices isn't really a problem. We have optional preferential voting (rank choice), it's hard enough to make an informed decision above or below the line each time and I do research!
Most of the uniformed, just vote along family lines.
Anyway, everyone has a right to vote and a duty in some respect. Making it harder for some, by making it opt in, will lead to more problems then having disengaged voters participating in haphazard ways.
Government should be for everyone. Parties should have a platform that is for a majority. For the most part, Australia has populist fairly centrist small c conservative governments.
It's getting bad at the moment here mostly because the current governing party is past due for it's turn on the opposition benches. And it also seems that everyone's having a go at being corrupt at the moment. Hopefully we get ontop of that.
Anyway, folk with low IQ's making bad choices isn't really a problem. We have optional preferential voting (rank choice), it's hard enough to make an informed decision above or below the line each time and I do research!
Most of the uniformed, just vote along family lines.
Anyway, everyone has a right to vote and a duty in some respect. Making it harder for some, by making it opt in, will lead to more problems then having disengaged voters participating in haphazard ways.
> Anyway, folk with low IQ's making bad choices isn't really a problem.
You don't seek out the advice of the mentally retarded when making personal decisions. Why would you do so when determining how to run your society?
> Most of the uniformed, just vote along family lines.
The point of a democratic elections is to get the considered input of the population. People who 'just vote along family lines' are noise in the signal. If they want to, then fine. But why would you force them to contribute their arbitrary, uninformed opinions?
> Anyway, everyone has a right to vote and a duty in some respect.
Of course they do.
> Making it harder for some, by making it opt in, will lead to more problems then having disengaged voters participating in haphazard ways.
This is nonsense. Forcing older kids to go to school doesn't result in more engaged school-kids, it results in rooms full of angry, disengaged kids who cause problems for the people who want to be there. Similarly, forcing people to vote just adds a bunch of random votes to the pile.
Democracy is a great thing. But democracy doesn't work because more human hands touching ballots makes for better government--it works because you can get good advice by asking the input of a large number of responsible, conscientious people.
We know that the least educated among us are the least likely to vote. We also know that IQ predicts academic achievement. So why would you go out of your way to increase the proportion of Prec
You don't seek out the advice of the mentally retarded when making personal decisions. Why would you do so when determining how to run your society?
> Most of the uniformed, just vote along family lines.
The point of a democratic elections is to get the considered input of the population. People who 'just vote along family lines' are noise in the signal. If they want to, then fine. But why would you force them to contribute their arbitrary, uninformed opinions?
> Anyway, everyone has a right to vote and a duty in some respect.
Of course they do.
> Making it harder for some, by making it opt in, will lead to more problems then having disengaged voters participating in haphazard ways.
This is nonsense. Forcing older kids to go to school doesn't result in more engaged school-kids, it results in rooms full of angry, disengaged kids who cause problems for the people who want to be there. Similarly, forcing people to vote just adds a bunch of random votes to the pile.
Democracy is a great thing. But democracy doesn't work because more human hands touching ballots makes for better government--it works because you can get good advice by asking the input of a large number of responsible, conscientious people.
We know that the least educated among us are the least likely to vote. We also know that IQ predicts academic achievement. So why would you go out of your way to increase the proportion of Prec
Re: voting, it's not a "right" if it's compulsory. It's an obligation.
It's easy to forget that every right comes with obligation.
Say you have the right to own property. That comes with the obligation to respect other people's property. And so on.
When a right comes obligations it isn't a right. It's a privilege. That's the stuff kings used to have (and still have, in some places).
Say you have the right to own property. That comes with the obligation to respect other people's property. And so on.
When a right comes obligations it isn't a right. It's a privilege. That's the stuff kings used to have (and still have, in some places).
Technically, you have the right not to vote in Australia, but you must still show up and collect a ballot paper. You can leave it blank, or scribble anything on it.
What's the practical meaningful difference between exercising your right to not vote, vs fulfilling your obligation to vote by showing up to the polling place and drawing dicks on the ballot paper?
Pretend you're an Australian and have a long tradition of fining people minor sums of money for not showing up. Why would you change to non-compulsory voting?
Pretend you're an Australian and have a long tradition of fining people minor sums of money for not showing up. Why would you change to non-compulsory voting?
Your scenario also needs to account for free sausage sandwiches. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_sausage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_sausage
It is not clear from your comment if you really believe the village idiot should vote; that is 15% of the population or even more, in some cases. Having the right to vote ... still in doubt, but expecting their participation to decision making - hell no. It is just about realism and competence, when you go to a doctor's office for a consultation you ask for the competent doctor to respond or you ask everyone in the building to vote your diagnostic? A significant part of the population is not competent enough to vote.
>Roughly the 15% of people have IQs below 85, making them effectively mentally retarded. And beyond that, a huge number of people are grossly uninformed about contemporary political issues, history, science, etc. The best contribution that some folks can make to the democratic process is not participating in the democratic process.
You're thinking of the role of democracy as a way to solve problems, but it also plays a role in fairly allocating resources between sectors of society. The IQ < 85 demographic might not seem valuable to the IQ > 115 demographic, but in fact that is why they need to vote, to counterbalance the self-interest of the IQ > 115 demographic. Likewise, PhDs in political science might be prone to think that highschool dropouts are not valuable contributors, but that is exactly why highschool dropouts need to vote - to counterbalance the will of the political science PhDs to support policies that only help PhDs.
You're thinking of the role of democracy as a way to solve problems, but it also plays a role in fairly allocating resources between sectors of society. The IQ < 85 demographic might not seem valuable to the IQ > 115 demographic, but in fact that is why they need to vote, to counterbalance the self-interest of the IQ > 115 demographic. Likewise, PhDs in political science might be prone to think that highschool dropouts are not valuable contributors, but that is exactly why highschool dropouts need to vote - to counterbalance the will of the political science PhDs to support policies that only help PhDs.
The paternalistic argument is that the low-IQ voters will be misled, and vote _against_ their own interests. That they just will vote for whatever higher-IQ group can best market to them, and will get a basket of outcomes that is, at best, indifferent to their specific needs. This argument is very dismissive the agency of these individuals.
I would argue that largely happens today, but not on the basis of IQ. Large chunks of western countries believe all sorts of (what I would consider) crazy things. And IQ isn't the driving force of belief here.
None of this is an argument to disenfranchise segments of the populace. But it is also increasingly naive to believe that voters vote on the basis of rational self-interest, and we need to have serious discussions about how to counter the forces that drive that, be it IQ, misinformation, in-group/out-group dynamics and more.
I would argue that largely happens today, but not on the basis of IQ. Large chunks of western countries believe all sorts of (what I would consider) crazy things. And IQ isn't the driving force of belief here.
None of this is an argument to disenfranchise segments of the populace. But it is also increasingly naive to believe that voters vote on the basis of rational self-interest, and we need to have serious discussions about how to counter the forces that drive that, be it IQ, misinformation, in-group/out-group dynamics and more.
I think your point here would be far stronger without the intelligence argument. I don't want to tell someone they can't vote because they didn't pass an IQ test threshold.
> I don't want to tell someone they can't vote because they didn't pass an IQ test threshold.
You've misunderstood my comment. I'm not saying that we should prevent unintelligent people from voting, I'm saying we shouldn't actively seek out their input by compelling them to vote.
We know that poorly educated people are the least likely to vote, and we know that educational achievement correlates strongly with IQ--so by requiring voting, you will be significantly increasing the proportion of voters who are not intellectually capable of making an informed decision about how we can run a society.
You do not seek out the advice of the least intelligent people you know. Even if, out of a stubborn commitment to egalitarian ideals, you did ask for their advice, you'd be a fool to weight it equally with the people who you hold in high regard. So why the hell would we, as a society, choose to do so by compelling the vote?
You've misunderstood my comment. I'm not saying that we should prevent unintelligent people from voting, I'm saying we shouldn't actively seek out their input by compelling them to vote.
We know that poorly educated people are the least likely to vote, and we know that educational achievement correlates strongly with IQ--so by requiring voting, you will be significantly increasing the proportion of voters who are not intellectually capable of making an informed decision about how we can run a society.
You do not seek out the advice of the least intelligent people you know. Even if, out of a stubborn commitment to egalitarian ideals, you did ask for their advice, you'd be a fool to weight it equally with the people who you hold in high regard. So why the hell would we, as a society, choose to do so by compelling the vote?
You don't need to tell them they can't vote, you just need to tell them there is free beer at the footy on that day /s
Well, elections usually happen around the AFL and Rugby finals, so there's a fair bit of drinking happening. So why not vote, get a snag and then get drunk. Seems like a win win for everyone.
Correct.
There is a natural experiment on this. See which countries have compulsory voting and see how they have fared since. The results are not pretty.
On the flipside, the strongest "free" countries, switzerland and USA, have had voluntary parricipation since time immemorial...
There is a natural experiment on this. See which countries have compulsory voting and see how they have fared since. The results are not pretty.
On the flipside, the strongest "free" countries, switzerland and USA, have had voluntary parricipation since time immemorial...
Wait till you hear about what the IQ > 130 demographic think of the IQ <= 130 demographic and what the IQ > 140 demographic think of the IQ <= 140 demographic.
>Since leaving Australia (and started living in Europe) I have come to the conclusion that Australia is not a "real" country - it is just a continent owned by corporate interests that happens to also have people living on it.
I haven't thought of it exactly like that, but I appreciate (whilst shuddering) your take on things.
I basically see it in a similar way, that its a sinking stepping stone the UK was using to get further ahead, but lost its hold/interest because of US dominance (which the UK kind of gave birth to in a strange way due to its self-important superiority complex).
It still seems to me like they're trying to squeeze all the value out of it onto other continents (or tiny tax havens) and multinational corporations so that nothing of value is left [1]. Whilst doing it with just enough plausible deniability (e.g. the stolen generation) and fake sincerity to try to pass as genuine.
Unfortunately I still live here.
I'm not a beach person, it's not my SOMA. Instead of Brave New World or 1984, I think it'll end up more like V for Vendetta. Unfortunately they seemed to be astute enough to put our Federal parliament house in the middle of a roundabout in an arbitrary out of the way place called Canberra.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW_65A-nLoo
I haven't thought of it exactly like that, but I appreciate (whilst shuddering) your take on things.
I basically see it in a similar way, that its a sinking stepping stone the UK was using to get further ahead, but lost its hold/interest because of US dominance (which the UK kind of gave birth to in a strange way due to its self-important superiority complex).
It still seems to me like they're trying to squeeze all the value out of it onto other continents (or tiny tax havens) and multinational corporations so that nothing of value is left [1]. Whilst doing it with just enough plausible deniability (e.g. the stolen generation) and fake sincerity to try to pass as genuine.
Unfortunately I still live here.
I'm not a beach person, it's not my SOMA. Instead of Brave New World or 1984, I think it'll end up more like V for Vendetta. Unfortunately they seemed to be astute enough to put our Federal parliament house in the middle of a roundabout in an arbitrary out of the way place called Canberra.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW_65A-nLoo
> I think it'll end up more like V for Vendetta.
I also love to read this kind of parallel between fiction and reality. However, when you have some experience working in defense you find out reality is more like: there's real criminal to catch, real victims to protect and to save, it's not like we have any time for non critical stuff such as going after pacific dissidents, and controlling all the medias like in V would be so much work and pointless it's not even considered.
About Exxon, well international finance is particularly hard indeed which you'll find out quite fast you start working in the AML sector, but guess what we* are making progress. But let's face it as scientists: there will be no silver bullet. All we have left is to compare cost/benefit ratios of different compromises. As such, you will always find a single case of something to complain about on some tech forum if that's what you get your kicks from.
*we: people who are actively working on it rather than complaining anonymously about single cases and making generalities about it in order to propagate some agitation on some obscure tech forum to predict a future like in a teenager comic book
It's funny here, users complain about Exxon and others having unethical behaviors or even breaking the law, I relate to that, but at the same time they are against using tech they create to increase security. How do you live in such a contradiction? Not to mention mass surveillance will create tech jobs you are probably part of the small number of people who can apply and get hired and actually work on it with their own ethic.
I also love to read this kind of parallel between fiction and reality. However, when you have some experience working in defense you find out reality is more like: there's real criminal to catch, real victims to protect and to save, it's not like we have any time for non critical stuff such as going after pacific dissidents, and controlling all the medias like in V would be so much work and pointless it's not even considered.
About Exxon, well international finance is particularly hard indeed which you'll find out quite fast you start working in the AML sector, but guess what we* are making progress. But let's face it as scientists: there will be no silver bullet. All we have left is to compare cost/benefit ratios of different compromises. As such, you will always find a single case of something to complain about on some tech forum if that's what you get your kicks from.
*we: people who are actively working on it rather than complaining anonymously about single cases and making generalities about it in order to propagate some agitation on some obscure tech forum to predict a future like in a teenager comic book
It's funny here, users complain about Exxon and others having unethical behaviors or even breaking the law, I relate to that, but at the same time they are against using tech they create to increase security. How do you live in such a contradiction? Not to mention mass surveillance will create tech jobs you are probably part of the small number of people who can apply and get hired and actually work on it with their own ethic.
> However, when you have some experience working in defense you find out reality is more like: there's real criminal to catch, real victims to protect and to save, it's not like we have any time for non critical stuff such as going after pacific dissidents
This is wildly self-serving. Security services all over the world absolutely go after dissidents and whistle-blower and many other undesirables. Just look at the COINTELPRO papers in the USA to see this, for a well documented historic example from a free country - not only were security services investigating peaceful protesters, they were actively infiltrating, trying to coerce them to commit crimes, blackmailing MLK into committing suicide, they payed for the assassination of the Black Panthers leader and many others.
Or look at the recent 'governor kidnapping plot', bravely foiled by intelligence services, who were actually 10 of the 12 people in on the 'plot'...
> at the same time they are against using tech they create to increase security. How do you live in such a contradiction? Not to mention mass surveillance will create tech jobs you are probably part of the small number of people who can apply and get hired and actually work on it with their own ethic.
A solution to a problem can be worse than the problem. I am all for solutions to the huge number of car fatalities, but that doesn't mean I support banning cars, even though that would fix the problem. Surveillance states create way more problems than they solve, and are invariably used against political minorities. The ethics of individual operators are irrelevant - if the institutional drive is there, workers will be selected until they match the institutional drive.
This is wildly self-serving. Security services all over the world absolutely go after dissidents and whistle-blower and many other undesirables. Just look at the COINTELPRO papers in the USA to see this, for a well documented historic example from a free country - not only were security services investigating peaceful protesters, they were actively infiltrating, trying to coerce them to commit crimes, blackmailing MLK into committing suicide, they payed for the assassination of the Black Panthers leader and many others.
Or look at the recent 'governor kidnapping plot', bravely foiled by intelligence services, who were actually 10 of the 12 people in on the 'plot'...
> at the same time they are against using tech they create to increase security. How do you live in such a contradiction? Not to mention mass surveillance will create tech jobs you are probably part of the small number of people who can apply and get hired and actually work on it with their own ethic.
A solution to a problem can be worse than the problem. I am all for solutions to the huge number of car fatalities, but that doesn't mean I support banning cars, even though that would fix the problem. Surveillance states create way more problems than they solve, and are invariably used against political minorities. The ethics of individual operators are irrelevant - if the institutional drive is there, workers will be selected until they match the institutional drive.
The Chinese are doing it as part of 'reformatting' Hong Kong, but it happens in our own backyards as well [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22yqoDs1_TE
In our current world societies the university students are the most important visible protestors, because they're the smartest people that have the most to lose from incoming forced change. They're young and they see personal freedom disappearing.
However given the recent selling out nature of universities in Australia, we might lose this early-warning signal too...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22yqoDs1_TE
In our current world societies the university students are the most important visible protestors, because they're the smartest people that have the most to lose from incoming forced change. They're young and they see personal freedom disappearing.
However given the recent selling out nature of universities in Australia, we might lose this early-warning signal too...
Students are hardly the smartest people, unless you believe that growing up and acquiring decades of practical experience actually makes you dumber.
Canada: A "filmmaker" claims that one of the police officers had a rock in their hand, why would I believe a "documentary filmmaker" without any actual evidence (you'd expect a video evidence from the guy) participating in a protest more than actual police officers? or than the minister of public safety? or than the journalist who obviously could not verify it and as such did no mention it?
There's only one logical reason that comes to my mind: because you want to, like the person who choose the title "Canadian Undercover Police Officers Caught Trying to Start a Riot", that's not an honest title, "Canadian Filmmaker Pretends Police Officers Tried to Start a Riot" would have been actually honest. Who's manipulating who now?
Nice description under the video too, but it's only one side of the story: we also hold tons of evidence that people actually lie and plan to lie just to cause agitation, protests and so on. Is that something that you would be interested in as well? Or are you just interested in "anything against the elected government"?
Canada: A "filmmaker" claims that one of the police officers had a rock in their hand, why would I believe a "documentary filmmaker" without any actual evidence (you'd expect a video evidence from the guy) participating in a protest more than actual police officers? or than the minister of public safety? or than the journalist who obviously could not verify it and as such did no mention it?
There's only one logical reason that comes to my mind: because you want to, like the person who choose the title "Canadian Undercover Police Officers Caught Trying to Start a Riot", that's not an honest title, "Canadian Filmmaker Pretends Police Officers Tried to Start a Riot" would have been actually honest. Who's manipulating who now?
Nice description under the video too, but it's only one side of the story: we also hold tons of evidence that people actually lie and plan to lie just to cause agitation, protests and so on. Is that something that you would be interested in as well? Or are you just interested in "anything against the elected government"?
I just posted a video. You react with a lot of minimal information. Heed my earlier comment about all the pieces. (I am guilty of this behaviour too).
If you dig deeper, there are(/were?) other video sources that had the union leader saying things along the lines of "this guys not with us, we don't know who he is, take of your mask and protest peacefully like the rest of us". The Canadian police got caught out trying to incite things presumably for political grandstanding.
Trust in authority is broken for those of us aware enough of it.
The students have the most 'potential future value' to lose, that's why they fight the most. They're fighting for the possibility to be the smartest rather than have it denied and have their freedoms conformed by the powers that are attempting to dictate.
If you dig deeper, there are(/were?) other video sources that had the union leader saying things along the lines of "this guys not with us, we don't know who he is, take of your mask and protest peacefully like the rest of us". The Canadian police got caught out trying to incite things presumably for political grandstanding.
Trust in authority is broken for those of us aware enough of it.
The students have the most 'potential future value' to lose, that's why they fight the most. They're fighting for the possibility to be the smartest rather than have it denied and have their freedoms conformed by the powers that are attempting to dictate.
> If you dig deeper, there are(/were?) other video sources that had the union leader saying things along the lines of "this guys not with us, we don't know who he is, take of your mask and protest peacefully like the rest of us".
It's actually in the video you posted so I've seen it. They were there with masks, they were not protesting, but they were standing peacefully: that is what I see in the video.
> The Canadian police got caught out trying to incite things
That's why I was talking about the "rock in their hands" part of the story because that's the only part that would be valuable at all to support the claim that they were there to "incite".
But actually you're probably wondering about the reason why they are dressed like other violent protesters (which we can see in an earlier part of the video in another street), there's a reason for that, and it's pretty simple: it makes it easier to catch them. And when you do you're burned so it's not like the costume is going to last forever.
Why did they then go to the peaceful street then? Because they were expecting the violent protesters from the other street to refuge there and take off their masks and blend in with the peaceful protesters. By being there first they could have caught them, but the "peaceful protestors" who "caught them" didn't let them do their job.
I don't believe one second that they did that to incite things, that they would be throwing rocks at their own colleagues, and have seen absolutely no reason let alone any evidence to think otherwise.
But even if their presence did incite you, then you would get caught extremely fast, and that would probably be a better ending for everybody including yourself, before you become a bigger danger.
It's actually in the video you posted so I've seen it. They were there with masks, they were not protesting, but they were standing peacefully: that is what I see in the video.
> The Canadian police got caught out trying to incite things
That's why I was talking about the "rock in their hands" part of the story because that's the only part that would be valuable at all to support the claim that they were there to "incite".
But actually you're probably wondering about the reason why they are dressed like other violent protesters (which we can see in an earlier part of the video in another street), there's a reason for that, and it's pretty simple: it makes it easier to catch them. And when you do you're burned so it's not like the costume is going to last forever.
Why did they then go to the peaceful street then? Because they were expecting the violent protesters from the other street to refuge there and take off their masks and blend in with the peaceful protesters. By being there first they could have caught them, but the "peaceful protestors" who "caught them" didn't let them do their job.
I don't believe one second that they did that to incite things, that they would be throwing rocks at their own colleagues, and have seen absolutely no reason let alone any evidence to think otherwise.
But even if their presence did incite you, then you would get caught extremely fast, and that would probably be a better ending for everybody including yourself, before you become a bigger danger.
I found the video I actually wanted to post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6cdLNWzlI
This is what happens when you don't have continuity/all the pieces.
Watch it and weep. Welcome to the misinformation age. John Perry-Barlow was right.
This was from 2011. They've presumably gotten a lot better at it now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6cdLNWzlI
This is what happens when you don't have continuity/all the pieces.
Watch it and weep. Welcome to the misinformation age. John Perry-Barlow was right.
This was from 2011. They've presumably gotten a lot better at it now.
All right, we can see he has a rock in his hand in that video, however...
He's facing the crowd of actually masked protesters, surveilling them which is probably why he got caught, they completely outnumber him, which makes me thinks it's probably better for his defense to hold a rock in his hands.
I mean, look at this crowd of masked people, some even wearing gasmasks, holding red flags, with god knows what in their backpacks, claiming that the infiltrated agents are there to "provoke them", what a joke of bad faith.
You don't want them to do that? Letting them do more preventive surveillance would be a solution then, that'd be an upgrade for everyone. But you don't want that either so I guess we're stuck in this status quo.
He's facing the crowd of actually masked protesters, surveilling them which is probably why he got caught, they completely outnumber him, which makes me thinks it's probably better for his defense to hold a rock in his hands.
I mean, look at this crowd of masked people, some even wearing gasmasks, holding red flags, with god knows what in their backpacks, claiming that the infiltrated agents are there to "provoke them", what a joke of bad faith.
You don't want them to do that? Letting them do more preventive surveillance would be a solution then, that'd be an upgrade for everyone. But you don't want that either so I guess we're stuck in this status quo.
Just took a quick look at COINTELPRO (1956–1971) and we're going to have to disagree that their priority was "investigating peaceful protesters", but rather "violent groups threatening national security" when I read: Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, Black Power, Nation of Islam, Young Lords ... Does that mean COINTELPRO was flawless? Certainly not, but pretty founded IMHO.
There's also the communist party, well I guess that's over now you're absolutely free to be communist, same goes for feminism.
And the groups in question have all won, their ideologies have won, you know have blacks, muslims, feminists, communists inside probably every government agency - even though, they will probably not be extremists, and love their country.
If these ideologies have won, and that freedom has stabilized for everyone, what's the point of going into yet another civil war now? If you agree it's pointless, then why are you afraid that the government would go after you if you are not dangerous?
You're saying the ethics of individual operators are irrelevant, does that mean you think that the ethic of Minutemen was irrelevant? It's half the story from my point of view, even you are criticizing their ethics ("trying to coerce into committing crimes").
Psychological warfare goes both ways you know, for a government to try to counter it seems pretty sane to me. It's not like you're not free nor have many means to publish all the agitation propaganda you want these days.
But we get it, you just want to keep your tech to overthrow elected governments instead helping the government to protect your family and people, because "solutions can create more problems than they solve": let's not do anything about our security problems and let's especially not try more tech nor tech upgrades.
There's also the communist party, well I guess that's over now you're absolutely free to be communist, same goes for feminism.
And the groups in question have all won, their ideologies have won, you know have blacks, muslims, feminists, communists inside probably every government agency - even though, they will probably not be extremists, and love their country.
If these ideologies have won, and that freedom has stabilized for everyone, what's the point of going into yet another civil war now? If you agree it's pointless, then why are you afraid that the government would go after you if you are not dangerous?
You're saying the ethics of individual operators are irrelevant, does that mean you think that the ethic of Minutemen was irrelevant? It's half the story from my point of view, even you are criticizing their ethics ("trying to coerce into committing crimes").
Psychological warfare goes both ways you know, for a government to try to counter it seems pretty sane to me. It's not like you're not free nor have many means to publish all the agitation propaganda you want these days.
But we get it, you just want to keep your tech to overthrow elected governments instead helping the government to protect your family and people, because "solutions can create more problems than they solve": let's not do anything about our security problems and let's especially not try more tech nor tech upgrades.
We're going backwards.
I was mainly thinking of us approaching the 'state of the nation' in the comic/movie before 'V' etc. started fighting back. Not the whole interrupted broadcast attack part.
Things have mostly worked out pretty well for Keith Rupert Murdoch, although he's getting pretty old now. Unfortunately he is nothing like 'V'.
With regards to AML: You can't tell if you're making progress if you don't have all the pieces.
Your last paragraph is nonsense and your using it to justify your own identity. Your last sentence terrifies me. It means you have no idea whats going on either and have sold out or bought in to something you don't completely understand.
I was mainly thinking of us approaching the 'state of the nation' in the comic/movie before 'V' etc. started fighting back. Not the whole interrupted broadcast attack part.
Things have mostly worked out pretty well for Keith Rupert Murdoch, although he's getting pretty old now. Unfortunately he is nothing like 'V'.
With regards to AML: You can't tell if you're making progress if you don't have all the pieces.
Your last paragraph is nonsense and your using it to justify your own identity. Your last sentence terrifies me. It means you have no idea whats going on either and have sold out or bought in to something you don't completely understand.
> I was mainly thinking of us approaching the 'state of the nation' in the comic/movie before 'V' etc. started fighting back. Not the whole interrupted broadcast attack part.
You're still daydreaming about civil war, maybe that's why you're so scared of your own ethics?
> With regards to AML: You can't tell if you're making progress if you don't have all the pieces.
Yes, I can tell there are many competent people working daily on the AML problems, more tech is created, more laws are created, more offenders get caught: and I dare call that "making progress".
It's actually a striving sector because financial institutions such as banks get fined for when they don't try their best and that itself creates a lot of budget to make even more progress.
> Your last paragraph is nonsense and your using it to justify your own identity. Your last sentence terrifies me. It means you have no idea whats going on either and have sold out or bought in to something you don't completely understand.
Absolutely, you're part of the little number of people who are aware and know, and I'm part of the majority of ignorant people. Nice argumentation by the way! (jk, you're just meaninglessly trying to maintain the status quo).
You're still daydreaming about civil war, maybe that's why you're so scared of your own ethics?
> With regards to AML: You can't tell if you're making progress if you don't have all the pieces.
Yes, I can tell there are many competent people working daily on the AML problems, more tech is created, more laws are created, more offenders get caught: and I dare call that "making progress".
It's actually a striving sector because financial institutions such as banks get fined for when they don't try their best and that itself creates a lot of budget to make even more progress.
> Your last paragraph is nonsense and your using it to justify your own identity. Your last sentence terrifies me. It means you have no idea whats going on either and have sold out or bought in to something you don't completely understand.
Absolutely, you're part of the little number of people who are aware and know, and I'm part of the majority of ignorant people. Nice argumentation by the way! (jk, you're just meaninglessly trying to maintain the status quo).
You can just pretend to be the narrator if it will make you feel better.
> Not to mention mass surveillance will create tech jobs you are probably part of the small number of people who can apply and get hired and actually work on it with their own ethic.
Please, give me access to a surveillance codebase. I’ll do everything in my power to destroy it and it’s backups.
Please, give me access to a surveillance codebase. I’ll do everything in my power to destroy it and it’s backups.
Australia's covid policy of indefinitely banning citizens from leaving was the last straw for me. I won't be back.
Most rights end at a nation's border and most rights are a balance of conflicting interests. The former may be wrong, but it is the way of the world. The latter means that one person's rights may have to be restricted to protect the rights of another. Failing to recognize this by painting everything as contrasts is your choice, but it most certainly does not mean you are right.
Police investigative powers are an example of this balancing of rights. They need investigative powers to enforce the laws which protect our freedoms. The flip side is that investigative powers can easily be twisted to become surveillance, then be used to take away our freedoms. I don't know what the solution to this conflict is. I don't think anyone knows, which is why the state automatically seeks overreaching powers and the opposition seeks prohibition rather than offering solutions.
Police investigative powers are an example of this balancing of rights. They need investigative powers to enforce the laws which protect our freedoms. The flip side is that investigative powers can easily be twisted to become surveillance, then be used to take away our freedoms. I don't know what the solution to this conflict is. I don't think anyone knows, which is why the state automatically seeks overreaching powers and the opposition seeks prohibition rather than offering solutions.
Fundamentally disagree. Locking citizens in their own homes nationwide is terrible precedence for “balance of rights”. If that’s what “balance of rights” looks like then I have a history book to sell you.
Balance of rights means nobody has rights.
If you need to "balance" the rights (read: take them away) of somebody to equal the scale, then rights don't exist in the first place.
If you need to "balance" the rights (read: take them away) of somebody to equal the scale, then rights don't exist in the first place.
I am trying to figure out whether you are arguing that rights must be absolute or that rights do not exist. If it is the former, I will point out that the rights of one person can infringe upon the rights of other people or the rights of one person can be used to repress other people. Simply put, rights are never absolute. In the latter case, I will simply point out that rights are a social construct. As a social construct, they very much exist yet society will be in an eternal struggle to define what rights are.
You have seemingly avoided the point by restating the problem with balancing rights. How do you keep things fair while taking someone’s rights?
What was the justification in banning citizens from leaving?
At the most basic level: if people don’t leave, they can’t come back with the virus.
Also, we’ve instituted mandatory hotel quarantine for anyone coming to Australia. But hotel quarantine only has a certain number of places; if less people leave Australia, then less people will come back and fill up hotel quarantine spaces.
Also, we’ve instituted mandatory hotel quarantine for anyone coming to Australia. But hotel quarantine only has a certain number of places; if less people leave Australia, then less people will come back and fill up hotel quarantine spaces.
I think the real reason is even more nefarious - by making this change they are dissuading expats from coming back at all. Why come back and use up a quarantine slot when you know you'll have trouble leaving again. Better just skip Christmas this year (again).
Indeed. It’s kind of amazing that Singapore, often accused of being overly authoritarian, took a much softer approach to Covid than Australia.
You could always leave. Citizens and PRs could always come back (although if they left after a certain date they had to pay for their care if they got Covid).
Even immigrants workers could leave. You needed permission to come back, but unless Covid was raging they took in quite a lot of workers.
You could always leave. Citizens and PRs could always come back (although if they left after a certain date they had to pay for their care if they got Covid).
Even immigrants workers could leave. You needed permission to come back, but unless Covid was raging they took in quite a lot of workers.
"Even immigrant workers could leave"
This is true however return for foreigners was never guaranteed. It has opened up only very recently. I've been stuck in Singapore for 2 years as of last weekend.
This is true however return for foreigners was never guaranteed. It has opened up only very recently. I've been stuck in Singapore for 2 years as of last weekend.
Sure, but plenty of foreigners have left and returned and many new foreigner workers have entered.
You are right there was no guarantee you could return if Covid cases exploded, but there was at least a decent pathway. Australia from what I gathered put up as many obstacles as possible AND requires permission to leave.
You are right there was no guarantee you could return if Covid cases exploded, but there was at least a decent pathway. Australia from what I gathered put up as many obstacles as possible AND requires permission to leave.
Prevent the tax dodgers from going back and forth to Bali
Nope - because the rich are all sorts of capable of being granted the 'exemptions' to do as they wish anyway. (I'm an Australian citizen with family in Melbourne who has lived in the US for 15 years).
Exemptions have been granted for people who were told "if you can fly charter, not commercial, you can be exempted", and other things that are (while certainly risk reducing) very much "show me the money". i.e. exactly the people who will be engaging in tax minimization/avoidance/dodging.
Me? Best hope my elderly parents don't get unwell.
Exemptions have been granted for people who were told "if you can fly charter, not commercial, you can be exempted", and other things that are (while certainly risk reducing) very much "show me the money". i.e. exactly the people who will be engaging in tax minimization/avoidance/dodging.
Me? Best hope my elderly parents don't get unwell.
I have mocked the anti-maskers and especially anti-vaxxers, but this crosses a line on the other end of the spectrum.
I would only support an actual ban on mobility if it were to quarantine the virus in one place, like if the Chinese had locked down Wuhan before it managed to get out.
That ship has sailed of course. It’s all over the damn place, so there is not much to be gained by travel bans.
I would only support an actual ban on mobility if it were to quarantine the virus in one place, like if the Chinese had locked down Wuhan before it managed to get out.
That ship has sailed of course. It’s all over the damn place, so there is not much to be gained by travel bans.
Travel bans are one of the most visible actions politicians can take and this is all about politicians doing visible things for populist reasons.
The Chinese did lockdown Wuhan....internally. They prevented Chinese from moving in and out of Wuhan while letting the international flights continue.
I’ve come to the conclusion that, while ideals about democracy and freedom sound nice, people are busy with their work and families and are not inclined to do or sacrifice much to secure those ideals unless there is a problem with their access to food, followed by other basic necessities. As long as the state provides those things, the public seems to be amenable to pretty much anything.
The pervasive corruption in every major institution of our society, which grows by the day, is a testament to this.
The pervasive corruption in every major institution of our society, which grows by the day, is a testament to this.
Exactly. I've always said that in the US people don't really care. Even for "important" things like the million woman march, it is fun to do something for 1 day/weekend and then get back to life, all things forgotten. As long as everyone has a flatscreen, Netflix, an iPhone, a decent car and can take a vacation, no one gives a crap. Despite life being materially worse than other times in the past, it is still better than most of the world. People rise up when they have nothing to lose. That isn't the case and won't be for quite a while.
You can also have a look at Zimbabwe as a further example of this. Even though society there was absolutely breaking down, including the ability to get food/water/electricity/police-protection, but people were still hunkering down and doing their best to maintain normalcy. People still sent their kids to school, they still dated, they still went to work, figured out ways to get a "salary" in whatever form they could, made adhoc businesses, had cellphones, internet, traveled if they could, and newspapers were printed, reporters roamed and reported, etc.
It didn't devolve into a end of the world apocalypse scenario that you'd imagine. Humans are incredibly resilient and they really just want to get on with their lives and be left alone. I guess they do so by compartmentalizing and rationalizing away things happening outside of their immediate view. It's the "easy" aspect of being able to tell politicians to "meddle" with other people and spend "other" people's money that gets them enthusiastic because it requires very little effort.
It didn't devolve into a end of the world apocalypse scenario that you'd imagine. Humans are incredibly resilient and they really just want to get on with their lives and be left alone. I guess they do so by compartmentalizing and rationalizing away things happening outside of their immediate view. It's the "easy" aspect of being able to tell politicians to "meddle" with other people and spend "other" people's money that gets them enthusiastic because it requires very little effort.
My experience after having grown up in America, living in Germany 7 years, and then living almost a year in Australia, is that all those you write might be completely true, but even then, Australia is actually behind the United States in all the things you mentioned. Other than everything being redonk expensive, it's a Anglosphere paradise compared to the United States.
The US is decades ahead of Australia in terms of its descent into a corporate-owned shitshow.
The US is decades ahead of Australia in terms of its descent into a corporate-owned shitshow.
It would be better if Australia wasn't on the same track as the United States.
Where did the US enter into the conversation, other than as an attempted distraction from the points the parent was making specifically about Australia? The parent never mentioned the US. The linked story is also not about the US.
Apparently North Korea is terrible compared to Australia. And yet the parent's comment was also not about North Korea and nor is the linked article. We could run the gamut on countries, there are another hundred plus after North Korea that are not great places to live compared to the affluent top.
Apparently North Korea is terrible compared to Australia. And yet the parent's comment was also not about North Korea and nor is the linked article. We could run the gamut on countries, there are another hundred plus after North Korea that are not great places to live compared to the affluent top.
It's for perspective.
This was written in 1964 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country , it still rings true today.
Have to quote this bit for those too lazy to follow the link:
Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.
Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.
This reminds me of Hannah Arendt's criticism of the Boers - which was sometimes taken out of context. She was just pointing out they had become a tribe of bush-wandering savages living off, but not improving the land, themselves. They had no incentive to improve the land; labor was cheap and their own lives were cheap, and they still have made nothing of the country.
When I lived in Australia I was really surprised, because I expected to find a country much more individualistic and hardy than the soft United States. All those Crocodile Dundee movies, I guess. I had the luck of moving there with a partner who was half-Filipina, and wow was there a lot of anti-Asian racism right off the bat. But that wouldn't have been such a big deal. What really struck me were the micro-restrictions on everything.
I think local councils have a lot to do with this; in the Commonwealth model they seem to have totally arbitrary and uncontrolled power. If you squeal your wheels, they'll take your car and crush it. At least that's what I heard. If you work on roofs you have to spend an hour gearing up to have harnesses. I mean. I thought this was a frontier society, but it's not. Cameras everywhere and ...well, I lived in King's Cross, Sydney for a bit, but I heard they basically shut that down by fiat from end to end.
And the NT. Just a word about that. We pulled up to a shop in the bush outside Tenant Creek and there were approximately 40 aboriginal ladies standing outside a closed window at 9am. We walked past this line, straight inside, and bought a couple cases of beer. Asked why they were all waiting there. "Waitin for the welfare window," said the store owner. Never been to the white side of a segregation window before, but that was something to see in a first world country.
When I lived in Australia I was really surprised, because I expected to find a country much more individualistic and hardy than the soft United States. All those Crocodile Dundee movies, I guess. I had the luck of moving there with a partner who was half-Filipina, and wow was there a lot of anti-Asian racism right off the bat. But that wouldn't have been such a big deal. What really struck me were the micro-restrictions on everything.
I think local councils have a lot to do with this; in the Commonwealth model they seem to have totally arbitrary and uncontrolled power. If you squeal your wheels, they'll take your car and crush it. At least that's what I heard. If you work on roofs you have to spend an hour gearing up to have harnesses. I mean. I thought this was a frontier society, but it's not. Cameras everywhere and ...well, I lived in King's Cross, Sydney for a bit, but I heard they basically shut that down by fiat from end to end.
And the NT. Just a word about that. We pulled up to a shop in the bush outside Tenant Creek and there were approximately 40 aboriginal ladies standing outside a closed window at 9am. We walked past this line, straight inside, and bought a couple cases of beer. Asked why they were all waiting there. "Waitin for the welfare window," said the store owner. Never been to the white side of a segregation window before, but that was something to see in a first world country.
Wow, really suprised to see someone else speaking my mind. I went to Australia, from the US, with the perception that Australia was wild country where people were free and independent. Sort of like if I lived in rural Arizona or Idaho or something.
But what I found was an ultra-tedious nitpicky rules and control mindset. Really turned me off.
Just surprised to see someone else say similar.
But what I found was an ultra-tedious nitpicky rules and control mindset. Really turned me off.
Just surprised to see someone else say similar.
I totally expected Idaho, too. That's why the racism didn't seem out of place. But it's like everyone there is obsessed with these little rules and they're all nannys about reminding you of them all the time. Fucking annoying, I agree, and it doesn't even make sense. Wayyyyy out in the bush I did meet people who weren't like that. Met a French guy who was roasting a kangaroo and living out in nowhere with his teenage daughter, totally illegal immigrant on the land. There's some of that. But mostly, fuck, a lot of nitpicking.
I found people in the US to be just as nitpicky about certain things.
Oh, you thought you could cross the road there, even though there are no cars around? You shouldn't do that. You should cross at the stop signs.
Oh, you thought you could just walk in the building, go up to the counter and order food? Sorry, you need to walk through the special door, which puts you in the special food-ordering queue. You'll have to leave the building and come back in through the special door.
Oh, you thought you could cross the road there, even though there are no cars around? You shouldn't do that. You should cross at the stop signs.
Oh, you thought you could just walk in the building, go up to the counter and order food? Sorry, you need to walk through the special door, which puts you in the special food-ordering queue. You'll have to leave the building and come back in through the special door.
I've moved from Australia to the US and found the US is much worse at nitpickiness.
Sure, you won't get pulled over for going a little bit faster on the freeway in the USA. But in daily life, people much more often will treat you like you're dumb, incompetent, or don't belong somewhere.
A couple of examples came up in recent news opinion pieces (both by Americans who have moved to Australia and, coincidentally, both mentioning swimming):
https://www.smh.com.au/national/where-the-hell-is-he-what-au...
"It went on like that for a while. Praise for the boy. Not a drop of concern. I looked to my right. Baz’s Nippers instructor, Al, a brawny former professional rugby player, was smiling. So were the rest of the Australian parents all around us.
I was confused at first, but I could also see in everyone an exhilaration that reminded me of my time covering the war in Iraq during its most violent months. It had been years since I’d experienced that mix of feelings – the electric shock of appreciation for life, the confidence that comes from transcending danger with others, for something that feels bigger than yourself. And it made me realise that, despite a journalism career filled with hazardous assignments, I still had a lot to learn about risk, not to mention child-rearing."
https://www.smh.com.au/national/77-shootings-within-a-mile-o...
"Taking the kids for a swim at an outdoor public pool in New York felt more like a brush with the penal system. You are not allowed to wear any colour other than white, such is the fear of a poolside eruption of gang violence. Men have to wear bathers lined with meshing, and prove to the guards at the gates they are in compliance; a guard carries out inappropriately intrusive inspections. [...] "Any form of reading matter – newspapers, books, copies of The New Yorker – is strictly prohibited. In all, there are more than a dozen regulations that have to be adhered to – and even if you comply with those, there is the Kafkaesque possibility of being confronted with new ones that have seemingly been invented on the spot."
Sure, you won't get pulled over for going a little bit faster on the freeway in the USA. But in daily life, people much more often will treat you like you're dumb, incompetent, or don't belong somewhere.
A couple of examples came up in recent news opinion pieces (both by Americans who have moved to Australia and, coincidentally, both mentioning swimming):
https://www.smh.com.au/national/where-the-hell-is-he-what-au...
"It went on like that for a while. Praise for the boy. Not a drop of concern. I looked to my right. Baz’s Nippers instructor, Al, a brawny former professional rugby player, was smiling. So were the rest of the Australian parents all around us.
I was confused at first, but I could also see in everyone an exhilaration that reminded me of my time covering the war in Iraq during its most violent months. It had been years since I’d experienced that mix of feelings – the electric shock of appreciation for life, the confidence that comes from transcending danger with others, for something that feels bigger than yourself. And it made me realise that, despite a journalism career filled with hazardous assignments, I still had a lot to learn about risk, not to mention child-rearing."
https://www.smh.com.au/national/77-shootings-within-a-mile-o...
"Taking the kids for a swim at an outdoor public pool in New York felt more like a brush with the penal system. You are not allowed to wear any colour other than white, such is the fear of a poolside eruption of gang violence. Men have to wear bathers lined with meshing, and prove to the guards at the gates they are in compliance; a guard carries out inappropriately intrusive inspections. [...] "Any form of reading matter – newspapers, books, copies of The New Yorker – is strictly prohibited. In all, there are more than a dozen regulations that have to be adhered to – and even if you comply with those, there is the Kafkaesque possibility of being confronted with new ones that have seemingly been invented on the spot."
The treatment of aboriginal people in the NT is a national disgrace, and Sydney is run by moralising religious fundies.
That being said, when I moved to the bay area I was horrified by how rickety US scaffolding was, surprised every government building (including schools!) had visible armed security and metal detectors, and thought it was ridiculous that shops had signs saying "frozen burritos bought with EBT can't be microwaved" (because that would make it fast food instead of groceries). Culture shock can be like that. You can take a lot for granted about your native culture.
That being said, when I moved to the bay area I was horrified by how rickety US scaffolding was, surprised every government building (including schools!) had visible armed security and metal detectors, and thought it was ridiculous that shops had signs saying "frozen burritos bought with EBT can't be microwaved" (because that would make it fast food instead of groceries). Culture shock can be like that. You can take a lot for granted about your native culture.
> Never been to the white side of a segregation window before, but that was something to see in a first world country.
More coming: https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelie...
More coming: https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelie...
I sometimes wonder if the white people proposing all these racial identity theories aren't complete racists themselves. I keep assuming they have good intentions, but racial identity is a debunked and shitty idea that really shouldn't be promoted in a multicultural society. Even though I do have one black friend who really wants reparations. I'm like, dude, just... yeah. Okay. I'll buy this round but you're buying the next one.
The principal who did that in Atlanta was black.
There's a really good book and essay called "Southern Rites" by Gillian Laub that talks about segregation in schools, particularly in Georgia, where, to be clear, _public_ schools have been called out for having segregated proms as recently as 2019.
When a white girl lobbies her principal about this, part of his dismissal is "well, you should know the black parents all agreed to this at the PTA meeting, too", as if that was some validation, rather than some amazingly awkward, duressed situation where the all white school board and PTA says "we have a motion to discuss de-segregating the prom", and some parents being quite likely fearful to vote. (I say that, because in this situation, the tie between the book and the girl is that her black boyfriend was shot dead by one of her family members for being on their property).
The notion that systemic racism in the US was a solved problem when MLK stood up and said "I have a dream..." is still far too popular.
When a white girl lobbies her principal about this, part of his dismissal is "well, you should know the black parents all agreed to this at the PTA meeting, too", as if that was some validation, rather than some amazingly awkward, duressed situation where the all white school board and PTA says "we have a motion to discuss de-segregating the prom", and some parents being quite likely fearful to vote. (I say that, because in this situation, the tie between the book and the girl is that her black boyfriend was shot dead by one of her family members for being on their property).
The notion that systemic racism in the US was a solved problem when MLK stood up and said "I have a dream..." is still far too popular.
This is alot of words that dont actually say anything other than "Georgia" bad.
Your position is that a black educator in the Atlanta Public School system that has a black mayor and is defiantly against the mainstream of rural southern politics, decided to segregate the students for what reason exactly?
I would venture to guess using this weird thing called "empathy" where i try to look at the other side in good faith is that the female POC Principal wanted to make sure there were classes where the black students werent a small minority in their classes. My understanding of how the makeup of this school in particular was that it was not made up of predominantly black students and that the classes the black students were concentrated into were about half black when it came to students.
I would further venture to guess that it was just a tone def attempt to make it so those students were around "more people like them". This is the whole rationale of poc only safe spaces on college campuses.
Alternatively there was some conspiracy where the black female principal was pressured into doing this by someone. Seeing as how the Atlanta school board immediately cracked down on it that seems unlikely. But maybe the evil pta pressured her? Let me know which scenario you think is more likely.
Your position is that a black educator in the Atlanta Public School system that has a black mayor and is defiantly against the mainstream of rural southern politics, decided to segregate the students for what reason exactly?
I would venture to guess using this weird thing called "empathy" where i try to look at the other side in good faith is that the female POC Principal wanted to make sure there were classes where the black students werent a small minority in their classes. My understanding of how the makeup of this school in particular was that it was not made up of predominantly black students and that the classes the black students were concentrated into were about half black when it came to students.
I would further venture to guess that it was just a tone def attempt to make it so those students were around "more people like them". This is the whole rationale of poc only safe spaces on college campuses.
Alternatively there was some conspiracy where the black female principal was pressured into doing this by someone. Seeing as how the Atlanta school board immediately cracked down on it that seems unlikely. But maybe the evil pta pressured her? Let me know which scenario you think is more likely.
I didn't imply any such thing. One would think though, that if things were so meritorious, then it wouldn't have been this unadvertised, undisclosed scenario that resulted in discipline and investigations, but instead might have been touted as a worthy attempt to address educational challenges of POC.
I certainly wasn't saying that an evil PTA was threatening to lynch the principal if she didn't. But to discount the challenges faced by a system in a state which -to this day- has horrendous issues with systemic racism in the education system, and state that they entirely don't have an impact, subconscious or conscious on people within that system goes against every study and observation.
I certainly wasn't saying that an evil PTA was threatening to lynch the principal if she didn't. But to discount the challenges faced by a system in a state which -to this day- has horrendous issues with systemic racism in the education system, and state that they entirely don't have an impact, subconscious or conscious on people within that system goes against every study and observation.
What exact systemic challenge do you think that a black principal in the atlanta public school system suffered that caused them to do this then?
Sure. Public schools in the deep south continued to hold segregated proms up til COVID hit.
Much of it was "nudge nudge wink wink private event, not school", but at least one school in Georgia had two proms every year, the "prom" and the "white prom". I'll leave it as a thought exercise to figure out, while not explicitly stated in the organization of those events, who was welcome at each.
Much of it was "nudge nudge wink wink private event, not school", but at least one school in Georgia had two proms every year, the "prom" and the "white prom". I'll leave it as a thought exercise to figure out, while not explicitly stated in the organization of those events, who was welcome at each.
I'm not sure what your problem is with using harnesses on roof work - it's basic safety equipment, and even with Australia's (very good) safety laws and (mostly good) safety culture, there's still around 50-60 people killed each year in the construction industry.
That statistic alone doesn’t say very much. How does the number of killed per worker compare to other countries? The fact that 50-60 die doesn’t necessarily contradict others’ claims that they are overly focused on safety.
It's a bloody roof mate, it's not worth dying for period.
> It's a bloody roof mate, it's not worth dying for period.
It’s quite clear we actually do consider a roof worth dying for. We build them knowing that some people will die after all.
It’s quite clear we actually do consider a roof worth dying for. We build them knowing that some people will die after all.
This genuinely describes the recent delta outbreak in Sydney both at the lack of action from the NSW Premier and our Prime Minister.
Sounds like a weird slacker version of the resource curse.
Yes - but also Arendt's concept of the colonist as the superfluous man, unnecessary and having no accommodation in European society, basically getting offloaded for resource extraction to remote parts of the world and falling into tribalism and illiterate degradation. Happy thought there.
How do you expect people react to something like that?
There have been lots of people offloaded to far away places for resource extraction as you call it. People adapt to the demands.
I think this is a borders on odd expectations of people.
Going by this Irish and Chinese sent over for railroad building were superfluous people.
There have been lots of people offloaded to far away places for resource extraction as you call it. People adapt to the demands.
I think this is a borders on odd expectations of people.
Going by this Irish and Chinese sent over for railroad building were superfluous people.
No, the British and French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans who went off to find wealth in the colonies were poor-er than their elder brothers who joined the landed aristocracy or the Church, but they were nothing like the Irish or Chinese who were deported or forced out by starvation. They went to the colonies with full rights - beyond the rights they had at home - to do whatever they liked. And in Africa especially, mostly what they did was rape, drink and degenerate. Which was what they would have done back home; that's why they were given one-way boat rides. That and the fact that the empires had so much money, there was no way to spend it in the home country. And so many sons there weren't enough places for them all in the bureaucracy.
But no, it's not expecting too much of people to think they might retain their civilization when they willingly and gleefully go take up ownership of a plantation in a colony. Frankly, the Irish and Chinese in America were far more civilized than the Boers ever were, because they had to be. The Boers just showed up somewhere they could act like petty gods over black people and they did, until they forgot civilization completely.
But no, it's not expecting too much of people to think they might retain their civilization when they willingly and gleefully go take up ownership of a plantation in a colony. Frankly, the Irish and Chinese in America were far more civilized than the Boers ever were, because they had to be. The Boers just showed up somewhere they could act like petty gods over black people and they did, until they forgot civilization completely.
I've seen the opinion that most of the world imagines Australians all descended from criminals, while in fact an influential portion was descended from wardens. Bit of a parallel there I imagine.
I'm spending some time in Canada and I'm thinking Canada followed along the same lines...
Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes work the same, secure the monopoly on force by removing arms is a key step for any authoritarian gov.
Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people".
Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'
Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'
> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
I do think that in case of armed resistance, US government will step back instead of nuking Oklahoma City.
Also, search "chechen wars". Large well-equipped Russian army with tanks, artillery and air force lost to people armed with AK's, determination and grassroots support from locals.
For more recent example see what happened in Afghanistan. The best the most powerful army on the planet could do is sitting inside their bases with multiple security perimeters.
I do think that in case of armed resistance, US government will step back instead of nuking Oklahoma City.
Also, search "chechen wars". Large well-equipped Russian army with tanks, artillery and air force lost to people armed with AK's, determination and grassroots support from locals.
For more recent example see what happened in Afghanistan. The best the most powerful army on the planet could do is sitting inside their bases with multiple security perimeters.
I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. I'm extremely skeptical that they're better to have around, than not to have around, from a preserving-liberty perspective, in a developed state, especially.
I'd welcome any evidence that they're of much use for that. I see too many mixed outcomes (private arms aiding in the installation of tyrannical government, notably, of which I'm aware of way more examples than the reverse) and cases that are too different to compare—every single example I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different.
I think the odds of an armed US militia resisting tyranny being popular enough not to end up being opposed by even more armed militia who are pro tyranny, in a situation in which the military is not also mostly on the anti-tyranny side, is effectively zero. I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny). I'd welcome evidence that would change this view, but as far as I can tell the scales strongly lean toward my take.
I'd welcome any evidence that they're of much use for that. I see too many mixed outcomes (private arms aiding in the installation of tyrannical government, notably, of which I'm aware of way more examples than the reverse) and cases that are too different to compare—every single example I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different.
I think the odds of an armed US militia resisting tyranny being popular enough not to end up being opposed by even more armed militia who are pro tyranny, in a situation in which the military is not also mostly on the anti-tyranny side, is effectively zero. I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny). I'd welcome evidence that would change this view, but as far as I can tell the scales strongly lean toward my take.
History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you wanted but good enough for me.
>I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny)
They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
>I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny)
They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
> They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
So the worst thing that could happen is that people who will be ordered to do the dirty work already have guns rather than whoever controls them has to arm them first.
Seems to be a minor detail not something that has any effect on larger outcome of conflicts.
Yes, I would agree that private arms rarely, bordering on never, have much effect either way, unless a government is already extremely weak, and then the arms often aid in establishing (perhaps another, rather than a new one) tyranny, not ending it.
I was curious where this was coming from so I checked your comment history. It seems your scared of a particular party (republicans) forcing their way into power via the use of guns. Is this true?
> I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government.
…
> I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different.
You say they are different, but you don’t say why.
Effectively all you are doing is dismissing the evidence without reasoning.
…
> I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different.
You say they are different, but you don’t say why.
Effectively all you are doing is dismissing the evidence without reasoning.
> You say they are different, but you don’t say why.
Sorry, didn't occur to me to note the differences. The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very from your own government fighting a civil war or dealing with a domestic, guerrilla resistance, are the main things.
I remain unconvinced that private arms are likely to be any kind of useful factor in resisting tyranny in a developed country, and also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose, even if they were useful for tyranny-resistance to begin with.
Sorry, didn't occur to me to note the differences. The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very from your own government fighting a civil war or dealing with a domestic, guerrilla resistance, are the main things.
I remain unconvinced that private arms are likely to be any kind of useful factor in resisting tyranny in a developed country, and also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose, even if they were useful for tyranny-resistance to begin with.
> The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very different…
That really doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways.
> also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose
This is an interesting political idea that bears a lot more elaboration, but seems unconnected in principle to the other point.
That really doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways.
> also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose
This is an interesting political idea that bears a lot more elaboration, but seems unconnected in principle to the other point.
> It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways.
Yes, I guess I just... figured it was extremely obvious that a foreign occupation resisted by locals and a civil war or domestic insurgency are very different, largely on those categories. I feel like I'm being asked to defend the statement that bicycles and airplanes are, though both modes of transportation, quite different in a bunch of important ways.
Yes, I guess I just... figured it was extremely obvious that a foreign occupation resisted by locals and a civil war or domestic insurgency are very different, largely on those categories. I feel like I'm being asked to defend the statement that bicycles and airplanes are, though both modes of transportation, quite different in a bunch of important ways.
It’s obvious they are different. It’s not obvious what differences would render guns useless, which appears to be your position.
I’m not asking you to arbitrarily explain how they are different. I’m asking you to explain how and why the differences you are thinking of make guns useless for civilians to own.
I’m not asking you to arbitrarily explain how they are different. I’m asking you to explain how and why the differences you are thinking of make guns useless for civilians to own.
Ah, I've got you. Sorry, I probably read poorly or something.
Aggregating the differences, part of it is that the stakes are so much lower in a foreign occupation and that withdrawal to save any of several sorts of costs involved is an option that won't result in the toppling of the occupying state's government or loss of any of the occupying state's core territory or sovereignty, and the other part (also mentioned in my post) is that it's very common for a successful insurgency or rebellion [edit: against foreign occupiers, I mean, in this case] to have foreign aid, which often exceeds the benefit of private arms to such a degree that it's not clear a few folks having AKs mattered at all, so even in such cases–which are already quite different from a domestic conflict—it's usually not clear-cut that private arms made much difference.
It'd help for the analysis if a state with a modern maneuver-focus equipped-and-trained army had faced a realistic domestic threat from rebels bearing private small arms... like, ever. There've been revolutions in such states (Russia, mainly—I'm actually struggling to think of another, since even the ones with maneuver-focus equipment usually hadn't managed the training for it, so fight very differently), but they've not really been the result of civil wars or armed insurrections. Such militaries have lost abroad, but not domestically, and usually against an enemy with one or more foreign state backers—and not by actual, outright defeat on the battlefield, but by convincing the occupier (the political leadership, not the military—they're usually not routes due to loss of morale) to cut their losses and go home. I strongly suspect that the circumstances that would render private arms enough to be any meaningful part of successful resistance against such a state in a civil war or insurrection, would also mean they weren't necessary for that success in the first place—that is, the circumstances would include such overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the populace, and/or enough support from the military, that a bunch of civilian-owned rifles wouldn't much matter for the outcome. There may be some narrow, unlikely set of circumstances in which they're really be the deciding factor, but at that point the cost/risk of keeping them around would have to be incredibly low to justify doing so specifically on the grounds that they're very important for resisting tyranny (there are other justifications for firearms ownership, of course).
Aggregating the differences, part of it is that the stakes are so much lower in a foreign occupation and that withdrawal to save any of several sorts of costs involved is an option that won't result in the toppling of the occupying state's government or loss of any of the occupying state's core territory or sovereignty, and the other part (also mentioned in my post) is that it's very common for a successful insurgency or rebellion [edit: against foreign occupiers, I mean, in this case] to have foreign aid, which often exceeds the benefit of private arms to such a degree that it's not clear a few folks having AKs mattered at all, so even in such cases–which are already quite different from a domestic conflict—it's usually not clear-cut that private arms made much difference.
It'd help for the analysis if a state with a modern maneuver-focus equipped-and-trained army had faced a realistic domestic threat from rebels bearing private small arms... like, ever. There've been revolutions in such states (Russia, mainly—I'm actually struggling to think of another, since even the ones with maneuver-focus equipment usually hadn't managed the training for it, so fight very differently), but they've not really been the result of civil wars or armed insurrections. Such militaries have lost abroad, but not domestically, and usually against an enemy with one or more foreign state backers—and not by actual, outright defeat on the battlefield, but by convincing the occupier (the political leadership, not the military—they're usually not routes due to loss of morale) to cut their losses and go home. I strongly suspect that the circumstances that would render private arms enough to be any meaningful part of successful resistance against such a state in a civil war or insurrection, would also mean they weren't necessary for that success in the first place—that is, the circumstances would include such overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the populace, and/or enough support from the military, that a bunch of civilian-owned rifles wouldn't much matter for the outcome. There may be some narrow, unlikely set of circumstances in which they're really be the deciding factor, but at that point the cost/risk of keeping them around would have to be incredibly low to justify doing so specifically on the grounds that they're very important for resisting tyranny (there are other justifications for firearms ownership, of course).
I don’t see the explanation here.
You seem to be restating your position a few times in more words - I.e. that examples of resistance to foreign opposition are not relevant, and that guns wouldn’t be relevant in then scenarios you can imagine.
Can you try condensing the actual argument into a short paragraph?
It’s not clear what scenario you are imagining in which the weapons wouldn’t help. How about just outlining the scenario you are thinking about clearly?
You seem to be restating your position a few times in more words - I.e. that examples of resistance to foreign opposition are not relevant, and that guns wouldn’t be relevant in then scenarios you can imagine.
Can you try condensing the actual argument into a short paragraph?
It’s not clear what scenario you are imagining in which the weapons wouldn’t help. How about just outlining the scenario you are thinking about clearly?
You should condense this so it’s easier to read.
Your argument is that during an occupation civilians owning guns already in the occupied country doesn’t matter because another country will come in and arm them?
Your argument is that during an occupation civilians owning guns already in the occupied country doesn’t matter because another country will come in and arm them?
You keep imagining that all the population will be on your side in this exchange. It'll just be so obvious you should be fighting the government, everyone will join!
That's not the point. The point is that it means a government must resort to violence and it may be unwilling to do so. Whereas if people don't have guns, then the government can be incredibly overpowering without having to step over the threshold of violence, which makes it more likely.
Governments have no problem "stepping over the threshold" and using violence. If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.
There is no such things as "the government who enforces laws" its people who enforce laws and they wont if they dont agree and dont have a monopoly on violence. Also "hastily-written or unfair laws" wont be enacted if there is a realistic chance you pay with your life for doing so.
The guns are there for when the legal way to solve stuff no longer works and laws are no longer of any meaning. Saying its against the law to use them or that law enforcement will enforce any law no matter what is pure ignorance. Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.
The guns are there for when the legal way to solve stuff no longer works and laws are no longer of any meaning. Saying its against the law to use them or that law enforcement will enforce any law no matter what is pure ignorance. Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.
> Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.
And depending on the relations the US has with 2-3 particular nations we would likely see an invasion thrown on top.
And depending on the relations the US has with 2-3 particular nations we would likely see an invasion thrown on top.
Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower.
When push comes to shove, guns allow normal people to escalate violence to the point the government stops MUCH quicker and faster than without guns.
When push comes to shove, guns allow normal people to escalate violence to the point the government stops MUCH quicker and faster than without guns.
>Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower.
I don't really understand what you mean here?
You pull your gun out and threaten a government representative, and you will be dead or in handcuffs within 30 minutes.
Maybe your idea of civilian government overthrow could come true if you could somehow gather thousands of people with guns who are against the government simultaneously, but other than that, it's over. And even if you do manage to gather those people, it's over when the national guard arrives.
Escalating violence doesn't work when you're massively outgunned, or do you have your own Apache helicopters, armed drones and tanks? Do you think they will hesitate to attack armed terrorists trying to overthrow the "democratically elected" government?
I'm not American so please explain what I'm missing here.
I don't really understand what you mean here?
You pull your gun out and threaten a government representative, and you will be dead or in handcuffs within 30 minutes.
Maybe your idea of civilian government overthrow could come true if you could somehow gather thousands of people with guns who are against the government simultaneously, but other than that, it's over. And even if you do manage to gather those people, it's over when the national guard arrives.
Escalating violence doesn't work when you're massively outgunned, or do you have your own Apache helicopters, armed drones and tanks? Do you think they will hesitate to attack armed terrorists trying to overthrow the "democratically elected" government?
I'm not American so please explain what I'm missing here.
Think less on quick-draw-shoot-the-cop sort of scenarios, and more along the lines of a "the freedom fighters generally live in these hills, and they like to blow us up with bombs or shoot us from far away when we aren't suspecting" situation.
If there was a tyranny and a rebellion, the cops are going to think twice about going out and about without full force since they might be ambushed.
Alot of this sort of situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838
If there was a tyranny and a rebellion, the cops are going to think twice about going out and about without full force since they might be ambushed.
Alot of this sort of situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838
That's one thing. But there's another. I've done years of fighting sports training with half the local (sort-of, they get called out pretty far, sometimes even flown somewhere) SWAT team. Including the commander. If you think even such a team will go charging into what might be an ambush, you're insane.
It does not work like in the movies. If you're in your house and someone is trying to kill you with a weapon, it will take the cops 15 minutes to your door ... and 30 minutes before they come in, minimum. If a unit has been lost (meaning a cop already got hurt), it will take hour before they come to the door, minimum. Some places (such as the court house) have different rules.
As soon as a unit has been lost, they will FIRST do a cost-benefit analysis of retaliating at all. And, especially in large cities, that analysis will regularly come up with something akin to "just let them deliver the drugs and do ... nothing" or "just let them go". Even when non-lethal (and "non-lethal" as in a knife) weapons are used they may refuse. You see, not getting maimed (even a little bit) is a thoroughly essential part of having any sort of career, and the treatment wounded cops get certainly does not justify self-sacrifice. The kinder logic is that criminals don't stop after one crime. If it's needed to stop them, there will be another chance.
Working this way means that for even a large metro area they can maybe handle 5 to 10 serious situations at any one time. Police weapons, even the big ones, do not defeat even relatively small determined militias. And the police will abandon neighbourhoods long before it comes anywhere near this point.
If they truly the think the situation will escalate without end, they may go in. That, by the way, generally means snipers, not knocking down the door. If they don't think the situation will escalate, or if there's too many people, or ... they will just let it be.
It does not work like in the movies. If you're in your house and someone is trying to kill you with a weapon, it will take the cops 15 minutes to your door ... and 30 minutes before they come in, minimum. If a unit has been lost (meaning a cop already got hurt), it will take hour before they come to the door, minimum. Some places (such as the court house) have different rules.
As soon as a unit has been lost, they will FIRST do a cost-benefit analysis of retaliating at all. And, especially in large cities, that analysis will regularly come up with something akin to "just let them deliver the drugs and do ... nothing" or "just let them go". Even when non-lethal (and "non-lethal" as in a knife) weapons are used they may refuse. You see, not getting maimed (even a little bit) is a thoroughly essential part of having any sort of career, and the treatment wounded cops get certainly does not justify self-sacrifice. The kinder logic is that criminals don't stop after one crime. If it's needed to stop them, there will be another chance.
Working this way means that for even a large metro area they can maybe handle 5 to 10 serious situations at any one time. Police weapons, even the big ones, do not defeat even relatively small determined militias. And the police will abandon neighbourhoods long before it comes anywhere near this point.
If they truly the think the situation will escalate without end, they may go in. That, by the way, generally means snipers, not knocking down the door. If they don't think the situation will escalate, or if there's too many people, or ... they will just let it be.
> If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.
The government order is acted on by a person, at the end of the day. During the lockdowns my City authority closed all public parks including the one across the street from my house. They also retasked all Parks & Recreation employees to sit in the parks and yell at anyone using the parks. Many citizens, myself included, outright ignored the P&R staff and continued to make use of the park under the threat of "calling the police." Even after the lockdown ended and parks re-opened, the staff at our local park continued with their own "closure."
However, at no point did officers respond let alone use state-sanctioned violence against citizens. That a government flunky gives an order does not mean it will be enforced let alone result in violence from authorities.
Ultimately, this is a continuous function rather than a boolean as you're implying. Citizen ownership of arms helps juice that function in our favor.
The government order is acted on by a person, at the end of the day. During the lockdowns my City authority closed all public parks including the one across the street from my house. They also retasked all Parks & Recreation employees to sit in the parks and yell at anyone using the parks. Many citizens, myself included, outright ignored the P&R staff and continued to make use of the park under the threat of "calling the police." Even after the lockdown ended and parks re-opened, the staff at our local park continued with their own "closure."
However, at no point did officers respond let alone use state-sanctioned violence against citizens. That a government flunky gives an order does not mean it will be enforced let alone result in violence from authorities.
Ultimately, this is a continuous function rather than a boolean as you're implying. Citizen ownership of arms helps juice that function in our favor.
> anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
I am not taking sides in the underlying argument.
I am simply astonished that you can make this statement in the face of U.S. forces running away from Afghanistan.
I am not taking sides in the underlying argument.
I am simply astonished that you can make this statement in the face of U.S. forces running away from Afghanistan.
You mean where the US is no longer interested in nation building and occupying another country years after the military victory?
Right. There might be three people in the world that believe that the stated goal of the mission was to kill a bunch of people and return power to the group whose members we killed while in the process arming them to the teeth with U.S. equipment so they have free reign once again[1].
[1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/3448281/taliban-grabbing-girls-...
[1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/3448281/taliban-grabbing-girls-...
Yes, when that militia is in every town. In the end, you need boots on the ground.
A government is a parasitic organism. Quashing resistance only makes sense if it's cost-effective. E.g. nuking your own country is insane; at some point, it's just cheaper to compromise.
A government is a parasitic organism. Quashing resistance only makes sense if it's cost-effective. E.g. nuking your own country is insane; at some point, it's just cheaper to compromise.
The US civilian militias that currently exist in a time of domestic peace are filled with angry people from the margins of society. The ones that would form from the veterans of decades of foreign wars in a time of domestic conflict might be a lot different.
Remember that bin Laden fought off the Soviets using an MBA, an inherited construction company, and billions of dollars of foreign funding. Militias don't exist in isolation from the world.
Remember that bin Laden fought off the Soviets using an MBA, an inherited construction company, and billions of dollars of foreign funding. Militias don't exist in isolation from the world.
>Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
Ask the Taliban.
Ask the Taliban.
> Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people".
It is, until it isn't.
> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
See: Middle East
It is, until it isn't.
> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force?
See: Middle East
> See: Middle East
That's always tricky because the most successful examples of a guerilla army winning like that are all a foreign army coming into a local rebelling population. They mostly work by just wearing down the invaders until the cost and time requirements wear heavy enough that the foreign army decides to just go home, that same dynamic doesn't map as well when it's the state fighting for it's own survival to me.
That's always tricky because the most successful examples of a guerilla army winning like that are all a foreign army coming into a local rebelling population. They mostly work by just wearing down the invaders until the cost and time requirements wear heavy enough that the foreign army decides to just go home, that same dynamic doesn't map as well when it's the state fighting for it's own survival to me.
It's actually probably easier since the government would be asking its own people to kill its own people. If the local government were in broadly thought to be tyrannical, a guerilla civil war would have a high chance of success. Ask Cuba.
It's impossible to say with certainty which way it will go. There's factors pushing in both directions. You're right there will be some defection from the military to any US insurgent side but there's also a lot of space to draw divisions in the US and given enough people you can assign soldiers to fight places they're not particularly aligned to support.
My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). There are completely different incentives there, on the extreme end of things losing means you might be killed
Also don't be so sure about Cuba if you're talking about the current situation, it's far from over and they're not exactly a peer comparison to make to a theoretical US insurgency.
My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). There are completely different incentives there, on the extreme end of things losing means you might be killed
Also don't be so sure about Cuba if you're talking about the current situation, it's far from over and they're not exactly a peer comparison to make to a theoretical US insurgency.
> My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam).
Do you think the guns in civilian ownership are to be used for foreign wars? They are exactly for homeland invasion.
And who will back the US with arms? In the examples you gave it’s a richer country, or multiple, helping a poorer country. Who’s going to help the richest country in its death throes? What will be the benefit for all that aid should that nation fall? It’s better to pre-stage the weapons as that also serves to deter those that think the US is inadequately armed.
When presented with historical events supporting these claims your response is “cannot say with certainty”…
The interesting and terrifying part is, if I were China or Russia, I would be online trying to convince the US to disarm itself too.
Do you think the guns in civilian ownership are to be used for foreign wars? They are exactly for homeland invasion.
And who will back the US with arms? In the examples you gave it’s a richer country, or multiple, helping a poorer country. Who’s going to help the richest country in its death throes? What will be the benefit for all that aid should that nation fall? It’s better to pre-stage the weapons as that also serves to deter those that think the US is inadequately armed.
When presented with historical events supporting these claims your response is “cannot say with certainty”…
The interesting and terrifying part is, if I were China or Russia, I would be online trying to convince the US to disarm itself too.
We’re talking about armed US residents vs US government not a foreign invasion of the US.
Well the US gov fighting it’s citizens would be a war crime. And then hopefully the entirety of NATO would come down on them. A gov cannot use their own military force against their citizens. Full stop. And speaking as a veteran, my willingness to fight would be based on the side my beliefs were based upon. If the order was given to kill US citizens, it was an illegal order and the chain of command has been broken. All bets are off.
That's not really what NATO is for and it'd depend a lot on what the actual events looked like. If it's frameable as armed violent uprising/terrorism being controlled then it's much less likely to pull explicit foreign intervention and the prototypical '2A to protect against a tyrannical government usage' will almost definitely fit that bill.
Correct, it depends on the size of the uprising. Further this is still an illegal order to kill US citizens. And with that once the order comes down chaos will ensue in the ranks.
Also see: Vietnam
You’re missing an essential detail, how Australians view the government, Australians don’t believe that the the government is sufficiently competent to be tyrannical, except in small local cases against the powerless
edit: we don't believe those in government with the inclination towards tyranny are sufficiently competent. There are individuals, in government in Australia, in the same house even if they're are not quite at the centre of power, who are good admirable competent people. And there are those whose fantasies bend towards tyranny. They are not the same people. And then there is the great morass along for the ride and the cushy pension.
edit: we don't believe those in government with the inclination towards tyranny are sufficiently competent. There are individuals, in government in Australia, in the same house even if they're are not quite at the centre of power, who are good admirable competent people. And there are those whose fantasies bend towards tyranny. They are not the same people. And then there is the great morass along for the ride and the cushy pension.
Democracy as implemented is stupid.
I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me.
The system has failed. I was horrified to see how far we'd fallen. When COVID hit, I thought they'd at least have some basic model on the shelf to extrapolate a response from.
Nope. All that kind of forward thinking seems to have gone along with the brain drain of the CSIRO and everything that followed. All the smart people have already left.
We're now governed by passive-reactive puppets.
At least you can understand tyranny. Possibly intentional incompetence not so much. Welcome to the misinformation age. Who knew it would start so soon after the information age.
I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me.
The system has failed. I was horrified to see how far we'd fallen. When COVID hit, I thought they'd at least have some basic model on the shelf to extrapolate a response from.
Nope. All that kind of forward thinking seems to have gone along with the brain drain of the CSIRO and everything that followed. All the smart people have already left.
We're now governed by passive-reactive puppets.
At least you can understand tyranny. Possibly intentional incompetence not so much. Welcome to the misinformation age. Who knew it would start so soon after the information age.
> Democracy as implemented is stupid.
> I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me.
Representative democracy is designed as a compromise between giving power to the people and giving (what's perceived as) too much power to the people.
In the case of a true direct democracy, many fear the ignorance and apathy of the average voter, and wonder if the majority rule would lead to tribalism and repression of minorities. That said, the few actual examples of direct democracy don't really seem to have borne these fears out.
In a way it comes down to how much (or little) confidence you have in your fellow citizen; "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," and all that. I veer towards misanthropy, so from that perspective direct democracy doesn't do a lot for me... seems like there's no perfect system.
> I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me.
Representative democracy is designed as a compromise between giving power to the people and giving (what's perceived as) too much power to the people.
In the case of a true direct democracy, many fear the ignorance and apathy of the average voter, and wonder if the majority rule would lead to tribalism and repression of minorities. That said, the few actual examples of direct democracy don't really seem to have borne these fears out.
In a way it comes down to how much (or little) confidence you have in your fellow citizen; "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," and all that. I veer towards misanthropy, so from that perspective direct democracy doesn't do a lot for me... seems like there's no perfect system.
>In the case of a true direct democracy, many fear the ignorance and apathy of the average voter, and wonder if the majority rule would lead to tribalism and repression of minorities.
I'm more concerned about power vacuums created by value extraction. We were swindled without realising it, in fact some of us enjoyed it - but only because we don't know what we lost. There can be very weird dynamics at play. Unfortunately the descendants of those are eventually left holding the bag and find out what they lost.
I would amend things such that if the Peasants were happy and everyone else was busy then Confucius is happy (because he's not being disturbed). I actually hope for more happy than that, but I'll take what I can get.
The main part of the problem with achieving the perfect system is that it has to also resolve all of the already imperfect systems in play. And you need to work out 'who' gets to define perfection.
I'm more concerned about power vacuums created by value extraction. We were swindled without realising it, in fact some of us enjoyed it - but only because we don't know what we lost. There can be very weird dynamics at play. Unfortunately the descendants of those are eventually left holding the bag and find out what they lost.
I would amend things such that if the Peasants were happy and everyone else was busy then Confucius is happy (because he's not being disturbed). I actually hope for more happy than that, but I'll take what I can get.
The main part of the problem with achieving the perfect system is that it has to also resolve all of the already imperfect systems in play. And you need to work out 'who' gets to define perfection.
> All the smart people have already left.
I don't believe this, but I empathise with your fury.
There has just been a small Covid outbreak in my town. The organisation of the response (all local - not federal) has been phenomenal, straight up inspiring.
But we are also the inheritors of a long legacy of stupid and brutal, and it can be hard to look around and believe that now is better than it was. How could this possibly be better? The gutting of CSIRO is a tragedy, but it's short term gain for tragedies all the way down.
I think Australia today is different better society than the country a century ago, we are iterating of a base of absolute monarchy and entrenched power, and it seems as we have got comfortable, and many of us are comfortable, many of us have stopped pushing.
There's a book on historical protest movements in Australia by Jeff Sparrow. It was an eye opener for me to see that actually things were even worse a century ago, the way fear of communist infiltration was used to control society, was even more clumsy, and more successful than the garbage we encounter today. The story of the Hilton Hotel bombing in the 70s is so clumsy it would be hilarious if lives weren't ruined. ASIO planted a fake bomb (which they intended to find and they use to justify further funding), which actually blew up, and then the Indian representative (was it the ambassador or the Prime Minister?) declared it was a terrorist attack against him, so ASIO had to find a hippy to arrest, so they did and they got away with it.
I don't believe this, but I empathise with your fury.
There has just been a small Covid outbreak in my town. The organisation of the response (all local - not federal) has been phenomenal, straight up inspiring.
But we are also the inheritors of a long legacy of stupid and brutal, and it can be hard to look around and believe that now is better than it was. How could this possibly be better? The gutting of CSIRO is a tragedy, but it's short term gain for tragedies all the way down.
I think Australia today is different better society than the country a century ago, we are iterating of a base of absolute monarchy and entrenched power, and it seems as we have got comfortable, and many of us are comfortable, many of us have stopped pushing.
There's a book on historical protest movements in Australia by Jeff Sparrow. It was an eye opener for me to see that actually things were even worse a century ago, the way fear of communist infiltration was used to control society, was even more clumsy, and more successful than the garbage we encounter today. The story of the Hilton Hotel bombing in the 70s is so clumsy it would be hilarious if lives weren't ruined. ASIO planted a fake bomb (which they intended to find and they use to justify further funding), which actually blew up, and then the Indian representative (was it the ambassador or the Prime Minister?) declared it was a terrorist attack against him, so ASIO had to find a hippy to arrest, so they did and they got away with it.
If I were a tyrannical gov and my country thought I was incompetent I would run with it for as long as I could, implementing things like surveillance laws, removing guns, all the while the citizens think I’m incompetent. Until they look around one day and realize Ive build a cage around them.
Sure, but it'll be a shit cage that I'm more likely to get get tetanus from it than anything else. If they buy drone soldier robots from China maybe they could pull it off - provide someone figures out the remote, lots of buttons, but you just couldn't find enough people in Australia interested in being your stormtroopers. Murdoch on the other hand could do it, if we ever stop paying him his tribute, who knows, maybe he will rise from crypt and enslave us all, but as long as we keep showing him with gifts he seems content with merely ruining the joint.
I'm not missing anything. This is completely irrelevant. If the gov is incompetent there will be a power vacuum that will be filled by something.
> Don't forget they disarmed the people.
SIGH. This isn't true and I wish Americans would stop saying it. You can own guns down here, even keep them in your house. Sure, you're limited to bolt actions/side by sides, etc; but there is a healthy shooting community down here. For instance, I've got a mate who owns 7 rifles, the largest of which is a .338 Lapua.
What Australia did was break the 'gun culture' down here and ban semi-autos, pump actions, etc. And let's be honest, I'd take that over the 18 million ARs in circulation in the USA every day of the week. Not having semi-autos is preferable to daily shootings in the community.
SIGH. This isn't true and I wish Americans would stop saying it. You can own guns down here, even keep them in your house. Sure, you're limited to bolt actions/side by sides, etc; but there is a healthy shooting community down here. For instance, I've got a mate who owns 7 rifles, the largest of which is a .338 Lapua.
What Australia did was break the 'gun culture' down here and ban semi-autos, pump actions, etc. And let's be honest, I'd take that over the 18 million ARs in circulation in the USA every day of the week. Not having semi-autos is preferable to daily shootings in the community.
> "Decades of bull markets, house price increases, a decline in public education, torpedoed communication infrastructure and complicit "independent" media has resulted in a wealthy, ignorant and complacent society who allow their representatives full control over their lives. It is not that they don't care about these issues, they are not even aware they are issues at all."
This bit - as well as the overall comment in general - describes nearly every Western democracy at this point. Yes, there are variations but the arc is similar overall.
The issues and narratives come down from higher up and are distributed via tightly owned (read: powerful) media conglomerates. It's simply one distraction after another. The collective memory of the masses resembles - pardon the editorial - a gold fish.
The idea that the internet would open hearts and minds has yet to materialize as promised. Perhaps it's time to prepare for the realization that it never will? Or at least stop being so naive as to think that it wouldn't be used against us? Because as it is, it is.
This bit - as well as the overall comment in general - describes nearly every Western democracy at this point. Yes, there are variations but the arc is similar overall.
The issues and narratives come down from higher up and are distributed via tightly owned (read: powerful) media conglomerates. It's simply one distraction after another. The collective memory of the masses resembles - pardon the editorial - a gold fish.
The idea that the internet would open hearts and minds has yet to materialize as promised. Perhaps it's time to prepare for the realization that it never will? Or at least stop being so naive as to think that it wouldn't be used against us? Because as it is, it is.
This is the role of the attention economy. To fill up your face with screens and ads and make you into a good little consumer, fat and happy, an atrophied mind sitting on your duff like a Wall-E passenger, constantly distracted by fads and sucking down liquid shittrition.
> Since leaving Australia (and started living in Europe) I have come to the conclusion that Australia is not a "real" country - it is just a continent owned by corporate interests that happens to also have people living on it.
Since leaving the USA and moving to Australia I've come to the conclusion that the USA is in a unstoppable decline and will continue to degrade, both in terms of society and infrastructure, for the foreseeable future. And say what you will about Australia being a driven by corporate interests but one thing we've gotten right in comparison to the rest of the Western world is our insistence of handling the pandemic correctly, ie placing human life over the short term economic interests of the upper class.
We lock down in Western Australia when we have one case of COVID in the community. I don't believe ANY European or North American country can say the same. Who's beholden to corporate interests again?
Since leaving the USA and moving to Australia I've come to the conclusion that the USA is in a unstoppable decline and will continue to degrade, both in terms of society and infrastructure, for the foreseeable future. And say what you will about Australia being a driven by corporate interests but one thing we've gotten right in comparison to the rest of the Western world is our insistence of handling the pandemic correctly, ie placing human life over the short term economic interests of the upper class.
We lock down in Western Australia when we have one case of COVID in the community. I don't believe ANY European or North American country can say the same. Who's beholden to corporate interests again?
So who pays to support dozens of people who lost their jobs in the name of protecting one guy?
It's not about protecting one guy, but about stopping the spread as early as possible.
So as an individual, it doesn't matter if your livelihood is destroyed because for the greater good of the community?
Correct. A conscious decision has been made in Australia to prioritize human life over business profits. What most didn't realize is that by choosing this path we're optimizing both, eg because we don't have any community spread our economy is booming.
Ah so what you view as business profits, somebody views it as a livelihood, way to live does not mean anything? But no its just profits.
Sounds like Australia has got ideas from CCP.
Sounds like Australia has got ideas from CCP.
So you believe a livelihood is greater than human life? Someone running their own business should be viewed as more important than their neighbor living? Sounds pretty psychopathic to me.
It will be interesting and funny, when food distribution will be impacted due to people's stupidity, and you will have to resort to growing your own food. Because lockdown for everyone means including those big bulky trucks that fill up the supermarket. Because profit right? Famine, and starvation...
When is running a livelihood harmful to someone? Your entire premise is based on all businessmen are psychopaths, which is very narrow-minded.
the federal government. We had two programs, JobKeeper and JobSeeker. In my opinion this is why we have governments, to support the citizens in their time of need.
Having done the same move from the US (to Western Europe) I have come to the same conclusion. The United States is by and for the corporations; there’s a large enough bourgeois that think the system is meritocratic or in any way lives up to the country’s states ideals that a social consciousness shift is unlikely. It also helps that most Americans have so little time off work that they’ll never see another developed nation up close, let alone read about much of the world.
"Everyone is so rich that nobody cares about politics anymore and they all just go to the beach instead" sounds like a wonderful end-goal for which all countries should strive.
This was my immediate thought as well. I'm not sure why I should think it's a bad thing that most of the population doesn't need to concern themselves with the vicissitudes of the political landscape.
Here in Europe we have many of these issues too. In the Netherlands the country is practically run by big corporate, the leading party is basically a string puppet for them. Though the opposition is still strong. We also have extreme house price increases, decline in public education and health (due to budget cuts and privatisation).
Australia is very neoliberal but so are many countries in Europe. Though there is a lot of difference between EU countries. The Nordic countries and Germany are a lot less like this.
But between Australia and the Netherlands there isn't actually that much difference when it comes to corporate interests running the country. PS I've lived in Australia a couple years too :)
Australia is very neoliberal but so are many countries in Europe. Though there is a lot of difference between EU countries. The Nordic countries and Germany are a lot less like this.
But between Australia and the Netherlands there isn't actually that much difference when it comes to corporate interests running the country. PS I've lived in Australia a couple years too :)
This is one of the things that's been worrying me for a while. I worry that Australia's experiencing its last bubble. Germany is somewhere I want to settle down, but it's so hard to up and lift your whole life somewhere with so much uncertainty.
To the point of the post, though — I'm not so worried about surveillance in Australia. The bigger worry for me is the lack of our population's interest in real issues. When the level of surveillance does become a real issue, will our population even care?
To the point of the post, though — I'm not so worried about surveillance in Australia. The bigger worry for me is the lack of our population's interest in real issues. When the level of surveillance does become a real issue, will our population even care?
I lived in Singapore before and it's more run like a company and.
It has no personal freedoms, but on the other side they have HDBs(government housing) which is affordable for their residents.
Australia has no affordable housing alternatives at all and the government doesn't even seem to care.
Australia has more freedoms than Singapore, but far less than Europe.
It has no personal freedoms, but on the other side they have HDBs(government housing) which is affordable for their residents.
Australia has no affordable housing alternatives at all and the government doesn't even seem to care.
Australia has more freedoms than Singapore, but far less than Europe.
So what are we Aussies missing out on then?
You don't because you are living in a period where everything is wonderul for Australia.
You know what they say: everybody is a genius in a bull market.
So you have sun, good food, plenty of money and little immigration.
Life is good (if you are not living in the desert naked).
Unfortunatly, there is nowhere in the world where things stay nice and easy. The run ended in europe after 1970, it ended in the US after 1990 and it will end in Autralia.
Now, when things are getting hard, having weak democratic institutions, no political awareness and corporate medling is going to hit hard.
But I wouldn't be too cocky because it's not like we didn't mess up loads of things in our own countries, even if we have strong political commitment.
Besides, if I could enjoy your life style, I would probably be way less sensitive to privacy issues.
So don't take what I said as the words of someone who has the ethical upper hand, because I certainly don't.
And Australia is damn comfy.
Also my partner will probably convince me to go back live there with her at one point, so I'll enjoy it as much as I can.
You know what they say: everybody is a genius in a bull market.
So you have sun, good food, plenty of money and little immigration.
Life is good (if you are not living in the desert naked).
Unfortunatly, there is nowhere in the world where things stay nice and easy. The run ended in europe after 1970, it ended in the US after 1990 and it will end in Autralia.
Now, when things are getting hard, having weak democratic institutions, no political awareness and corporate medling is going to hit hard.
But I wouldn't be too cocky because it's not like we didn't mess up loads of things in our own countries, even if we have strong political commitment.
Besides, if I could enjoy your life style, I would probably be way less sensitive to privacy issues.
So don't take what I said as the words of someone who has the ethical upper hand, because I certainly don't.
And Australia is damn comfy.
Also my partner will probably convince me to go back live there with her at one point, so I'll enjoy it as much as I can.
'So you have sun, good food, plenty of money and little immigration.'
Australia has one of the highest rates of inbound immigration in the world. Number 2 in the OECD actually, right after Luxembourg.
And I, like the overwhelming majority of Australians, consider high immigration intakes to be a good thing.
Check your sources.
[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/migratio...
[2] https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133441/australia-attitu...
Australia has one of the highest rates of inbound immigration in the world. Number 2 in the OECD actually, right after Luxembourg.
And I, like the overwhelming majority of Australians, consider high immigration intakes to be a good thing.
Check your sources.
[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/migratio...
[2] https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133441/australia-attitu...
Skilled immigration is neocolonialism. I truly can't believe how many (supposedly enlightened) people I've had try to tell me with a straight face how wonderful it is to have all these doctors/engineers/etc coming to their country, and how great it is for their economy and healthcare system etc.
Like, you don't think all the people in India or The Philippines or Chad need doctors or economic advancement?? It's just incredibly greedy and selfish. Can you imagine what a person who has just lost their child due to a preventable illness from being unable to see a doctor think when they hear some privileged person from an unimaginably wealthy country that already has an order of magnitude more doctors per capita and whose children will never see the suffering theirs routinely do -- boasting how wonderful it is that they are harvesting all the best healthcare workers from their country. Makes you shudder to think about it really.
These same people will bemoan a corporation from their country going to another one to conduct a resource extraction business (exploitation!) and yet when it comes to their own interests, they are quite happy to take and exploit a less well off country's most valuable resource which is its human capital.
Like, you don't think all the people in India or The Philippines or Chad need doctors or economic advancement?? It's just incredibly greedy and selfish. Can you imagine what a person who has just lost their child due to a preventable illness from being unable to see a doctor think when they hear some privileged person from an unimaginably wealthy country that already has an order of magnitude more doctors per capita and whose children will never see the suffering theirs routinely do -- boasting how wonderful it is that they are harvesting all the best healthcare workers from their country. Makes you shudder to think about it really.
These same people will bemoan a corporation from their country going to another one to conduct a resource extraction business (exploitation!) and yet when it comes to their own interests, they are quite happy to take and exploit a less well off country's most valuable resource which is its human capital.
Is it neocolonialism, or is it more like letting people vote with their feet? In a perfect world, we'd all be able to choose where we live.
Most of the people I talk to in Australia are more concerned about all the people that DON'T get let in.
Another lens is that countries are in the business of providing defence, governance, economic opportunity and lifestyle services. Immigrants are customers.
Most of the people I talk to in Australia are more concerned about all the people that DON'T get let in.
Another lens is that countries are in the business of providing defence, governance, economic opportunity and lifestyle services. Immigrants are customers.
Yes, yes it is neocolonialism. And it's easy to justify by saying "in a perfect world", but we don't live in a perfect world do we so that logic is just completely flawed. "In a perfect world we would do X" does not mean that doing X in the imperfect world we live in results in a better world.
It is neocolonialism because it is extracting the most valuable and profitable resources of less well off countries for your own benefit. Sure they can't compete with the massive incentives offered by the uber wealthy countries. Probably because those wealthy countries have been exploiting their resources including human capital in the past which keeps them poor and dependent.
But they should be thankful that their children get to sew shoes for us for a few cents a day.
It is neocolonialism because it is extracting the most valuable and profitable resources of less well off countries for your own benefit. Sure they can't compete with the massive incentives offered by the uber wealthy countries. Probably because those wealthy countries have been exploiting their resources including human capital in the past which keeps them poor and dependent.
But they should be thankful that their children get to sew shoes for us for a few cents a day.
Let's take doctors as a specific example.
Suppose we take the Phillipines and Malaysia, they (together) have about 6x the population of Australia. They have the capacity to train a lot of doctors - and a doctor can have a great life in either of those countries.
They can both also produce doctors more efficiently than Australia, partly due to living costs / ppp and population size, and partly due to Baumol's disease hitting education costs harder in AU.
But let's be honest, no country is talent-limited on doctor production. What's limited are training slots, and that is partly a practical concern... but also licensing restrictions - which tend to be regulated by doctors who have a strong interest in avoiding the oversupply of doctors.
What I am trying to say with all this is that there are many reasons someone might not be getting good medical care in say, the Phillipines but those reasons are not primarily due to doctors emigrating.
Suppose we take the Phillipines and Malaysia, they (together) have about 6x the population of Australia. They have the capacity to train a lot of doctors - and a doctor can have a great life in either of those countries.
They can both also produce doctors more efficiently than Australia, partly due to living costs / ppp and population size, and partly due to Baumol's disease hitting education costs harder in AU.
But let's be honest, no country is talent-limited on doctor production. What's limited are training slots, and that is partly a practical concern... but also licensing restrictions - which tend to be regulated by doctors who have a strong interest in avoiding the oversupply of doctors.
What I am trying to say with all this is that there are many reasons someone might not be getting good medical care in say, the Phillipines but those reasons are not primarily due to doctors emigrating.
What you write doesn't refute the problem which is that countries like this generally have worse health outcomes, healthcare systems, they have fewer skilled workers to build their economies.
Skimming their best resources off the top can't be justified by some dry economic formula (if it happens to be correct) that just by pure coincidence results in a worse outcome for that poorer country and a better outcome for the wealthier one. Colonialists had all sorts of economic arguments too.
Skimming their best resources off the top can't be justified by some dry economic formula (if it happens to be correct) that just by pure coincidence results in a worse outcome for that poorer country and a better outcome for the wealthier one. Colonialists had all sorts of economic arguments too.
You might enjoy this article from a Malaysian doctor (ok, Cambridge educated but fine) who is arguing that Malaysia is over-producing doctors: https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/vital-signs/20...
I would agree that the Phillipines are under-supplied according to OECD ratios but again, I don't think the problem is emigration.
Personally I think your mental model of these countries is out-of-date. They are sophisticated and industrialised but do have high inequality and some governance problems. As usual, it's a distribution problem. I think you are under-estimating their capacity and they are not at all lacking in talent, education or human resources. Australia is lucky to get skilled migrants but is by no means "draining" them. I think I'd want to see a more quantitative argument before I was willing to accept that.
I would agree that the Phillipines are under-supplied according to OECD ratios but again, I don't think the problem is emigration.
Personally I think your mental model of these countries is out-of-date. They are sophisticated and industrialised but do have high inequality and some governance problems. As usual, it's a distribution problem. I think you are under-estimating their capacity and they are not at all lacking in talent, education or human resources. Australia is lucky to get skilled migrants but is by no means "draining" them. I think I'd want to see a more quantitative argument before I was willing to accept that.
I'm not saying some individual's story or a particular situation in a particular country is neocolonialism. It's the entire system of siphoning resources from disadvantaged regions to wealthy ones.
As an expat, I go there where I get treated best. Why wouldn’t I? Do I owe my country of birth anything?
Are these rhetorical questions? I'm not quite sure how they address my comment.
There is a difference between that and the systemic concerted efforts by wealthy countries to poach and take the most valuable, skilled, educated of the human capital from poorer countries who are in positions of weakness and far less bargaining power.
I understand that the narrative is that it's about "helping the unfortunates", but really it's not. If a country wanted to help people you wouldn't "help" mainly the ones who can give them something (they are actually helping you), leaving the many more less fortunate ones in an even worse state.
There is a difference between that and the systemic concerted efforts by wealthy countries to poach and take the most valuable, skilled, educated of the human capital from poorer countries who are in positions of weakness and far less bargaining power.
I understand that the narrative is that it's about "helping the unfortunates", but really it's not. If a country wanted to help people you wouldn't "help" mainly the ones who can give them something (they are actually helping you), leaving the many more less fortunate ones in an even worse state.
I understand what you mean, but it’s not exclusive to wealthy countries poaching people from developing countries either right.
In Germany(already a wealthy country) doctors move to Switzerland for better pay and better working conditions too.
It’s also very expensive to move internationally. Visas can cost up to $10,000 alone, so I doubt that so many people actually leave developing countries for developed ones.
There are also tons of people who would never move countries because their family and social circle is in that particular place or they want to make their country a better place.
I also think many people move back home from overseas to their home country, bringing their improved skillset with them.
In Germany(already a wealthy country) doctors move to Switzerland for better pay and better working conditions too.
It’s also very expensive to move internationally. Visas can cost up to $10,000 alone, so I doubt that so many people actually leave developing countries for developed ones.
There are also tons of people who would never move countries because their family and social circle is in that particular place or they want to make their country a better place.
I also think many people move back home from overseas to their home country, bringing their improved skillset with them.
I didn't intend to imply that's the only situation where skilled migration occurs, but that is what I wrote so I should correct myself. When there is a relatively fair and level competition to compete for resources then there's less room for exploitative behavior of course. That applies not just to labor but really anywhere.
I think you're rationalizing or painting yourself a reality that you wish was true. Brain drain from disadvantaged countries on an industrial scale is a serious problem. Not for the wealthy privileged countries who benefit of course, which is why nobody says much about it and those who do get attacked.
I think you're rationalizing or painting yourself a reality that you wish was true. Brain drain from disadvantaged countries on an industrial scale is a serious problem. Not for the wealthy privileged countries who benefit of course, which is why nobody says much about it and those who do get attacked.
for a collectivist mentality you owe everithing to the community thats own you
People from less fortunate countries wanting to better themselves in more developed countries is somehow whitey's fault. I...wow. I never thought I would see such backwards retarded thinking on HN, but here we are.
Talk to some immigrants here in Australia and you’ll find that a lot don’t end up in the industry they were in from their home country. We have some pretty strict rules around qualifications for doctors, engineers etc and a lot of other countries educations doesn’t cut it for our standards. So most end up becoming taxi drivers or cleaners. When you speak with some of them, it’s almost tragic to have a talented individual unable to contribute to the field they’re qualified in. But no one forced them to come. No one forces them to stay. Is that still neocolonialism?
Yes it is. I'm not saying some individual's story or an anecdote is neocolonialism. It's the entire system of siphoning resources from disadvantaged regions to wealthy ones.
If that's true, then neocolonialism is meaningless as a pejorative. I associate neocolonialism with economic hit men and predatory loans, not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments. By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.
> If that's true, then neocolonialism is meaningless as a pejorative. I associate neocolonialism with economic hit men and predatory loans,
Now that is meaningless. There are a whole vast range of ways to be exploitative and wealthy and powerful taking from poor and powerless.
> not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments.
I'm talking about the aggregate outcome for the people. The greater good. It's funny the disconnect some people have here between being so fast to denounce "individualism" greed, selfishness etc., in their own countries when they see it is a detriment to them. And yet they go completely the other way when it's a benefit to them and a detriment to people of other countries. That's the height of selfishness and hypocrisy as I see it.
> By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.
No it's not.
Now that is meaningless. There are a whole vast range of ways to be exploitative and wealthy and powerful taking from poor and powerless.
> not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments.
I'm talking about the aggregate outcome for the people. The greater good. It's funny the disconnect some people have here between being so fast to denounce "individualism" greed, selfishness etc., in their own countries when they see it is a detriment to them. And yet they go completely the other way when it's a benefit to them and a detriment to people of other countries. That's the height of selfishness and hypocrisy as I see it.
> By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.
No it's not.
yes, it is. Serfdom is when a peasant has no right to leave his lord's land. If neocolonialism includes recognition of the right to emigrate when another country wants to accept you as an immigrant, it's too broad a definition to be any kind of useful pejorative.
The collective outcome may be bad for the country from which people emigrate, but the individual outcome is very good for the people who emigrate. And at a higher level of organisation, the importance of retaining one's best and brightest creates incentives for all governments to behave better than they would if it was accepted the people born in a country belonged to the rulers like some kind of global slavery system.
The collective outcome may be bad for the country from which people emigrate, but the individual outcome is very good for the people who emigrate. And at a higher level of organisation, the importance of retaining one's best and brightest creates incentives for all governments to behave better than they would if it was accepted the people born in a country belonged to the rulers like some kind of global slavery system.
I don't know what you want me to respond with, what you're writing is a strawman, it's not what I wrote anywhere.
What I'd like is for you to either narrow your category of 'Neocolonialism' in the future or explain you have a minority view about it. The term as it's used today implies the speaker is arguing against it. If your use of the term neocolonialism applies to people 'voting with their feet', then you are either rehabilitating the term or implicitly arguing for serfdom. Neither of which I think were your intent.
I have explained my view on it. Of course it's a minority view because few are willing to admit they willingly and knowingly benefit on the exploitation of those who have less than they do to begin with, but that's exactly what they do.
Trying to say it's either the industrial harvesting of the most skilled people from less advantaged countries, or it's "serfdom" is just outlandish. I don't even know where to start with that!
Trying to say it's either the industrial harvesting of the most skilled people from less advantaged countries, or it's "serfdom" is just outlandish. I don't even know where to start with that!
[deleted]
Australian have temporary immigration, becomming permanent is actually quite hard compared to europe where you can basically just walk in there.
Also, I consider it a chance to be able to go to school as well, it doesn't mean exams are easy.
Immigration is the same. It gives, and it takes.
Because australia is an island with a pretty good legal filter for immigrants, they get less social tensions.
Also because they have plenty of space and money, right now they can welcome immigrants way more easily.
And finally because immigration from asia is a good part of the immigration source, which also makes things easier culturally.
The situations is different in every part of the world.
Immigration is not a single variable universal phenomenom.
Today if you talk about the challenge that diversity can bring, you are labelled with pretty harshed words. But nothing is free.
Source: I've been an immigrant a lot.
Also, I consider it a chance to be able to go to school as well, it doesn't mean exams are easy.
Immigration is the same. It gives, and it takes.
Because australia is an island with a pretty good legal filter for immigrants, they get less social tensions.
Also because they have plenty of space and money, right now they can welcome immigrants way more easily.
And finally because immigration from asia is a good part of the immigration source, which also makes things easier culturally.
The situations is different in every part of the world.
Immigration is not a single variable universal phenomenom.
Today if you talk about the challenge that diversity can bring, you are labelled with pretty harshed words. But nothing is free.
Source: I've been an immigrant a lot.
Based on what I've heard/read a lot of us would fail our own immigration test on Australian knowledge.
I grew up here in our system and was only vaguely aware there was even a second verse in our national anthem. The people trying to become citizens here and have only been here for a short time knew _all_ the words.
I grew up here in our system and was only vaguely aware there was even a second verse in our national anthem. The people trying to become citizens here and have only been here for a short time knew _all_ the words.
I'm planning on using the c word a lot at the exam to sound more native
"Do you think Australia needs more people?
Graduates: 58% yes
Non-Graduates: 24% yes"
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/10/72-of-aussies-do-no...
Not overwhelming.
Also there are some people who are happy with immigration, but only from other culturally-compatible regions, and as long as diversity (eg. max 10% from any one country) and equality (eg. max 49% males from any one country) is part of the intake.
Graduates: 58% yes
Non-Graduates: 24% yes"
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/10/72-of-aussies-do-no...
Not overwhelming.
Also there are some people who are happy with immigration, but only from other culturally-compatible regions, and as long as diversity (eg. max 10% from any one country) and equality (eg. max 49% males from any one country) is part of the intake.
Australia's economy is pretty dependent on Coal, Aluminum and Gas.
Two of these a hopefully going away soon but the Government is so In bed with mining and they throw more money at elections than every other sector put together that nothing will done about it until it collapses.
Do you understand what you're actually wishing for when you cheer on the destruction of a large percentage of the economy? What comes after will not be so comfortable.
The thing that gets me is not when people advocate for economically shooting themselves in the foot on principal, it's fine to have principals and stick to them even when it hurts you. What does infuriates me is that most of these people then apply a double standard for the other tribe and call them stupid when they advocate for sticking to their principals even when it hurts them.
I suspect the OP is wishing for Coal and Gas to go away soon in the hope it can spare the world from the upcoming catastrophe that is climate change.
What is stupid, with Europe and the USA both planning a tax on carbon, in just a few decades the OP's wish will most likely come true, yet Australia keeps wishing for a different future.
What is stupid, with Europe and the USA both planning a tax on carbon, in just a few decades the OP's wish will most likely come true, yet Australia keeps wishing for a different future.
OP's way of life has been made possible by cheap energy. Wishing it away before renewables are able to provide baseload power in an advanced economy (and the storage problem is, at best, decades away from being solved) is unwise.
South Australia has been doing pretty well with a renewables-backed grid.
There was a smear campaign in 2016 regarding a state-wide blackout, caused by severe weather affecting the distribution & transmission infrastructure. [see #1] The incumbant political party used this as an opportunity to blame the renewable generators (and state government, from the "opposite side" of politics). [see #2]
The same severe weather event would have affected any power generator.
[1] https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/compliance-reportin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout...
There was a smear campaign in 2016 regarding a state-wide blackout, caused by severe weather affecting the distribution & transmission infrastructure. [see #1] The incumbant political party used this as an opportunity to blame the renewable generators (and state government, from the "opposite side" of politics). [see #2]
The same severe weather event would have affected any power generator.
[1] https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/compliance-reportin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout...
If Australia and the rest of the world continues to rely on coal as it's main source of baseload power then I suspect we are all doomed.
No amount of economic wealth is going to help once the environment has been damaged beyond repair.
No amount of economic wealth is going to help once the environment has been damaged beyond repair.
Australia has the most abundant uranium reserves in the world. We have exactly 1 nuclear reactor we don't use for making power (yet is actually regionally vital for supplying medical isotopes to hospitals in SE-asia as well).
Every side of politics has acted like complete cowards on this issue, with the Liberals the worst offenders - they pay it lip service every election then do nothing while handing out cash to the coal miners.
Every side of politics has acted like complete cowards on this issue, with the Liberals the worst offenders - they pay it lip service every election then do nothing while handing out cash to the coal miners.
Agree 100%. Nuclear power will likely never happen in Australia now though, too many Karens terrified of it.
A forward-thinking government would be incentivising a diverse economy, subsidised by the windfall from the currently profitable industries.
Instead, the incumbant governments just subsidise the inumbant industries; or rather, the existing "winners". (E.g. subsidising Murdoch media, mining companies, all pulling in millions/billions in profit.)
Australia has one of the lowest rankings in terms of economic complexity [see #1]. Until the government can subsidise emerging markets, there's no reason for businesses to take risks - the low population can't support it.
Propping up existing industries will eventually be a failing strategy. When Australia's "luck" (exploitable resources) runs out, "what comes after will not be so comfortable". But there's still time to steer away from that discomfort. (Unlike the imminent ecology collapse...)
[1] https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/astralias-low-economic-co...
Instead, the incumbant governments just subsidise the inumbant industries; or rather, the existing "winners". (E.g. subsidising Murdoch media, mining companies, all pulling in millions/billions in profit.)
Australia has one of the lowest rankings in terms of economic complexity [see #1]. Until the government can subsidise emerging markets, there's no reason for businesses to take risks - the low population can't support it.
Propping up existing industries will eventually be a failing strategy. When Australia's "luck" (exploitable resources) runs out, "what comes after will not be so comfortable". But there's still time to steer away from that discomfort. (Unlike the imminent ecology collapse...)
[1] https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/astralias-low-economic-co...
More and more Australians are putting environmental issues ahead of economic, and are aware that this will make things less comfortable in the short term. Making personal sacrifices for the greater good is generally considered a positive trait in civil society. Many are hopeful that things will be better in the long term, and are hopeful an alternative source of income can be found before the inevitable collapse happens.
that wealth enable chronism, it could be better long term for the australian people (or most resource-based countries) if it dissipated tomorrow
>>Now, when things are getting hard, having weak democratic institutions, no political awareness and corporate medling is going to hit hard.
Many living in democracies will find this true for their country.
Many living in democracies will find this true for their country.
Hence my last paragraphes. I'm pretty sure we are not heading in the right direction either.
> The run ended in europe after 1970, it ended in the US after 1990 and it will end in Autralia.
I wouldn't be so sure that they'll ever need to abandon their crutch of geological resources. There's nothing particularly industrious or forward-looking about Australia, precisely because they can dig up dirt and sell it at a premium.
I wouldn't be so sure that they'll ever need to abandon their crutch of geological resources. There's nothing particularly industrious or forward-looking about Australia, precisely because they can dig up dirt and sell it at a premium.
The world is complex. Climate change, pollution, water shortage, demographic fluctuation, power grabbing, economical crisis, etc. So many things can happen and change the rules of the game entirely. Not to mention all what we don't know.
The book anti-fragile have a very good bit on that.
The point is everything moves, nothing stays the same, good and bad runs go hand in hand.
But imagine if a dictator of the last century had access to Facebook social graph...
You gotta be careful when it's good, to not have it too bad when it's getting bad later
The book anti-fragile have a very good bit on that.
The point is everything moves, nothing stays the same, good and bad runs go hand in hand.
But imagine if a dictator of the last century had access to Facebook social graph...
You gotta be careful when it's good, to not have it too bad when it's getting bad later
Yeah, I really think that having diverse and plentiful raw materials on mostly unused land is always going to be valuable. Off-earth mining is where disruption will eventually come from, but that's going to take a long while yet to become competitive with on-earth mining.
I don't expect you to understand, but in Europe, people actually care about their rights [1]. There are weekly protests with lots of impact [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139889
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/protest-stop-c...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139889
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/protest-stop-c...
>I don't expect you to understand, but in Europe, people actually care about their rights [1]
That's a bit condescending. In recent weeks there were tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly.
That's a bit condescending. In recent weeks there were tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly.
Do you have a source for "tens of thousands"? I think it was fewer than 10k.
Thankfully only 3,500 in Sydney out of a population of 5 million. Fortunately the vast majority of Australians aren't completely selfish and thoughtless. Nobody likes lockdowns. The government doesn't benefit from them, it's not lining some evil overlord's pockets.
Thankfully only 3,500 in Sydney out of a population of 5 million. Fortunately the vast majority of Australians aren't completely selfish and thoughtless. Nobody likes lockdowns. The government doesn't benefit from them, it's not lining some evil overlord's pockets.
>The government doesn't benefit from them
It gains more control over people's lives and consolidates economic power into megacorporations. Shrinks the pie, but you have more direct control over it, and megacorp one will have better bribes bribes you than 1000 mom and pop stores. Seems like an okay deal to me.
I believe the governments in Australia do benefit from the lockdowns. I'm from Australia, but live in Germany, so when I look back home from here, I'm shocked by how deliberately the fear of Covid has been stoked and played up in Australia. Constantly in and out of lockdowns, daily press conferences about death and case numbers, no path out and no hope.
It feels to me that Australia will be a country suffering from PTSD once it finds a way out of the pandemic and impossible dream of zero covid.
(For comparison, here in Europe, the pandemic is largely over, and our vaccination wall is looking strong enough that even what's coming over winter shouldn't be too bad.)
It feels to me that Australia will be a country suffering from PTSD once it finds a way out of the pandemic and impossible dream of zero covid.
(For comparison, here in Europe, the pandemic is largely over, and our vaccination wall is looking strong enough that even what's coming over winter shouldn't be too bad.)
There are not enough vaccines. Which is to say, the current Liberal government was offered a blank cheque from Pfizer to order as many as it could mid last year, instead didn't (because they're incompetent and incapable of understanding moderately sophisticated ideas), and then proceeded to engage in a runabout of graft, corruption and waste that means even when we are technically overflowing with AstraZeneca vaccines it's actually still surprisingly hard to have them (and I'll note, we also got short changed on AZ because Europe shut down exports of it for a while - though that's also on the Fed gov because again, we could've bought literally as much Pfizer as we wanted early on).
They aren't benefiting from anything: the governments are all rightly tanking in popularity, and being held up by Rupert Murdoch's multi-decadal commitment to dumbing down the narrative.
They aren't benefiting from anything: the governments are all rightly tanking in popularity, and being held up by Rupert Murdoch's multi-decadal commitment to dumbing down the narrative.
Australia barely protests about anything, and when a group of passionate people finally standup for something they believe in, they generally are ridiculed. Politicians squash any kind of dissent, even passing laws restricting protests. This isnt about antivax/anti-lockdown protests either, im talking about climate change, social inequality, workers rights etc.
Australia is a largely apathetic country, complacent because of their own wealth and removal from the international community.
But the situation is going to turn quite negatively for Australia, its becoming progressively worse because nobody actually believes in anything fundamental. We keep installing savvy businessmen politicians rather than people with a longterm vision for the country.
The result is exacerbating social problems. It makes you think where the countries priorities are when homelessness in Melbourne has gotten terribly worse in the past 7 years. People rather maximise their gains on the property market, borrowing exorbitant amounts of money to buy property they cant really afford, meanwhile devaluing the currency.
The result is the social fabric of a nation disintegrating.
Australia is a largely apathetic country, complacent because of their own wealth and removal from the international community.
But the situation is going to turn quite negatively for Australia, its becoming progressively worse because nobody actually believes in anything fundamental. We keep installing savvy businessmen politicians rather than people with a longterm vision for the country.
The result is exacerbating social problems. It makes you think where the countries priorities are when homelessness in Melbourne has gotten terribly worse in the past 7 years. People rather maximise their gains on the property market, borrowing exorbitant amounts of money to buy property they cant really afford, meanwhile devaluing the currency.
The result is the social fabric of a nation disintegrating.
You mean the illegal protest where people turned up without masks, defying public health orders? I doubt that captures the majority of us concerned about mass surveillance.
The fact that you describe protesting as illegal kinda says it all.
Err... we're literally in a pandemic, where people getting together in large numbers makes things worse.
When we're not in pandemic conditions, people are quite welcome to gather and protest whatever the heck they want.
When we're not in pandemic conditions, people are quite welcome to gather and protest whatever the heck they want.
What a great precedent! Now we can just keep the (declaration of) pandemic going for the next 10 years, and we have license to shut down anything we like!
I go to a large gathering every week. It’s called the supermarket. In light of that, it seems silly to suspend civil rights.
Maybe the supermarkets here are different?
We all keep good spacing (1.5m) between each other, wear face masks, etc.
Very, very different to the protests apparently, judging by the photos in the newspapers.
We all keep good spacing (1.5m) between each other, wear face masks, etc.
Very, very different to the protests apparently, judging by the photos in the newspapers.
Don't be surprised if that takes, er, a while to happen
So do you people who keep telling everyone dictatorship is next whenever anything happens get tired of being wrong literally every time?
I missed the bit where I told anyone that dictatorship was next.
> tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly
As an Aussie I must say that I see these protests rather differently. For better or worse, Australia has gotten used to having zero COVID: people here tend to see the protesters not as brave individuals defending their rights, but as idiots who recklessly endanger the lives of others by spreading disease through a largely unvaccinated populace. Many people here are of the opinion that some ‘fundamental’ rights can and should be suspended in a critical emergency.
As an Aussie I must say that I see these protests rather differently. For better or worse, Australia has gotten used to having zero COVID: people here tend to see the protesters not as brave individuals defending their rights, but as idiots who recklessly endanger the lives of others by spreading disease through a largely unvaccinated populace. Many people here are of the opinion that some ‘fundamental’ rights can and should be suspended in a critical emergency.
Fucking perfect example. Exemplifies exactly the things that get Australians hot and bothered enough to protest - getting it totally and absolutely arse-about.
Perfect example, nicely done.
Perfect example, nicely done.
Link 2 is a 404 for me.
Hilariously, Australians protest about their rights by trying their best to extend lockdowns further [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/24/anti-...
Hilariously, Australians protest about their rights by trying their best to extend lockdowns further [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/24/anti-...
Why is it hilarious? The whole point of human rights is they they don't just disappear whenever there's an emergency, otherwise the next dictator who comes along will just declare an emergency and violate everyone's rights, as has happened countless times in history. It's sad not funny that people protesting their rights being violated just leads to their rights being violated even more.
Ok, this is a spectrum.
How far along the spectrum does the emergency need to get to justify a lockdown?
For example
- The Black Plague which killed 30%~ of Europe. At what point would a lockdown be justified?
- Germany just invaded my northern border. Again. Am I allowed to force my residents to turn their lights off to avoid bombing?
Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough.
The question is 'what is bad enough' and this has no scientific answer. The answer is up to the government of the day, and the population who can decide whether to turf that government.
How far along the spectrum does the emergency need to get to justify a lockdown?
For example
- The Black Plague which killed 30%~ of Europe. At what point would a lockdown be justified?
- Germany just invaded my northern border. Again. Am I allowed to force my residents to turn their lights off to avoid bombing?
Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough.
The question is 'what is bad enough' and this has no scientific answer. The answer is up to the government of the day, and the population who can decide whether to turf that government.
> Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough.
I feel like this is the point of contention. Many people truly don't consider things that can be taken away a right. Is the constitution a suicide pact a serious question that has been argued in the US Supreme Court (that phrased originated by a justice arguing that it wasn't... he was in the minority opinion).
I will try to keep this neutral, but people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a priveledge"... what distinguishes between rights and priveledges?
I feel like this is the point of contention. Many people truly don't consider things that can be taken away a right. Is the constitution a suicide pact a serious question that has been argued in the US Supreme Court (that phrased originated by a justice arguing that it wasn't... he was in the minority opinion).
I will try to keep this neutral, but people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a priveledge"... what distinguishes between rights and priveledges?
So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? So things like banning indoor meetings should be allowed to continue, even when there is a pandemic?
I didn't protest the lockdowns because it seems reasonable to me that you'd want to ban proximity to curtail the spread of a disease that spreads by proximity. That doesn't mean I won't protest a dictator just declaring an emergency and violating everyone's rights.
I didn't protest the lockdowns because it seems reasonable to me that you'd want to ban proximity to curtail the spread of a disease that spreads by proximity. That doesn't mean I won't protest a dictator just declaring an emergency and violating everyone's rights.
> So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency?
This does seem a pretty common misconception. People seem to forget that even the most liberal countries still regularly and systematically infringe on people's rights, e.g. by imprisoning criminals. But you don't see many of the anti-lockdown types protesting the existence of prisons.
In both cases, it's a matter of proportionally balancing the loss of individual rights with the interests (and indeed, other conflicting rights) of the community as a whole.
This does seem a pretty common misconception. People seem to forget that even the most liberal countries still regularly and systematically infringe on people's rights, e.g. by imprisoning criminals. But you don't see many of the anti-lockdown types protesting the existence of prisons.
In both cases, it's a matter of proportionally balancing the loss of individual rights with the interests (and indeed, other conflicting rights) of the community as a whole.
The imprisonment of criminals is a governments way of fulfilling one of its primary duties, keeping its citizens safe. It’s not 100% accurate of course but I’d much rather take that than wondering if my neighbour will kill me.
If you’re saying a government shouldn’t be locking people up so that an individuals rights aren’t violated, then you’re saying a government shouldn’t be looking after the wellbeing of its people. In which case, you’re essentially talking about anarchy.
If you’re saying a government shouldn’t be locking people up so that an individuals rights aren’t violated, then you’re saying a government shouldn’t be looking after the wellbeing of its people. In which case, you’re essentially talking about anarchy.
But you're agreeing with the GP. Similarly, governments have a responsibility towards the citizens to protect them against COVID, even if that means some temporary lockdowns.
"Just do what you're told and you'll get your rights back when the dear leaders decide you've done enough. But they'll still reserve the right to take them away whenever they feel like it."
How's that boot polish tasting?
How's that boot polish tasting?
Which rights would those be? The ones that were given up in order to join the EU?
Most EU countries are not sovereign states, given by the fact they don’t control their borders nor their economy (See Greece, or the other affectionately named PIGS countries). There is an insane amount of influence from Germany and Belgium.
This is a glasshouses and stones situation.
Most EU countries are not sovereign states, given by the fact they don’t control their borders nor their economy (See Greece, or the other affectionately named PIGS countries). There is an insane amount of influence from Germany and Belgium.
This is a glasshouses and stones situation.
> Decades of bull markets, house price increases, a decline in public education, torpedoed communication infrastructure and complicit "independent" media has resulted in a wealthy, ignorant and complacent society who allow their representatives full control over their lives. It is not that they don't care about these issues, they are not even aware they are issues at all.
This is sounding an awful lot like the Dems in the US
This is sounding an awful lot like the Dems in the US
This isn’t unique to one party. This is American politics. You can’t simply ascribe it to one party because you lean the other way.
Can you flesh this out more? I'm not asking for academic rigour, but at the moment it's hard to engage because your critique is so sweeping and unspecific.
It's just bog standard Australian cultural cringe.
I've spent a good chunk of my adulthood living in various countries in Europe, and Australia.
Europhilic nonsense such as in the GP betray their almost total lack of understanding as to the actual state of affairs in European countries.
Corruption is everywhere. Corporate interests influence policy.. everywhere. Moronic government decisions abound.. literally everywhere. Nasty media companies... everywhere. Imperfect educational systems ... everywhere. The racism in Western Europe is _significantly_ worse, I can tell you that from personal experience. in Europe, you can be the wrong kind of white in your OWN country - just talk to some Catalans or Basques about what that's like...
...but of course your country kid from Tamworth will have no idea of any of that while they go off clubbing in Berlin or living their French food fantasy in Lyon because 1 - They don't speak the language, which means 2 - They can't understand the news and also means 3 - They can't talk to actual locals about what real life is like there.
Yet EuRopE is So mUCh bEttEr.
(Just wait until they start interacting with the German, French or Spanish bureaucracies and see what kind of tune they're singing after 2 years.. )
And even worse, they think the English speaking populace of any country is a reflection of what the rest of that country is like. The naivete is astounding. Literally the worst kind of Australian that exists.
I've spent a good chunk of my adulthood living in various countries in Europe, and Australia.
Europhilic nonsense such as in the GP betray their almost total lack of understanding as to the actual state of affairs in European countries.
Corruption is everywhere. Corporate interests influence policy.. everywhere. Moronic government decisions abound.. literally everywhere. Nasty media companies... everywhere. Imperfect educational systems ... everywhere. The racism in Western Europe is _significantly_ worse, I can tell you that from personal experience. in Europe, you can be the wrong kind of white in your OWN country - just talk to some Catalans or Basques about what that's like...
...but of course your country kid from Tamworth will have no idea of any of that while they go off clubbing in Berlin or living their French food fantasy in Lyon because 1 - They don't speak the language, which means 2 - They can't understand the news and also means 3 - They can't talk to actual locals about what real life is like there.
Yet EuRopE is So mUCh bEttEr.
(Just wait until they start interacting with the German, French or Spanish bureaucracies and see what kind of tune they're singing after 2 years.. )
And even worse, they think the English speaking populace of any country is a reflection of what the rest of that country is like. The naivete is astounding. Literally the worst kind of Australian that exists.
As an American I have heard many people romanticize Europe and compared it favorably to the USA in terms of politics, social progression, etc. Rose colored glasses, grass is always greener and all that.
I live in Germany, work at a German company, Ich kann auch Deutsche sprechen und Ich bin auch einer Deutscheburger. Aber ja, danke für deine falsche Meinung.
As an American, we always look up to Europe for many but not all things.
There are bits and pieces that I like about Asian countries as well. For instance, I would love USA to have a larger repair and hacker culture like Shenzhen. A ritualistic and respectful culture as Japan. A more socially cohesive culture as India.
I also think USA has some aspects that I don’t want to give up - philosophically, the constitutional rights and materialistically, the cost of living, job market, access to natural beauty and availability of land.
There are bits and pieces that I like about Asian countries as well. For instance, I would love USA to have a larger repair and hacker culture like Shenzhen. A ritualistic and respectful culture as Japan. A more socially cohesive culture as India.
I also think USA has some aspects that I don’t want to give up - philosophically, the constitutional rights and materialistically, the cost of living, job market, access to natural beauty and availability of land.
> in Europe, you can be the wrong kind of white in your OWN country
You know Racism is about ethnicity (+culture) not the colour of your skin, right?
You know Racism is about ethnicity (+culture) not the colour of your skin, right?
> it is just a continent owned by corporate interests that happens to also have people living on it.
An Australian Youtuber who focuses on topics related to macro economy actually touched this subject. Here is the video.
"Why Australia is Actually an American Company" by Economics Explained (2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq8H0GHU8AQ
An Australian Youtuber who focuses on topics related to macro economy actually touched this subject. Here is the video.
"Why Australia is Actually an American Company" by Economics Explained (2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq8H0GHU8AQ
Many of these criticisms can -- and indeed already have -- been extended to plenty of western democracies including the US.
Chomsky and many others have been warning that corporate and political interests are infringing on the (increasingly centralised) media and other institutions for several decades. Questions around the strength of democratic institutions are raised regularly, with the various Trump sagas being a prominent recent example. Australia has been the test-run (or the canary in the coalmine, depending on your view) for privacy-destroying legislation -- following the footsteps and wishes of the NSA, of course. Declines in public education and communication infrastructure, widespread political apathy? Join the club.
Chomsky and many others have been warning that corporate and political interests are infringing on the (increasingly centralised) media and other institutions for several decades. Questions around the strength of democratic institutions are raised regularly, with the various Trump sagas being a prominent recent example. Australia has been the test-run (or the canary in the coalmine, depending on your view) for privacy-destroying legislation -- following the footsteps and wishes of the NSA, of course. Declines in public education and communication infrastructure, widespread political apathy? Join the club.
Funnily enough I’ve been trying for years to make my right wing friends to read Chomsky.
The real enemy is a vastly far different entity than our childish concepts of right or left.
many writers over the years have written about the evil of usury.
Just curious - whereabouts in Europe have you lived and in your opinion, what are the best places for an Aussie expat?
I live in Berlin atm, and spend a not insignificant amount of time in Italy. Honestly it will depend on you and what you want to get out of it. I'd go for somewhere with jobs appropriate for your skills/qualifications and also for somewhere that does not speak English primarily (my office is an English speaking office though YMMV). It will be harder of course, but more rewarding in the end. It took me 2.5 years to be approximately conversational in German, still not professionally fluent though. But I can at least talk shit at the späti with people. If I had to move again I would probably go to Portugal and try for a fully remote position.
Public education would not have helped. If its anything like the dumbed down, one size fits all, factory worker optimized Prussian system in much of the west, it reinforces a lack of critical thinking, independence and holding authorit6 accountable.
That sounds exactly like the US.
The Boston-DC corridor (sans a few impoverished dots) and urban/wealthy West coast maybe. Doesn't really fit for the southeast, middle America and the mountain west.
[deleted]
China has significant influence over AU - this isn’t surprising at all. China is a dumpster fire and so is any country that follows their lead.
>I have come to the conclusion that Australia is not a "real" country - it is just a continent owned by corporate interests that happens to also have people living on it.
Not a bad metaphor. I've always thought of it as kind of like Puerto Rico: essentially a US state, but without any of the good things that come with that. Like, you know, basic human rights such as freedom of speech. We have all the crony capitalism, oligarchy, and pseudo-democracy, but none of the fun stuff that the seppos have. And shitty internet.
But hey, there are beaches. And footy. If that's your thing.
Not a bad metaphor. I've always thought of it as kind of like Puerto Rico: essentially a US state, but without any of the good things that come with that. Like, you know, basic human rights such as freedom of speech. We have all the crony capitalism, oligarchy, and pseudo-democracy, but none of the fun stuff that the seppos have. And shitty internet.
But hey, there are beaches. And footy. If that's your thing.
You also just described the USA.
And you really think a socialist revolution is a way to solve it?
I like reading comments like this, it's very typical of people who think "they are aware and know while others are ignorant", from one hand it's so moralist and condescending but from where people are standing it's just completely lunar, it's so Don Quichotte it's really a breath of fresh air!
Reality is: people want more security, that's part of their expectations from paying taxes, mass surveillance offers just that.
They want to choose a doctor instead of choosing their treatment, unlike you, they don't fantasize on being aware of every aspect of all politics, going to vote every day on every amendment, they just want professionals to do their job just like they do theirs, they accept that these can make mistakes, or not do exactly what they would have because yes, they have their job and their families - which, you know, is two jobs already - to take care of rather than "they prefer to spend their days at the beach".
Reality is: people want more security, that's part of their expectations from paying taxes, mass surveillance offers just that.
They want to choose a doctor instead of choosing their treatment, unlike you, they don't fantasize on being aware of every aspect of all politics, going to vote every day on every amendment, they just want professionals to do their job just like they do theirs, they accept that these can make mistakes, or not do exactly what they would have because yes, they have their job and their families - which, you know, is two jobs already - to take care of rather than "they prefer to spend their days at the beach".
Since 2015 and the meta data laws it’s no wonder things have continued to get worse.
There was practically no opposition to the meta data laws. No popular resistance. No protests. It’s a non-issue for the public or political class.
The extent to which non-tech people in my social circles care is to switch to signal. Not that they’ve stopped using the other tools.
There seems to be a “what else can we do” attitude.
Unfortunately, there is also no other party to vote for, as both major parties (liberal and labour) hold the same policies on ‘national security’.
There was practically no opposition to the meta data laws. No popular resistance. No protests. It’s a non-issue for the public or political class.
The extent to which non-tech people in my social circles care is to switch to signal. Not that they’ve stopped using the other tools.
There seems to be a “what else can we do” attitude.
Unfortunately, there is also no other party to vote for, as both major parties (liberal and labour) hold the same policies on ‘national security’.
I blame NewsCorp and Nine Entertainment as well as the “she’ll be right” attitude of most fellow Aussies. It’s kind of funny the way the media cried when the Federal Police raided the ABC and they cried victim. Yet dodgy law after dodgy law gets passed and no one bats an eyelid.
The relationship the media has with government is disturbing but I guess they are bought and paid for now that the News Media Bargaining Code is a thing.
With due credit to your friends they kind of have a point with the Assistance and Acess Act 2018 in effect. How do they know that the signal app they are downloading is the real deal.
Read up about Firearm Prohibition Orders in NSW too. No need for judges or warrants if you have a rookie police officer and a police commissioner.
The relationship the media has with government is disturbing but I guess they are bought and paid for now that the News Media Bargaining Code is a thing.
With due credit to your friends they kind of have a point with the Assistance and Acess Act 2018 in effect. How do they know that the signal app they are downloading is the real deal.
Read up about Firearm Prohibition Orders in NSW too. No need for judges or warrants if you have a rookie police officer and a police commissioner.
Also the police harassment of FriendlyJordies, where the deputy premier of NSW fabricated allegations to get the counter-terrorism police to arrest a journalist. Scary. Nascent police state vibes and few people care.
There’s really too many to name at this point.
The bikie laws in Queensland.
Permits for protests which can denied on the basis of ‘harmed local commercial interests’.
Terror police being sent after the friendlyjordies.
Let alone the corruption (nsw libs, barrier reef grant, detention Center security contracts) & complete lack of accountability (Angus Taylor)
It was sad to see the recent protests in the name of ‘freedom’, when in reality it was about government support. Which I support them to get, it just saddens me that that’s the extent of collective action.
The bikie laws in Queensland.
Permits for protests which can denied on the basis of ‘harmed local commercial interests’.
Terror police being sent after the friendlyjordies.
Let alone the corruption (nsw libs, barrier reef grant, detention Center security contracts) & complete lack of accountability (Angus Taylor)
It was sad to see the recent protests in the name of ‘freedom’, when in reality it was about government support. Which I support them to get, it just saddens me that that’s the extent of collective action.
[deleted]
It's not just that - I think there's a link (but I'm not sure how best to describe it) between the policies enacted in many commonwealth countries and a fundamental disrespect for privacy and freedom of expression; take the fact that Australia, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand all banned cartoon porn that appears to depict fictional minors (the famous "Simpsons porn" case in Australia), and even prohibit its mere possession in a private residence - all while admitting there is zero scientific justification for those laws, and relying only on the words of charity representatives, and in the England, with MPs justifying the ban by saying that only "perverts" would be against such a law.
National security of Australia?
What?
Security from who?
What?
Security from who?
China-funded paramilitary dropbear gangs, obviously
There are far bigger issues in Australia right now to care about meta data logging. Climate change and now the vaccine delay consume all of the publics attention.
Metadata logging is a theoretical issue while the lack of vaccine supplies is a very real and immediate issue.
Metadata logging is a theoretical issue while the lack of vaccine supplies is a very real and immediate issue.
> Metadata logging is a theoretical issue
There are over 350,000 requests a year for metadata, about ~1000 a day. Any level of government can make a request, right down to local councils of towns with 2000 people. The oversight committee is comprised of three bureaucrats who have never found a single instance of the system being abused in years. In fact all the instances of misuse have been self-reported by agencies.
Metadata itself seems like an innocuous term but includes the location of every single mobile phone in the country. The enormous cost of all this is passed onto the consumer and the government doesn't subsidise reporting entities at all.
What exactly is "theoretical" about all that?
There are over 350,000 requests a year for metadata, about ~1000 a day. Any level of government can make a request, right down to local councils of towns with 2000 people. The oversight committee is comprised of three bureaucrats who have never found a single instance of the system being abused in years. In fact all the instances of misuse have been self-reported by agencies.
Metadata itself seems like an innocuous term but includes the location of every single mobile phone in the country. The enormous cost of all this is passed onto the consumer and the government doesn't subsidise reporting entities at all.
What exactly is "theoretical" about all that?
>The enormous cost of all this is passed onto the consumer and the government doesn't subsidise reporting entities at all.
Sorry, who's the consumer in this? Can you explain more?
Sorry, who's the consumer in this? Can you explain more?
The telcos bear the cost of retention, and so consumers of telco services are paying more as a result.
The meta data happened long ago and was pushed through with the most flimsy of pretence.
I remember it was after the shooting in Sydney by an Iranian refugee who had not only just been in custody but had arrive under the pretence that he was an Iranian spy seeking asylum. They had every reason to surveil the guy under normal laws but used it as an excuse to justify a drag net approach. It was obviously an Orwellian trick but no one cared.
Freedom should not be so whimsically thrown away, getting it back will be impossible through normal means.
I remember it was after the shooting in Sydney by an Iranian refugee who had not only just been in custody but had arrive under the pretence that he was an Iranian spy seeking asylum. They had every reason to surveil the guy under normal laws but used it as an excuse to justify a drag net approach. It was obviously an Orwellian trick but no one cared.
Freedom should not be so whimsically thrown away, getting it back will be impossible through normal means.
You're not wrong. I find it hard to take articles like this seriously when there's the more pressing issue of still being under effective house arrest (which has now gone for about a year with no end in sight).
Hell the premier implemented a curfew and said it was due to public health advice, the public health advisors denied it, then he said it was on the advice of the police, and they denied, and that was that. No further questions asked why we implemented a curfew for fun. In this environment it's positively quaint the idea that our cyber laws are the thin edge of the wedge.
I would leave, but like North Korea, it's against the law for citizens to leave the country.
Hell the premier implemented a curfew and said it was due to public health advice, the public health advisors denied it, then he said it was on the advice of the police, and they denied, and that was that. No further questions asked why we implemented a curfew for fun. In this environment it's positively quaint the idea that our cyber laws are the thin edge of the wedge.
I would leave, but like North Korea, it's against the law for citizens to leave the country.
Multitasking isn't something new.
In Australia it is, when the horses race the nation stops
Not for the government, it seems. And you can't really include either Climate Change or the Vaccine rollout as issues the government may care about because they've fucked up both of them pretty royally.
Possibly, for the political class, metadata logging is THE issue of the moment.
Possibly, for the political class, metadata logging is THE issue of the moment.
Yeah maybe the coronavirus economic recovery committee should have been stacked with business leaders from the medical sector instead of the fossil fuel industry. The future looks bright for those manufacturing and developing covid vaccines.
Australian tech workers, get out get out get out get out…
I can’t stress this enough. The Australian tech industry is a failing joke. You are being grossly underpaid. The country _is_ an authoritarian surveillance state and has been for years and years. The frog boiled and died years ago. Peace out, and find somewhere that will treat you well.
I can’t stress this enough. The Australian tech industry is a failing joke. You are being grossly underpaid. The country _is_ an authoritarian surveillance state and has been for years and years. The frog boiled and died years ago. Peace out, and find somewhere that will treat you well.
There's what, 5 countries that might pay better? USA of course, which has its own share of problems, Canada, England, Switzerland. Maybe one of Netherlands or Germany if you're lucky.
No easy choice there, unfortunately.
No easy choice there, unfortunately.
England? For what i know they have/had enourmous labour offer compared to demand
Sure you get the BBC and all the niceties with the fair coverage and all, but other media is still pretty Murdochy-y, and Brexit takes away the main advantage of why I would want to live in Europe in the first place - the ease of moving around, if needed.
Pay is honestly decent in my experience. I’ve noticed that Aussies stay at the same company for much longer, compared to U.S. engineers. I’m on my third role in 3 years and will be taking $160K+, total compensation. Not nearly as much as some U.S. roles, but I know people who have worked the same role for 10 years and haven’t hit $100K.
Being a dual national (Schengen/Europe) there’s honestly not that many places in Europe where software pays all that well. Vienna surprised me with how many salaries sit between 40-50K euros for senior positions.
Being a dual national (Schengen/Europe) there’s honestly not that many places in Europe where software pays all that well. Vienna surprised me with how many salaries sit between 40-50K euros for senior positions.
>“[These laws] represent, in my view, significant expansions of the existing powers of law enforcement agencies away from a traditional focus on investigation and the collection of admissible evidence of specific offenses to disruption, to attack, to take-over, to take-down,” Dr Mann said.
Yikes.
This is like government being infested by cancel culture (attack w/ no evidence needed, pile on & take down).
What phenomenon is driving this?
e.g political opportunism under the pretense of covid / protection?
Yikes.
This is like government being infested by cancel culture (attack w/ no evidence needed, pile on & take down).
What phenomenon is driving this?
e.g political opportunism under the pretense of covid / protection?
Australia has always been quietly very authoritarian. It tries to pretend that it's all beer and barbecue on the beach, but having an open alcohol container in a public place is illegal, and barbecues are only allowed in specific places (and the beach isn't one of them).
There's a term for it: Wowsers [0] - people who police others' behaviour. The Wowsers and the Larrikins [1] battle for Australia's soul. The Wowsers are winning.
Appealing to Australia's Wowsers is always politically beneficial. Any law that strengthens police powers goes over really well.
And then add Murdoch, who owns all the newspapers, controls both major parties, and hates the internet with a passion (because it's destroying his business and power base).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin
There's a term for it: Wowsers [0] - people who police others' behaviour. The Wowsers and the Larrikins [1] battle for Australia's soul. The Wowsers are winning.
Appealing to Australia's Wowsers is always politically beneficial. Any law that strengthens police powers goes over really well.
And then add Murdoch, who owns all the newspapers, controls both major parties, and hates the internet with a passion (because it's destroying his business and power base).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrikin
> weird how a foundational myth of australia is that we’re a nation of subversive larrikins, when in actuality everyone here is an ultracop
@tfswebb https://twitter.com/tfswebb/status/976299234491121665
@tfswebb https://twitter.com/tfswebb/status/976299234491121665
It's just the logical consequence of unchecked abilities. If there was a counter force, e.g., personal liability for abuse, things might be different. But since lawmakers can basically do whatever they want and, worst case, maybe have their laws retracted later by some court, they will invariably pile surveillance measure on top of intervention measure on top of loisening some restrictions so they at least did something while in office.
Later, of course, some politician will abuse this power. But then it's too late. You cannot assemble anymore because your messengers will be disabled/censored. You cannot speak freely anymore because your home assistant will rat you, apple style. You cannot even move freely anymore because your car and your public transportation will be tied to your digital persona and your social score. Of course you can forget about paying for something because both cash and cryptocurrency will be outlawed.
Later, of course, some politician will abuse this power. But then it's too late. You cannot assemble anymore because your messengers will be disabled/censored. You cannot speak freely anymore because your home assistant will rat you, apple style. You cannot even move freely anymore because your car and your public transportation will be tied to your digital persona and your social score. Of course you can forget about paying for something because both cash and cryptocurrency will be outlawed.
> What phenomenon is driving this?
Read Davidson/Rees-Mogg: Sovereign Individual (1999)
Basic thesis: violence's utility declines in the information age. The institutions that are built on it, like nation states, go through a phase of decline and decay, during which they make rather more arbitrary use of force in a desperate attempt to resist obsolescence.
Read Davidson/Rees-Mogg: Sovereign Individual (1999)
Basic thesis: violence's utility declines in the information age. The institutions that are built on it, like nation states, go through a phase of decline and decay, during which they make rather more arbitrary use of force in a desperate attempt to resist obsolescence.
Co-written by the guy who fell asleep in parliament.
Is he named Jacob or William. What is this bullshit?
It's just like Boris. I mean Alexander.
Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. Jacob William Rees-Mogg.
How are we governed by people who can't even consistently name themselves? Or are they going for plausible deniability?
Is he named Jacob or William. What is this bullshit?
It's just like Boris. I mean Alexander.
Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. Jacob William Rees-Mogg.
How are we governed by people who can't even consistently name themselves? Or are they going for plausible deniability?
Don't know about you mate, but I didn't get an input when my parents named me.
Attacking someone for their name is a flimsy stand. If they have done something dodgy, that would go much further to supporting any argument you may be making.
Attacking someone for their name is a flimsy stand. If they have done something dodgy, that would go much further to supporting any argument you may be making.
Its not their particular name. It's their inconsistency in using it.
I think previous iterations of existence use names to transfer karmic information for individuals, but we're now at the point that the system is understood well enough by the systemised to game the system itself.
I often wonder about the importance of naming things. Its also a key problem in Computer Science.
Namespacing is useful up to a point. Value can change depending on context.
In the first season of The Crown they make you notice that the Queen double 'Elizabeth'ed herself.
But if the value the name had no longer applies given the actions of the namee carrying out other actions instead, is the name still meaningful or valid or just historically valid or muddled?
I think there's more going on here than you think.
I think previous iterations of existence use names to transfer karmic information for individuals, but we're now at the point that the system is understood well enough by the systemised to game the system itself.
I often wonder about the importance of naming things. Its also a key problem in Computer Science.
Namespacing is useful up to a point. Value can change depending on context.
In the first season of The Crown they make you notice that the Queen double 'Elizabeth'ed herself.
But if the value the name had no longer applies given the actions of the namee carrying out other actions instead, is the name still meaningful or valid or just historically valid or muddled?
I think there's more going on here than you think.
There is no inconsistency.
William Rees-Mogg, the co-author of the suggested book, was the father of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
William Rees-Mogg, the co-author of the suggested book, was the father of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up - I didn't research/clarify enough before posting. My apologies to you and them.
I'm so worried about them shuffling names around to suit circumstances I err'd on the wrong side. As an outcast (Australian) trying to look in from far away its frightfully confusing. I mean there's that Saxe-Coburg thing for a start...
'Boris' still annoys the crap out of me though. Does the UK also have an 'actor' as its prime minister? Is he intentionally mishandling umbrella's or not? At least Ronald Reagan was already 'out' as an actor.
I deserved the downvotes, but I have learned.
My point about naming things is still completely valid though. It's hard to have the 'right amount of name' without causing confusion.
I'm so worried about them shuffling names around to suit circumstances I err'd on the wrong side. As an outcast (Australian) trying to look in from far away its frightfully confusing. I mean there's that Saxe-Coburg thing for a start...
'Boris' still annoys the crap out of me though. Does the UK also have an 'actor' as its prime minister? Is he intentionally mishandling umbrella's or not? At least Ronald Reagan was already 'out' as an actor.
I deserved the downvotes, but I have learned.
My point about naming things is still completely valid though. It's hard to have the 'right amount of name' without causing confusion.
I might be entirely wrong, but I wonder if it’s shared culture with other SE Asian countries?
Having spend time in SE Asia, I’ve found the “collective mindset” to be inaccurate. People there are just as likely to screw over their fellow man as any other country.
What’s different is the deference to authority. When the govt cracks down, people don’t really complain or push back. They accept it much more readily. Not sure if it’s the belief that leaders need an “iron will” or what, but it’s very different than North America or Europe where protesting the govt is almost expected.
Having spend time in SE Asia, I’ve found the “collective mindset” to be inaccurate. People there are just as likely to screw over their fellow man as any other country.
What’s different is the deference to authority. When the govt cracks down, people don’t really complain or push back. They accept it much more readily. Not sure if it’s the belief that leaders need an “iron will” or what, but it’s very different than North America or Europe where protesting the govt is almost expected.
Maybe, but that's what comes to my mind first. The media/NewsCorp basically program the country to accept whatever they want passed, seemingly overnight. Most people are quite apathetic politically too, or just willing to accept whatever they hear on TV.
They're collective in that they're strongly monocultural.
Singapore isn’t and still highly collective.
It seems about as multicultural as HK is, which is not very.
You can tell by the amount of racism that is permitted.
Also, can a White person truly be Singaporean?
You can tell by the amount of racism that is permitted.
Also, can a White person truly be Singaporean?
I mean Singapore has 4 official languages, 3 major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay and Indian), and ~50% of the population are foreigners.
And yes, you a white person can be Singaporean. There aren't many, but there are Singaporean politicians who are white but Singaporean by birth.
And yes, you a white person can be Singaporean. There aren't many, but there are Singaporean politicians who are white but Singaporean by birth.
I didn't mean legally. I meant culturally. Are they able to be just as culturally connected as everyone else, or would some people assume they are a foreigner even if they were born there?
My experience there was that if you fit within one of the 3 core ethnic groups people would assume your Singaporean. But if you’re in the “other” group then yeah, people would assume you’re a foreigner.
That sounds like HK.
I guess HK and Singapore are multicultural in that you are rather limited in what you can assume is general knowledge.
They don't seem anywhere near as multicultural as places where you hear a wide variety of ethnic groups using the same kind of accent though.
I guess HK and Singapore are multicultural in that you are rather limited in what you can assume is general knowledge.
They don't seem anywhere near as multicultural as places where you hear a wide variety of ethnic groups using the same kind of accent though.
One theory I read once is that Australia leads the way with these laws for the other members of the five eyes to eventually follow. Is there any truth in this?
The scarier but more likely version of that theory is that the Australian Govt leads the way so the other 4Eyes don't have to follow. Similar to the recent AN0N bust, as our citizen protections are more lax, the FBI etc can route data through Australia where the Govt can intercept it; once intercepted it can be shared with FVEY without consequence.
That would introduce incredible lag for gamers of every kind, and network engineers on every AS would immediately notice the BGP hijack.
Your scenario is far more unlikely, if not impossible.
Your scenario is far more unlikely, if not impossible.
/s ?
Why would I be sarcastic? Literally every online service would be affected if suddenly all Five Eyes traffic was being routed through Australia.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
Look at the sheer amount of backhaul between just the US and Japan. Now take all that traffic, stuff it down 1/10 of the amount of fiber pairs, with a fuckload more hops. You're telling me nothing will be affected and none will notice?
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
Look at the sheer amount of backhaul between just the US and Japan. Now take all that traffic, stuff it down 1/10 of the amount of fiber pairs, with a fuckload more hops. You're telling me nothing will be affected and none will notice?
Australia is often used as a testing ground since it's part of five eyes and a) people there don't have many legally enshrined rights (no bill of rights) besides stuff like right to political expression and religion, and b) the population is complacent and won't kick up a fuss about the immoral crap the government enacts.
... this is such nonsense ... do you pay any attention at all to the politics of the US, Canada, NZ or the UK? Do you really think they're in a dark room coordinating their laws with Australian government, deciding who will go first?
Which part do you think is nonsense? As for dark room coordination, how should I know?
It wouldn't surprise me though given the CIA coup'd Australia back in the 70s over Pine Gap (their spy facility in Australia).
It wouldn't surprise me though given the CIA coup'd Australia back in the 70s over Pine Gap (their spy facility in Australia).
Purely by result I don't think you couldn't make out a difference if they did that or not.
Easy to see that the war on terror dominated security policies for the last two decades in many countries, not only the five eyes. Officials build their image on that, being tough on X.
Problem is that there isn't any effective opposition because people are afraid of everything these days.
Easy to see that the war on terror dominated security policies for the last two decades in many countries, not only the five eyes. Officials build their image on that, being tough on X.
Problem is that there isn't any effective opposition because people are afraid of everything these days.
[deleted]
It already has been for a long time. Freedom and liberty are practiced differently in Australia.
I think we just have a lot of faith in our institutions. We just can't believe the state would ever be used as a weapon against us because we've never experienced large scale civil upheaval or suffered under periods of dictatorship.
People rattling on about slippery slopes and abstract notions of liberty just seem a bit batty to most Australians.
We have a free media, our elections are free and fair, we have routine transfers of power, minor parties are well represented in our parliaments, and we're generally free express our minds and go about our lives.
We have a free media, our elections are free and fair, we have routine transfers of power, minor parties are well represented in our parliaments, and we're generally free express our minds and go about our lives.
>We have a free media
Err, we have a media which is in a symbiotic relationship with the government.
I would not consider this free.
There are few genuine journalists out there looking for the truth and they have little impact on the masses.
The one that did (Assange) has a trial going on as I type this.
Err, we have a media which is in a symbiotic relationship with the government.
I would not consider this free.
There are few genuine journalists out there looking for the truth and they have little impact on the masses.
The one that did (Assange) has a trial going on as I type this.
> Err, we have a media which is in a symbiotic relationship with the government.
> I would not consider this free.
Some journalists will always trade independence for access. However, I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate that Australian media has been captured by the government. But frankly, you've made a pretty nebulous accusation, followed up by a conclusion that doesn't necessary follow from the premise.
I'd invite you to study the recent happenings in Poland and Hungary to see what a non-free media landscape looks like.
> There are few genuine journalists out there looking for the truth and they have little impact on the masses.
We have a robust media that regularly holds the government to account. The main public broadcaster, in particular, puts out hard hitting journalism with broad reach.
So I don't know what this 'truth' is that you think 'they' are concealing from the 'masses'.
> The one that did (Assange) has a trial going on as I type this.
You make this sound like Assange was arrested for reporting he did on Australia. Wikileaks never made any major disclosures about Australia.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Australia
> I would not consider this free.
Some journalists will always trade independence for access. However, I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate that Australian media has been captured by the government. But frankly, you've made a pretty nebulous accusation, followed up by a conclusion that doesn't necessary follow from the premise.
I'd invite you to study the recent happenings in Poland and Hungary to see what a non-free media landscape looks like.
> There are few genuine journalists out there looking for the truth and they have little impact on the masses.
We have a robust media that regularly holds the government to account. The main public broadcaster, in particular, puts out hard hitting journalism with broad reach.
So I don't know what this 'truth' is that you think 'they' are concealing from the 'masses'.
> The one that did (Assange) has a trial going on as I type this.
You make this sound like Assange was arrested for reporting he did on Australia. Wikileaks never made any major disclosures about Australia.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Australia
> Err, we have a media which is in a symbiotic relationship with the government.
I agree. We should defund the ABC and SBS.
I agree. We should defund the ABC and SBS.
I’m seeing so many negative comments about Australia and yet this is the Australia that I know and love deeply. I wonder what’s causing the stark differences in view.
Just different perspectives I suppose. American elections seem farcical to me but lots of Americans don't seem to agree with me.
[deleted]
the president being partisan makes it quite a circus.
I too love Australia. I lived there for 4 years.
I love Australia, but the way we're headed is not the Australia that I love.
It's weird but to me looking back with your "Australia I love" comment, it seems Bob Hawke was the last true Australian Prime Minister.
The last homie
The average Australian in the past 'rode the sheeps back'.
The average Australian now has the wool over their eyes and is either ignorant of it or okay with it.
The average Australian now has the wool over their eyes and is either ignorant of it or okay with it.
We're all making money, house prices are up, how good is that?
It’s disgustingly depressing for a generation who are looking at home ownership as unrealistic.
I make pretty decent money but buying a home anywhere that isn’t several hours commute away from my entire life is an exercise in finding the most cramped shit hole imaginable.
We’re a country of cities with tiny zones of walkable inner city surrounded by Suburban sprawl so extreme that for instance Perth’s metro area spreads the further than distance from LA to San Diego!
I make pretty decent money but buying a home anywhere that isn’t several hours commute away from my entire life is an exercise in finding the most cramped shit hole imaginable.
We’re a country of cities with tiny zones of walkable inner city surrounded by Suburban sprawl so extreme that for instance Perth’s metro area spreads the further than distance from LA to San Diego!
Can confirm, Melbourne is absolutely gigantic. No really, so big it didn't make sense to me.
Related to the history ?
What real/perceived security risk is AU dealing with to justify all these legal changes? They seem relatively isolated from many of the threats facing the US/EU west regarding terrorism/extremism. Borders in AU are pretty naturally secured by oceans.
These laws aren't for Australia, they're simply implemented here because we're an easy target (no bill of rights)[1]. The Five Eyes simply want to use Australia to funnel access requests through.
> We, the Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Immigration Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, stand united in our commitment to protect our citizens from child predators, terrorists, violent extremists and other illicit actors. We are as determined to counter these threats online as we are to counter them in the physical world. We note with disappointment that senior digital industry leaders did not accept our invitation to engage on critical issues regarding the illicit use of online spaces at the 2018 Five Country Ministerial meeting. Nevertheless, we reiterate our determination to work together constructively to ensure our response is commensurate to the gravity of the threat. Our citizens expect online spaces to be safe, and are gravely concerned about illegal and illicit online content, particularly the online sexual exploitation of children. We stand united in affirming that the rule of law can and must prevail online. [2]
This was a joint statement made by the Department of Home Affairs around the time Assistance and Access Bill 2018 was being pushed through.
[1] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/australia-setting-itself-up-a...
[2] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
> We, the Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Immigration Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, stand united in our commitment to protect our citizens from child predators, terrorists, violent extremists and other illicit actors. We are as determined to counter these threats online as we are to counter them in the physical world. We note with disappointment that senior digital industry leaders did not accept our invitation to engage on critical issues regarding the illicit use of online spaces at the 2018 Five Country Ministerial meeting. Nevertheless, we reiterate our determination to work together constructively to ensure our response is commensurate to the gravity of the threat. Our citizens expect online spaces to be safe, and are gravely concerned about illegal and illicit online content, particularly the online sexual exploitation of children. We stand united in affirming that the rule of law can and must prevail online. [2]
This was a joint statement made by the Department of Home Affairs around the time Assistance and Access Bill 2018 was being pushed through.
[1] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/australia-setting-itself-up-a...
[2] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
Australia's participation in the "War on Terror" was seen to make it a target, and we were always told about "narrowly thwarted" attacks, though they pretty much always turned out to be deadbeat kids with no idea what they were doing. But that was sufficient to keep the fear level up. As others have said, these days China is held up as the big threat.
The usual surveillance scapegoats, terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles. Organized crime used to be the other one, but "foreign state sponsored cyber attacks" are very in vogue at the moment.
To be fair, Australia strangely enough struggles with plenty of organized crime in drug distribution.
And Casino operation[0][1]
[0]: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/why-is-james-packe...
[1]: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/fraudulent-scam-cr...
[0]: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/why-is-james-packe...
[1]: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/fraudulent-scam-cr...
I won't accept your "to be fair", since it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Just heavily regulated.
Importing and distributing or production and distribution of ice aka crystal meth shouldn't be illegal? Australia has been in the middle of an enduring crystal meth-related crisis for what, 20 years?[0]
[0], The biggest threat to Australia's future, https://time.com/4737800/meth-australia-ice-crystal-methamph...
[0], The biggest threat to Australia's future, https://time.com/4737800/meth-australia-ice-crystal-methamph...
Oz is part of the 5 eyes. The West in general, but especially the 5 eyes (anglosphere) have been waging an economic and propaganda war on China since Obama "pivoted east".
Anti Chinese rhetoric in Oz media and from their politicians has been strident.
It is quite possible that the 5 eyes are ramping up methods of internal control in expectation of a war with China.
Anti Chinese rhetoric in Oz media and from their politicians has been strident.
It is quite possible that the 5 eyes are ramping up methods of internal control in expectation of a war with China.
Australia basically sold everything to China and gave the Darwin harbor away on a lease. The entire economy relies on selling real estate to rich foreign investors, international students, and mining.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-terr...
Australia thinks it can control China, but without the influx of Chinese money the place is finished IMO.
When I landed at Sydney Airport in 2020, there were ads in Mandarin advertising EU passports for sale.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-terr...
Australia thinks it can control China, but without the influx of Chinese money the place is finished IMO.
When I landed at Sydney Airport in 2020, there were ads in Mandarin advertising EU passports for sale.
Capital plus immigration. I've been in WA a decade ago and I was surprised by the number of ethnic Chinese people everywhere. One day China will just have to push a button to turn the country into one of its province, without any need for war.
You are not far off. China used Chinese students in Australia as a pawn in geopolitics to support the regime.
The previous generation of ethnic Chinese is better integrated, but the new generation is very patriotic and loyal to the communist party.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/hundreds-gather-in-sydney-for-po...
The West always hoped China would turn into a democracy, but that turned out to be an illusion. As long as maximising profits regardless of the consequences is a priority, this will continue.
It's often forgotten that China is and has always been playing the long game where in the West policies can change after the next election.
The previous generation of ethnic Chinese is better integrated, but the new generation is very patriotic and loyal to the communist party.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/hundreds-gather-in-sydney-for-po...
The West always hoped China would turn into a democracy, but that turned out to be an illusion. As long as maximising profits regardless of the consequences is a priority, this will continue.
It's often forgotten that China is and has always been playing the long game where in the West policies can change after the next election.
Also don't forget the racism. Aussies in general can be pretty racist, and the Chinese cop it especially. Politicians being "tough" on the Chinese (and then quietly selling off major chunks of Australia to them) seems to be a winning move.
The situation is ludicrous isn't it. One of the major agri-businesses sucking the life-system out of Australia (i.e. water out of the Murray-Darling river) is a chinese owned business at the top of the river system.
It all depends on your perspective. Some people are more Australian than our politicians, yet they look Chinese. It's a massive melting pot of variations.
My opinion now is that the Crown (not the casino) is extracting all the value it can from Australia and then run it into the ground, and the other powers that be are doing it too.
If Australia ends up against China in conflict, a lot of people will be tearing themselves apart inside.
At the other extreme, a lot of Han Chinese see every other non Han Chinese human as inferior (in varying shades of inferiority). There are a lot of Han Chinese. This is a scary situation. The racism runs in both directions.
It all depends on your perspective. Some people are more Australian than our politicians, yet they look Chinese. It's a massive melting pot of variations.
My opinion now is that the Crown (not the casino) is extracting all the value it can from Australia and then run it into the ground, and the other powers that be are doing it too.
If Australia ends up against China in conflict, a lot of people will be tearing themselves apart inside.
At the other extreme, a lot of Han Chinese see every other non Han Chinese human as inferior (in varying shades of inferiority). There are a lot of Han Chinese. This is a scary situation. The racism runs in both directions.
> "The racism runs in both directions."
Not only that (which is very true). But some of the more racist Aussies aren't "white Australia" Anglo-Saxons.
Not only that (which is very true). But some of the more racist Aussies aren't "white Australia" Anglo-Saxons.
I was thinking the same the other day. FB recommended a news article from Australian media yesterday, basically the journalists translated some Chinese text into some negative words in English, and wrote a piece for it, unbelievable. The way I see it is that both China and US do not want to go to war, but they all know there is a possibility you cannot ignore, the media is preparing for it. If you can label your enemy as non-human or evil, you don't have to worry about backslash from your citizen when a war breakout. I strongly feel this is the reason for what is happening now. In a few years, there will be conflicts.
As incompetent as Australia's current leadership is, I still have reservations that they would be naive enough to get involved in a war with their greatest trading partner.
If China gets into war with anyone sizable (in practice, the U.S.), the trade flow will stop anyway.
US stayed out of WWI for three years, but American trade with Germany was toast once the British started blocking German ships and ports.
US stayed out of WWI for three years, but American trade with Germany was toast once the British started blocking German ships and ports.
If you want a narrative I'm sure someone has woven it for you. It won't be convincing or satisfying to the critical thinker but it will end the conversation nonetheless. And the machine will continue to carry out its program.
China.
hope to leave this country for good sooner or later. Lot of complicit people willing to trade-off freedom for false sense of security.
I'm going off grid first, and then hope to move overseas too.
I can't stand how many rules there are now, just doesn't suit my personality type.
I can't stand how many rules there are now, just doesn't suit my personality type.
is there an online community to discuss specifically these things? Which countries do you have in mind?
A whole lot more people simply don't think about it at all.
Which is exactly the kind of complicitness I have an issue with. I don't believe in giving bureaucrats enormous power over an individual. Freedom is easy to give away, hard to take back. Plenty of examples around, why.
Australia… literally a country of prisoners. Seems like freedom isn’t that hard to take back.
The TV mini-series "Secret City" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4976512/) was courageous in its depiction of the growing surveillance state in Australia.
(And it stars Anna Torv, from "Fringe", but with her native accent! ;-)
(And it stars Anna Torv, from "Fringe", but with her native accent! ;-)
is becoming as in "there might be still time to stop it."
Well that's an understatement...But it's not unique.
Well that's an understatement...But it's not unique.
This is a very relevant video by friendlyjordies (released in the last 24hours) https://youtu.be/8mmgeQ6SCqI
I recommend everyone watch it for a more detailed insight into the erosion and corruption of Australian liberty
I recommend everyone watch it for a more detailed insight into the erosion and corruption of Australian liberty
Unfortunately we're all becoming surveillance states :(
So many European countries are now requiring people to ID themselves and get a QR code scanned at every shop, every restaurant, every public transport journey. All combining to a detailed digital record of who has been where. Under the guise of protecting against COVID but who says this will disappear once the pandemic is over?
I think we're going too far to accomodate those who won't get vaccinated. If everyone gets it, this scanning wouldn't be necessary (after all, vaccination is enough to get access). We're giving up a lot of privacy all of a sudden without any serious debate. The alternative (getting tested every 2 days) is not viable anyway so eventually everyone will get it. IMO we should just make it mandatory now and skip the privacy invasion. Give the people who refuse anyway a fine and leave it at that (there will be so few left not to be an issue). I'm not in favour of forcing it.
I'm surprised Australia is still so worried about terrorism though. It never really had an issue with it in the first place and it's no longer the monster of the week.
So many European countries are now requiring people to ID themselves and get a QR code scanned at every shop, every restaurant, every public transport journey. All combining to a detailed digital record of who has been where. Under the guise of protecting against COVID but who says this will disappear once the pandemic is over?
I think we're going too far to accomodate those who won't get vaccinated. If everyone gets it, this scanning wouldn't be necessary (after all, vaccination is enough to get access). We're giving up a lot of privacy all of a sudden without any serious debate. The alternative (getting tested every 2 days) is not viable anyway so eventually everyone will get it. IMO we should just make it mandatory now and skip the privacy invasion. Give the people who refuse anyway a fine and leave it at that (there will be so few left not to be an issue). I'm not in favour of forcing it.
I'm surprised Australia is still so worried about terrorism though. It never really had an issue with it in the first place and it's no longer the monster of the week.
You identified the problem, but confused the solution.
Simply don't have police state totalitarian mandates.
Simply don't have police state totalitarian mandates.
no OP is actually not wrong. One of the reasons why you have these sideways mission creep of surveillance in a lot of countries is because the government simply does not have the strength to effectively take care of problems right then and there. It's a sign of governments being too weak, not too strong.
"Simply don't have xy" doesn't work when the problem is actually real. The population will always choose safety or public health over some sort of libertarian daydream.
"Simply don't have xy" doesn't work when the problem is actually real. The population will always choose safety or public health over some sort of libertarian daydream.
The scanning already isn't necessary. What makes you think everyone getting vaccinated would cut back on government surveillance? You would just have to check in with your vaccine passport to prove that you can enter rather than check in for contact tracing; exact same problem either way.
The "threat of terrorism" has long been used by media and governments in a cynical way to demonize specific groups. The most common act of terrorism in Western countries in the past few years has been arson of historical churches, yet we almost never see mainstream reporting. On the other hand, we are constantly told of the "[insert group] terror threat" that turns up no actual terrorist acts.
The "threat of terrorism" has long been used by media and governments in a cynical way to demonize specific groups. The most common act of terrorism in Western countries in the past few years has been arson of historical churches, yet we almost never see mainstream reporting. On the other hand, we are constantly told of the "[insert group] terror threat" that turns up no actual terrorist acts.
> You would just have to check in with your vaccine passport to prove that you can enter rather than check in for contact tracing; exact same problem either way.
The QR code is the vaccine passport. The test with the 2-day validity is simply another way to get it temporarily.
And if everyone is vaccinated, why do we still need to do contact tracing? The idea was that it doesn't have enough hosts to reach R > 1 so it'll fizzle out anyway.
The QR code is the vaccine passport. The test with the 2-day validity is simply another way to get it temporarily.
And if everyone is vaccinated, why do we still need to do contact tracing? The idea was that it doesn't have enough hosts to reach R > 1 so it'll fizzle out anyway.
It is not possible to reduce R below 1 through vaccination alone with the current vaccines and the current Delta variant. The press has had a tendency to downplay or even outright lie about this, especially in countries with lower vaccine uptakes where it's politically convenient, but the British press and medical experts seem to be a bit more upfront with this now that 75% of adults are fully vaccinated and almost 90% have had at least one shot: https://www.politico.eu/article/herd-immunity-not-a-possibil... (This is about the goal countries like Australia and South Korea have been pointing to as the point where they can start rolling back restrictions.)
But what about the current vaccines + Delta + some minor measures?
This is what works in most EU countries now.
I'd much rather deal with some minor distancing instead of having to ID myself everywhere I go.
Also, most people in the UK have been vaccinated with AstraZeneca which is much less effective (and this Pollard guy has a huge commercial interest in that so this won't factor into his story)
This is what works in most EU countries now.
I'd much rather deal with some minor distancing instead of having to ID myself everywhere I go.
Also, most people in the UK have been vaccinated with AstraZeneca which is much less effective (and this Pollard guy has a huge commercial interest in that so this won't factor into his story)
The current vaccines + some minor measures probably wouldn't be enough. It's quite plausible that the Delta variant spreads as effectively in a fully vaccinated population as the original variant did in an entirely unvaccinated one, and you can probably remember what it took to get that somewhat under control. The UK does to have relatively stable case and infection numbers without major official restrictions, but we have a lot of natural immunity and large voluntary reductions in the level of social interaction, plus it's summer here.
The vaccines limit the mortality rate a lot though so it's much less of an issue. Eventually we will all have to build up natural immunity anyway because the virus will not go away. And natural immunity is adaptive. And a low mortality risk makes it much less of an issue to let it spread IMO. The biggest issue with Covid is that it's a 'novel' virus that nobody had any immunity to. Once we do it'll take the edge off it and it'll just be another of those minor illnesses we shouldn't worry too much about.
[deleted]
> and get a QR code scanned at every shop, every restaurant
How does this work for those who don't own a smartphone?
How does this work for those who don't own a smartphone?
Here in the UK you do not need to scan, you can just write down your phone number and name. It's a legal requirement for the information to be accurate though, I think.
I believe that it is (rather, was) your "contact details", not everyone has a phone; and I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for giving false details
They'll provide a sheet of paper. For some reason since covid I always forget to bring my phone when going out in Australia
I will use the paper one too. I don't really trust the app.
With the previous covid detection apps (the covid API from Apple/Google) privacy was really a key design goal and I had no issues using that.
With these new QR apps (the EU CoronaCheck program) there was less of a focus on this. Part of that makes sense, as it's meant to identify the user's status it's not possible to be completely anonymous. But there has hardly been any info on whether the apps phone home. Also, the Apple/Google API apps from each country were almost all open source. None of that now. It's taken for granted that privacy is not a concern anymore, for some reason.
With the previous covid detection apps (the covid API from Apple/Google) privacy was really a key design goal and I had no issues using that.
With these new QR apps (the EU CoronaCheck program) there was less of a focus on this. Part of that makes sense, as it's meant to identify the user's status it's not possible to be completely anonymous. But there has hardly been any info on whether the apps phone home. Also, the Apple/Google API apps from each country were almost all open source. None of that now. It's taken for granted that privacy is not a concern anymore, for some reason.
I've had good luck asking for paper in Victoria. In Queensland I've just been told to use the app or fuck off.
You can print the QR code too.
Why the -1? :) The EU CoronaCheck used in most countries here was explicitly designed so it can be printed, for those without smartphones or not willing to use the app.
And most countries that enforce this are in the EU.
And most countries that enforce this are in the EU.
> I think we're going too far to accomodate those who won't get vaccinated. If everyone gets it, this scanning wouldn't be necessary
If every last man woman and child on the planet get vaccinated; if every mouse, cat, dog, ferret, pig, monkey and deer get vaccinated too, the potential for a breakout vaccine resistant infection is still there.
Also, there is still virtually zero talk of implementing vaccine exemptions for people with naturally acquired immunity, which seems superior in every way.
So, this isn't about "accommodating" the non vaccinated. It's not about safety, or science. It seems to be completely about control, complete control.
My country hasn't hired more nurses, built more ICU beds, legislated for or supported better air circulation indoors, or subsidised antigen testing - but they have implemented a vaccine passport for cafes and restaurants, against the advice of our council on civil liberties, our data privacy chief, and the WHO covid envoy. We're told it's a temporary measure, and I have no doubt that it will be as "temporary" as the Patriot Act.
If every last man woman and child on the planet get vaccinated; if every mouse, cat, dog, ferret, pig, monkey and deer get vaccinated too, the potential for a breakout vaccine resistant infection is still there.
Also, there is still virtually zero talk of implementing vaccine exemptions for people with naturally acquired immunity, which seems superior in every way.
So, this isn't about "accommodating" the non vaccinated. It's not about safety, or science. It seems to be completely about control, complete control.
My country hasn't hired more nurses, built more ICU beds, legislated for or supported better air circulation indoors, or subsidised antigen testing - but they have implemented a vaccine passport for cafes and restaurants, against the advice of our council on civil liberties, our data privacy chief, and the WHO covid envoy. We're told it's a temporary measure, and I have no doubt that it will be as "temporary" as the Patriot Act.
> My country hasn't hired more nurses, built more ICU beds, legislated for or supported better air circulation indoors, or subsidised antigen testing - but they have implemented a vaccine passport for cafes and restaurants, against the advice of our council on civil liberties, our data privacy chief, and the WHO covid envoy. We're told it's a temporary measure, and I have no doubt that it will be as "temporary" as the Patriot Act.
Yeah this is what bothers me too. We're bound to see some more waves and continued pressure on the health system for a long time to come yet nothing seems to be done to actually fix that.
When Covid first hid the excuse was "we can't ramp up that quickly" but now that it's here to stay that excuse is still there. But every week they wait makes the wait even longer.
I agree natural immunity is good too. It's automatically adaptive to new variants (and the vaccine can help there as it'll be much less risky to get covid so everyone gets exposed to it a bit).
What I said about accomodating the unvaccinated, this was mainly because the government presents it as such. "We can't force vaccination so we have to check everyone every time". So many basic rights thrown in the trash without any debate. I agree there's probably ulterior motives. And I know it likely won't go away, this is why I'm so strongly against.
I think in the long term I will move to a country that doesn't do this. I've already been moving around all my life.
Yeah this is what bothers me too. We're bound to see some more waves and continued pressure on the health system for a long time to come yet nothing seems to be done to actually fix that.
When Covid first hid the excuse was "we can't ramp up that quickly" but now that it's here to stay that excuse is still there. But every week they wait makes the wait even longer.
I agree natural immunity is good too. It's automatically adaptive to new variants (and the vaccine can help there as it'll be much less risky to get covid so everyone gets exposed to it a bit).
What I said about accomodating the unvaccinated, this was mainly because the government presents it as such. "We can't force vaccination so we have to check everyone every time". So many basic rights thrown in the trash without any debate. I agree there's probably ulterior motives. And I know it likely won't go away, this is why I'm so strongly against.
I think in the long term I will move to a country that doesn't do this. I've already been moving around all my life.
[deleted]
> Yeah this is what bothers me too.
Yet you fell for government propaganda and report the fault on people who don't want to take part in clinical trial. The restriction of liberty with a vaccinal passport is purely a political choice and has nothing with health per se. A lot of countries are doing fine without it.
Yet you fell for government propaganda and report the fault on people who don't want to take part in clinical trial. The restriction of liberty with a vaccinal passport is purely a political choice and has nothing with health per se. A lot of countries are doing fine without it.
I understand what you mean but I'm just trying to debate the government at the reasoning they imposed.
I agree a vaccine passport isn't necessary in these cases. I can see the benefit for international travel, but imposing it on every aspect of public life is a really invasive and unwarranted measure.
I don't think taking the vaccine is such a big deal, but I understand that others feel differently. I don't want to give up my privacy for their privilege though :)
I agree a vaccine passport isn't necessary in these cases. I can see the benefit for international travel, but imposing it on every aspect of public life is a really invasive and unwarranted measure.
I don't think taking the vaccine is such a big deal, but I understand that others feel differently. I don't want to give up my privacy for their privilege though :)
I think we're going too far to accomodate those who won't get vaccinated. If everyone gets it, this scanning wouldn't be necessary.
How do you force everyone to get it without the apparatus of the police state?
How do you force everyone to get it without the apparatus of the police state?
>How do you force everyone to get it without the apparatus of the police state?
Develop a more deadly virus?
Develop a more deadly virus?
These vaccination records are there already anyway, in Europe most countries have a national health system that knows exactly who has it and who doesn't.
But it's not as bad as a detailed step by step log of every person's activities every day.
Also, I think some level of noncompliance should be accepted. The vaccines don't work 100% anyway, these are just a few more percent. The number of people opposed to vaccination in Europe is very low compared to the US. The vaccination rate will be more than high enough for decent protection.
We're never going to reduce the risk of covid to zero for an individual. Just like we're never going to reduce the risk of dying from cancer to zero. Some risk just has to be accepted as a fact of life.
But it's not as bad as a detailed step by step log of every person's activities every day.
Also, I think some level of noncompliance should be accepted. The vaccines don't work 100% anyway, these are just a few more percent. The number of people opposed to vaccination in Europe is very low compared to the US. The vaccination rate will be more than high enough for decent protection.
We're never going to reduce the risk of covid to zero for an individual. Just like we're never going to reduce the risk of dying from cancer to zero. Some risk just has to be accepted as a fact of life.
These vaccination records are there already anyway
They are, in the UK attached to you NHS number for example. But the question is, how you you force the non-compliant to comply? Form the set-difference of the NHS and national DBs, hunt down and inject the non-compliant? Sounds a bit police-statey to me. Or make daily life dependent on showing your NHS number? Easy to fake, so we'd need NHS photo id-cards to get a coffee, ... sounds a bit police-statey to me ... etc
They are, in the UK attached to you NHS number for example. But the question is, how you you force the non-compliant to comply? Form the set-difference of the NHS and national DBs, hunt down and inject the non-compliant? Sounds a bit police-statey to me. Or make daily life dependent on showing your NHS number? Easy to fake, so we'd need NHS photo id-cards to get a coffee, ... sounds a bit police-statey to me ... etc
> Or make daily life dependent on showing your NHS number? Easy to fake, so we'd need NHS photo id-cards to get a coffee, ... sounds a bit police-statey to me ... etc
Exactly, yet this is exactly what Germany, France and Italy are doing right now.
You need the QR code which contains your name / DOB + Photo ID
Exactly, yet this is exactly what Germany, France and Italy are doing right now.
You need the QR code which contains your name / DOB + Photo ID
[deleted]
Officially, they don't need your PII to validate your certificate: "The personal data of the certificate holder does not pass through the gateway, as this is not necessary to verify the digital signature" [1]
That said, I've not actually looked in to how these work... In Berlin at least, it's rare to get an ID check at a restaurant, usually someone just glances at your phone.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re...
edit: further: "The CovPassCheck app processes the QR code only in the working memory of the smartphone and does not store any data." [2]
[2] https://digitaler-impfnachweis-app.apps.public.bfarm.de/en/c...
That said, I've not actually looked in to how these work... In Berlin at least, it's rare to get an ID check at a restaurant, usually someone just glances at your phone.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re...
edit: further: "The CovPassCheck app processes the QR code only in the working memory of the smartphone and does not store any data." [2]
[2] https://digitaler-impfnachweis-app.apps.public.bfarm.de/en/c...
To learn more, watch these guy's videos on Youtube or their own website: https://www.thejuicemedia.com/
They are hilarious and tell the naked truth.
They are hilarious and tell the naked truth.
Australia and its system are slowly becoming easy prey for China.
Complete behind the scene control is not far away.
Complete behind the scene control is not far away.
>let them modify and delete data
So there taking planting evidence digital?
So there taking planting evidence digital?
A voyeuristic nanny is probably a more accurate description.
But how good's the cricket?!
[deleted]
Australia is owned by China and politicians making policies are corrupted by communists. Unfortunately it's too late for people living there
you know what's hilarious?
An article talking about surveillance states that immediately pops up a request for a bunch of personal information.
An article talking about surveillance states that immediately pops up a request for a bunch of personal information.
yep... I've never been on that site, never even seen an article there, and the first one I want to see, they cover up with a popup, asking me to subscribe...
I have no idea whose idea this is, and how many people actually subscribe on the first visit, but there must be some pointy haired boss somewhere involved.
I have no idea whose idea this is, and how many people actually subscribe on the first visit, but there must be some pointy haired boss somewhere involved.
The ublock rule you want is:
ia.acs.org.au###subscribeModal
:)
ia.acs.org.au###subscribeModal
:)
I hope the AI watches us and then takes us over
Because we care more about climate change than our privacy. Sad
Corporate interests own the media, politicians, food production, education etc. and no one cares, because Life Is Good. Why expect anything to change, or people to care about strong democratic institutions, when there is no incentive for them to care about abstract concepts such as privacy or governmental oversight.
Decades of bull markets, house price increases, a decline in public education, torpedoed communication infrastructure and complicit "independent" media has resulted in a wealthy, ignorant and complacent society who allow their representatives full control over their lives. It is not that they don't care about these issues, they are not even aware they are issues at all.
But who cares, when you can go to the beach?