‘Extraordinary’ hacking powers pass Australian Parliament(innovationaus.com)
innovationaus.com
‘Extraordinary’ hacking powers pass Australian Parliament
https://www.innovationaus.com/extraordinary-new-hacking-powers-pass-parliament/
220 comments
It only takes one progressive government to roll it all back. Vote Green.
Political parties that edge closer to political power tend to slowly get invaded by careerist politicians put forth by lobby groups intent on maintaining the status quo.
This is how most Labor parties end up meek allies of capital - career politicians injected into the parties are funded by, promoted by and supported by institutions that owe their allegiance to capital. It's very much the safe route into politics that ends with a cushy job (which is critical coz most political careers end in failure). These people are often the best at co-opting political machinery (e.g. getting on the right committees, swinging important but less visible votes, figuring out how to get "difficult" members ejected based upon trumped up accusations of racism).
For anyone else taking a political career route you risk ending up unsupported, overworked, villified and subsequently ejected into unemployment.
If attempts to co-opt political groups edging closer to power using internal party political machinery fail, there's always a media under the full control of the upper classes that can villify individual politicians that are a threat, which a good 1/2-2/3 of the population will usually believe. Sometimes this works hand in hand (e.g. creating a facade of "unelectability" via the media and then using that internally to nix career progression).
None of this happens in parties with zero chance of getting into power (e.g. most green parties) so ironically they often end up with the best platforms.
This is how most Labor parties end up meek allies of capital - career politicians injected into the parties are funded by, promoted by and supported by institutions that owe their allegiance to capital. It's very much the safe route into politics that ends with a cushy job (which is critical coz most political careers end in failure). These people are often the best at co-opting political machinery (e.g. getting on the right committees, swinging important but less visible votes, figuring out how to get "difficult" members ejected based upon trumped up accusations of racism).
For anyone else taking a political career route you risk ending up unsupported, overworked, villified and subsequently ejected into unemployment.
If attempts to co-opt political groups edging closer to power using internal party political machinery fail, there's always a media under the full control of the upper classes that can villify individual politicians that are a threat, which a good 1/2-2/3 of the population will usually believe. Sometimes this works hand in hand (e.g. creating a facade of "unelectability" via the media and then using that internally to nix career progression).
None of this happens in parties with zero chance of getting into power (e.g. most green parties) so ironically they often end up with the best platforms.
How naive to think governments ever give back powers.
How pessimistic to think they can't!
This problem was created by believing in the lie of representative government; believing in it harder won’t solve it.
Care to give some examples of when this has happened?
It's never happened because Australians would never vote Green. Aside from having the public image as a bunch of hippies and crackpots, a huge chunk of our voter base just want to sit on their nest eggs, which the Libs (current govt.) promise to help with. Another huge chunk just vote how their parents vote.
The only reason Australians (generalising) vote at all, is because we'd get fined if we didn't. With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government, this country exists to hold the status quo.
The only reason Australians (generalising) vote at all, is because we'd get fined if we didn't. With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government, this country exists to hold the status quo.
>With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government
That is completely untrue. Informal votes are not counted at all.
That is completely untrue. Informal votes are not counted at all.
That's odd. In the UK spoiled ballots are quite definitely counted.
"The number of Blank Votes and Spoiled Ballots are read out at the count, along with the results and are also included in subsequent reports. Your apathy towards the political parties will be heard not just forgotten."
https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot
"The number of Blank Votes and Spoiled Ballots are read out at the count, along with the results and are also included in subsequent reports. Your apathy towards the political parties will be heard not just forgotten."
https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot
My apologies, bad wording.
They're counted here too - just not towards any particular political party.
They're counted here too - just not towards any particular political party.
> With donkey votes (vandalised ballots) counted as votes for the current government
I've never heard that before. Do you have a link?
I've never heard that before. Do you have a link?
Sorry - invalid votes aren’t counted, they are ignored.
A "donkey vote" isn't a vandalised ballot. It's one where you vote by not considering the candidate, but voting by a simple order, usually numbering from top to bottom of the ballot.
Usually it is highlighted when an unlikely candidate gets a better than expected result, and the pundits would attribute it to the "donkey vote"
Usually it is highlighted when an unlikely candidate gets a better than expected result, and the pundits would attribute it to the "donkey vote"
Read about our government here in Canberra where we have Labor Green coalition.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7273583/bandt-looks-t...
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7273583/bandt-looks-t...
Canada’s NDP under Thomas Mulclair running against the Liberals.
Is it limited to Australia or can they just share whatever with the other 'Five Eyes'?
Of course they'll share it. First, non-citizens are usually even less protected than citizens. Second, secret services are also extralegal services as long as they can get away with it. Third, if they get caught, they won't be punished.
German example: The BND has been caught spying on all Germans' communication (most probably still does so), as well as connections to foreign countries. They are only supposed to watch foreign countries. So they came up with a legal theory, called "Weltraumtheorie", where satellites are in space, so outside the jurisdiction of any state. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltraumtheorie Later on, when this got out, it was just legalized and extended to fibre connections, because, well, that just replaces space, doesn't it?...
German example: The BND has been caught spying on all Germans' communication (most probably still does so), as well as connections to foreign countries. They are only supposed to watch foreign countries. So they came up with a legal theory, called "Weltraumtheorie", where satellites are in space, so outside the jurisdiction of any state. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltraumtheorie Later on, when this got out, it was just legalized and extended to fibre connections, because, well, that just replaces space, doesn't it?...
Doesn't this backfire? As in, you are free to commit wire fraud, because of this similarity to "international waters"?
Theoretically. Practically, that legal theory is just a smokescreen for the willingness of the government to overlook any misdeeds by the secret services. Prosecutors and courts got the hint and didn't investigate any further. However, if you are a non-state-sponsored criminal, of course you will be prosecuted. "Qvod licet iovi, non licet bovi" is a very important legal principle ;)
Also, later on, the government just legalized what the BND was doing, thereby invalidating any future attempt at prosecution for that past crime against the BND. Yet still maintaining the illegality for everyone else.
Also, later on, the government just legalized what the BND was doing, thereby invalidating any future attempt at prosecution for that past crime against the BND. Yet still maintaining the illegality for everyone else.
It is indeed opening doors for international cooperation:
>"I think we've started to fill a void, a niche for the Americans to get around a few legal hurdles domestically"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-10/nsw-operation-ironsid...
>"I think we've started to fill a void, a niche for the Americans to get around a few legal hurdles domestically"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-10/nsw-operation-ironsid...
Oh, it is definitely common for other countries to go through Australia to bypass laws or legal hurdles locally. This has been used to catch many cyber criminals.
I wrote to my local federal "representative", just as I did with the Assistance and Access Act. I convinced others to contact theirs too. But even if we convince one politician that they should vote no, I strongly suspect they would vote with their party anyway. It just doesn't feel like representative democracy any more.
> A classic example of why you really shouldn't be giving the government too much power, because even so-called "modern democracies" can and will go bad.
I'm not an expert, but I'm under the impression that Australia uses a "first past the post" / "simple majority" voting system. If that is true, calling it a "modern democracy" seems deeply misguided, democracy yes, modern no.
I'm not an expert, but I'm under the impression that Australia uses a "first past the post" / "simple majority" voting system. If that is true, calling it a "modern democracy" seems deeply misguided, democracy yes, modern no.
Not true at all. Australian federal election House of Representatives uses a preferential voting system where you have to number every candidate in your order of preference 1..N. Also voting (or at least attending) is compulsory.
Not even close. The Australian electoral system uses instant-runoff for the House, and single-transferable-vote for the Senate.
That has almost the same results as first past the post though.
Kinda, but that "almost the same" occasionally counts for some significant differences.
Australian politics is dominated by the two major parties, but the minor parties form a reasonable percentage of held seats, and occasionally neither major party holds a majority, which leads to a hung parliament where the balance of power is open to negotiation.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representa...
Australian politics is dominated by the two major parties, but the minor parties form a reasonable percentage of held seats, and occasionally neither major party holds a majority, which leads to a hung parliament where the balance of power is open to negotiation.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representa...
Not just "electronic" freedoms anymore. They're currently locked down with the lockdown enforced by their own military from what I have seen. Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns.
You're conflating two very different things. The lockdowns are instituted at the state level, are different in every state, and are with the specific aim of (and in response to) preventing covid transmission. Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing to do with Freedom, or lack of guns.
By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.
By making a false comparison between the two, you are muddying any argument made against the electronic freedom restrictions.
>Adhering to a public health lockdown has nothing can do with Freedom
Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.
Regardless of what the justification given is, limiting people's freedom of movement and association is by definition a restriction of their freedom.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I intended my capitalization of "Freedom" to stand in for a particular philosophy, which I did not clearly explicate.
To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.
To restate: I think the COVID lockdowns are a very different case from these electronic restrictions, in scope, duration, reason, and advisability. A critique which cites both as similar examples of government overreach is missing its mark.
I say this as a fellow Aussie who thinks both gun control and COVID lockdowns are good, sensible policies (although I'm starting to get sick of the latter): both of those things are absolutely limitations on freedom, even in the libertarian philosophical sense, and at least partly explains why Americans are so strongly against them.
Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
Freedom is about being able to do whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't restrict the freedom of others. It's not about being good or wise or socially responsible or even sane - it's just about nobody being able to stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
[deleted]
Even Libertarians understand that the situation is nuanced. For example, blackouts during wartime are the proper jurisdiction of governments. You can argue that pandemic lockdowns fall into the same category. (I’m not saying whether or not that argument is correct, but it can be made in good faith.)
But they don't. Lockdowns longer than the vaccination interval make absolutely zero sense if there exists a vaccine and the virus is endemic. Get used to the idea that you'll be getting COVID several times a year from here on out, and because you'll have antibodies, it'll be no big deal, much like with other coronaviruses today.
Importantly, there is NO PLAUSIBLE WAY to "stop COVID" by lockdowns or any other measures. Eventually you'll have to end the lockdowns, and it'll be waiting for you. COVID is the Taliban of diseases - it can't be defeated, but we can kinda sorta peacefully coexist.
Importantly, there is NO PLAUSIBLE WAY to "stop COVID" by lockdowns or any other measures. Eventually you'll have to end the lockdowns, and it'll be waiting for you. COVID is the Taliban of diseases - it can't be defeated, but we can kinda sorta peacefully coexist.
In hindsight, that argument makes some sense, but back in early 2020 when we didn't know what we were fighting, there was no reason to believe it was endemic and there was no vaccine.
But we did know what we were fighting. It was clear right from the start COVID would become endemic, epidemiologists were literally saying so. It is true that there was no vaccine and nobody knew how to treat the moderate cases, but we've now had the vaccine for 9 months. In the US at least it's available to anyone who wants it (and forced upon those who don't, sometimes), and it's been that way for 4+ months.
And yet, in Australia you can be forcibly detained and quarantined (in a camp, no less), forced to disclose health information, authorities can also use whatever force necessary to enter your dwelling (this would be a perilous affair in the US in particular), and so on. That is as far from "freedom" as anything I've seen. And it's also utterly and completely pointless and counterproductive as well.
And yet, in Australia you can be forcibly detained and quarantined (in a camp, no less), forced to disclose health information, authorities can also use whatever force necessary to enter your dwelling (this would be a perilous affair in the US in particular), and so on. That is as far from "freedom" as anything I've seen. And it's also utterly and completely pointless and counterproductive as well.
You have some weird definition of freedom with which I am not familiar. To me, freedom would mean I could, at a minimum, go wherever I want to go, and meet whoever I want to meet, without government interference.
And if there are any epidemiological recommednations, _voluntary_ compliance would too mean freedom, but _only_ voluntary.
By your definition people in prisons are "free" too - most of them are locked up for a reason. And yet they can't go anywhere, and are most definitely non-free.
And if there are any epidemiological recommednations, _voluntary_ compliance would too mean freedom, but _only_ voluntary.
By your definition people in prisons are "free" too - most of them are locked up for a reason. And yet they can't go anywhere, and are most definitely non-free.
This seems like the classic 'what happens when your freedoms encroach upon my freedoms' discussion beginning
> Serves them right, too, for giving up the last backstop on the government power: guns.
Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work?
Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work?
If the guns pose no threat to would-be tyrants, why would they need to take them away?
We expect our government to protect our individual rights and allowing citizens to maintain some degree of dangerousness is a nod to that effect. Even basic arms are great equalizers allowing anyone to protect themselves fairly well in practice.
We expect our government to protect our individual rights and allowing citizens to maintain some degree of dangerousness is a nod to that effect. Even basic arms are great equalizers allowing anyone to protect themselves fairly well in practice.
>If the guns pose no threat to would-be tyrants, why would they need to take them away?
because they pose plenty of threat to each other, which was in fact one of the reasons for the biggest change in modern Australian history, the Port Arthur massacre[1]
Australia, like many other nations does not have the same tolerance that the US has when it comes to violence.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...
because they pose plenty of threat to each other, which was in fact one of the reasons for the biggest change in modern Australian history, the Port Arthur massacre[1]
Australia, like many other nations does not have the same tolerance that the US has when it comes to violence.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...
Do the new restrictions make Aussies think someone hellbent of murdering people like this wouldn't be able to do so? I see stories of people committing mass murders by driving vans through crowded streets, for example.
It is interesting that these restrictions pre-date the country's more authoritarian move. Disarming the populace occurred prior to communist takeovers, eg. Russia early 20th
It is interesting that these restrictions pre-date the country's more authoritarian move. Disarming the populace occurred prior to communist takeovers, eg. Russia early 20th
Of course if someone wanted to inflict harm there are other ways to do it, but banning guns removes one very effective way of doing it. The claim that guns protect against the tyranny of government is dubious, since it seems to imply that civilians shooting at police or soldiers would improve an already dire situation - that seems unlikely.
Gun control has broad support in Australia - in a poll, 40% of respondents think the laws are fine as they are, 45% said they should be even stronger, and 6% said they were too strong.
https://essentialvision.com.au/gun-laws
Gun control has broad support in Australia - in a poll, 40% of respondents think the laws are fine as they are, 45% said they should be even stronger, and 6% said they were too strong.
https://essentialvision.com.au/gun-laws
The data indicates so, yes. I suggest you look up the numbers.
[deleted]
The US government certainly has better guns than the Taliban. Let's see how that's working out for them. Oh, my...
Regular guns are sufficiently potent weapons to give the government trouble. Whatever else you might think of him and his stunt, Ammon Bundy proved that.
The various stunts that the Bundy family has pulled off prove less about guns being
> sufficiently potent weapons to give the government trouble
and prove far more about how the US federal government has and continues to be reluctant to pursue anyone that has support from "small-government" right-wing groups, even if they continuously ignore or break federal laws.
> sufficiently potent weapons to give the government trouble
and prove far more about how the US federal government has and continues to be reluctant to pursue anyone that has support from "small-government" right-wing groups, even if they continuously ignore or break federal laws.
You shouldn't let the politics of the situation cloud the obvious. If they didn't have guns, it would not have played out the way it did. That doesn't mean that what they did was good, or that how the government handled it was right. It just means that the availability of guns was a critical determinative factor. That also doesn't mean they were the sole factor, either. It can also be true that the government treated them with kid gloves. But it's pretty clear that they would not have done that if they weren't armed.
>Genuinely curious, do you not think the US government has better guns than its citizens? How exactly would this work?
How exactly did that work in Afghanistan?
How exactly did that work in Afghanistan?
True, but this is in the context of abject authoritarianism right? Under tyranny?
The US in Afghanistan, for all its successes and failures was on a nation building adventure, hoping to win hearts and minds. It was following rules of engagement, not operating an outright slaughterhouse.
In the context of abject authoritarianism, the government will just straight up execute you, or crush you with a tank like the PRC at Tiananmen Square.
This feels like a romanticized Lone Ranger against Big Brother kind of thing. The Fantasy of the Good Guy with a Gun™. I don't think it plays out that way in real life.
The US in Afghanistan, for all its successes and failures was on a nation building adventure, hoping to win hearts and minds. It was following rules of engagement, not operating an outright slaughterhouse.
In the context of abject authoritarianism, the government will just straight up execute you, or crush you with a tank like the PRC at Tiananmen Square.
This feels like a romanticized Lone Ranger against Big Brother kind of thing. The Fantasy of the Good Guy with a Gun™. I don't think it plays out that way in real life.
The worst the government can do in a country with 300M+ guns in circulation is "boil the frog", and hope to dear god the pot does not boil over at any point. It's not a fantasy. It's literally how the US was founded in the first place.
Well, yes, that's how it was founded in the 1700s with slaves, flintlock rifles, no suffrage, and most people had syphilis. A lot has changed since then. Like, well, tanks.
A counter narrative would be the Cultural Revolution as I pointed out. China's population in 1966 at the start of the Cultural Revolution was about 750mm people. By the time Tiananmen Square happened, it was 1.1b people. I'm looking for the numbers but I believe guns were pretty common.
A counter narrative would be the Cultural Revolution as I pointed out. China's population in 1966 at the start of the Cultural Revolution was about 750mm people. By the time Tiananmen Square happened, it was 1.1b people. I'm looking for the numbers but I believe guns were pretty common.
I agree, a lot has changed since then. The governments have gotten a lot more abusive and intrusive, for example.
I dont think you can connect this argument with afghanistan, how do you see the connection there?
The Afghanistan army gave up rather than fight the Taliban, despite having far superior firepower and manpower.
Government might try to go house to house in red states. They'd encounter resistance everywhere, in innumerable forms. The government would be fighting with people defending their homes and their way of life. It would go very badly for the government.
The USGOV has bombed it's own citizens before, but it probably wouldn't go over as well in the age of twitter as in the past.
US citizenry is certainly much better armed than the Taliban, which has proven to be more than enough. 2nd amendment is so high on the list for this exact reason.
> 2nd amendment is so high on the list for this exact reason.
The order of ammendments is chronological, not one of importance.
The order of ammendments is chronological, not one of importance.
Chronology correlates with importance here. IIRC, however, the Bill of Rights was passed as a whole, though, not piecemeal. So it could be that it's 2nd because the Founding Fathers thought it was important. "Security of a free State" and all that. Seems pretty important to me.
I mean that's kind of interpretrative. I could similarly say that it wasn't in the Constitution to begin with so it can't have been that important to them. Or that it came before they thought about giving basic rights to anyone who isn't a white man so maybe we shouldn't read too closely into the order or rely on someone from the 18th century to inform our priorities.
Oh, they have thought about it, and very early on at that. When Jefferson was drafting the Declaration of Independence, it had this bit in it:
"He [king] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."
This was removed from the final version during committee review. Much later, Jefferson explained what he believed the reason for this was:
"The clause...reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under these censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
The supreme irony here, of course, is that Jefferson himself was a slave owner until his death. And he had something to say on that, as well; written in 1820, on the occasion of the Missouri Compromise:
"... as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
"He [king] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."
This was removed from the final version during committee review. Much later, Jefferson explained what he believed the reason for this was:
"The clause...reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under these censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
The supreme irony here, of course, is that Jefferson himself was a slave owner until his death. And he had something to say on that, as well; written in 1820, on the occasion of the Missouri Compromise:
"... as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
the constitution, as written, recognized the same rights for all men. The institution of slavery/discrimination was at odds with what was written from the very beginning
Not women, though. Multi-century statecraft is a long, iterative process. The founding fathers were hardly perfect, and that doesn't detract from the scope of achievement.
I agree, the characters behind the writing and their faults are irrelevant. The ideas are what matter, and they should be timeless or they need to be updated, eg. for women
And in the 21st century how important is the 3rd amendment compared to the 4th or 5th?
Are you sure? The Taliban have RPGs.
Take a look at this. Every gun in the video is privately owned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0
In general, it's perfectly legal for US residents to own RPGs, artillery, tanks etc. If operational, they're classified as "destructive devices", so they have to be registered with the feds, and every transfer happens with their approval as well. It's also very expensive, obviously. But still possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0
In general, it's perfectly legal for US residents to own RPGs, artillery, tanks etc. If operational, they're classified as "destructive devices", so they have to be registered with the feds, and every transfer happens with their approval as well. It's also very expensive, obviously. But still possible.
And Blackhawks
It's a good thing we don't all have guns like folks in the States. Not too many mass murders here. And if you think you're protected from your government, you're talking about guys with small arms vs other guys with tanks.
Why compare to the States specifically, though? There are several countries in Europe that have much more liberal gun laws than you guys do (although also much more stringent than American ones), and similarly don't have a problem with mass murders.
Organized crime gangs... please. Look at what they're doing in relation to Covid. Crime gangs... Australia is nuts.
> Organized crime gangs
Largely (albeit not completely) created by the state thanks to drug criminalization. For fuck's sake.
Largely (albeit not completely) created by the state thanks to drug criminalization. For fuck's sake.
And don't forget the Big Blue Gang.
Funded and empowered by the state, and totally unaccountable...
“I have said before, if you write a ticket, and you get it wrong, I understand, and I won’t hold you to account for that. We have to shape the behaviour of people to get out of lockdown, and I know all of us want to be out of lockdown by Christmas, so please take the challenge.“ -- NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller, https://www.smh.com.au/national/police-commissioner-says-off...
Funded and empowered by the state, and totally unaccountable...
“I have said before, if you write a ticket, and you get it wrong, I understand, and I won’t hold you to account for that. We have to shape the behaviour of people to get out of lockdown, and I know all of us want to be out of lockdown by Christmas, so please take the challenge.“ -- NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller, https://www.smh.com.au/national/police-commissioner-says-off...
The tech industry in Australia has for some time existed in an impossibly hostile climate, with onerous tasks to betray their own users able to be handed out to individuals at any time, with virtually no oversight. [1]
This has all happened under the auspices of the most overtly corrupt and authoritarian government we’ve had in my lifetime, within four years.
If I had the option, I’d pack up and move, but having written this and other anti-government sentiment, it’s entirely possible that they stop me at the border. [2]
Combining this with the political apathy of nearly everyone here that I know, the current vilification of protestors (not entirely wrongly given the circumstances), and the utter spinelessness and complicity of the “opposition”, I don’t see a future for my country that doesn’t involve violent revolution (we’ve tried it before [3]) or tyranny.
But it gets better: the tech industry is not only under attack, they’re complicit. Beyond even the ordinary run-of-the-mill scumbaggery we see from tech companies, a number have recently formed the Tech Council of Australia [4], aiming to make Australia a startup capital of the world. Scroll down that page and you’ll see a list of member corporations, several of which sent opposition to the AABill when consultation was open. Now, apparently, they’ve decided that it’s too hard to beat ‘em, so they’ll join ’em.
[1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
[2] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion
[4] https://techcouncil.com.au
This has all happened under the auspices of the most overtly corrupt and authoritarian government we’ve had in my lifetime, within four years.
If I had the option, I’d pack up and move, but having written this and other anti-government sentiment, it’s entirely possible that they stop me at the border. [2]
Combining this with the political apathy of nearly everyone here that I know, the current vilification of protestors (not entirely wrongly given the circumstances), and the utter spinelessness and complicity of the “opposition”, I don’t see a future for my country that doesn’t involve violent revolution (we’ve tried it before [3]) or tyranny.
But it gets better: the tech industry is not only under attack, they’re complicit. Beyond even the ordinary run-of-the-mill scumbaggery we see from tech companies, a number have recently formed the Tech Council of Australia [4], aiming to make Australia a startup capital of the world. Scroll down that page and you’ll see a list of member corporations, several of which sent opposition to the AABill when consultation was open. Now, apparently, they’ve decided that it’s too hard to beat ‘em, so they’ll join ’em.
[1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
[2] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion
[4] https://techcouncil.com.au
As a near neighbour I can neither confirm or deny my support for the cause.
However, its baffling to me normal people are so compliant in the clear authoritarianism.
Being in full lockdown where I'm not allowed to go outside and all stores are closed and food stocks are so low at the supermarket their is no point in waiting an hour in line.
Speak out out has very real social and career consequences you are reminded daily on the media.
The only place to get information from your community, is Facebook comment section news articles, but if you know programming you can clearly see these posts are filtered and highly curated and any post that has slight disagreement with the governments actions is quickly corrected by government employed commentors paid 95k to tackle disinformation.
People are lead to believe if they just follow along and be good they will get their freedoms back.
These people are right. You should address your disdain forwards rule breakers and not those imposing the rules. Because that would be incitement.
I'm thankful I am a high wage earner and can work from home and don't have to rely on government rations ($600) like most people.
I believe we are witnessing history, in the fog. And only from the future does everything make sense. In my personal opinion I believe we are preparing for war with *insert enemy here* and covid was a dress rehearsal for real biological war.
With the USA leaving Afghanistan the "pivot to pacific" is almost complete.
However, its baffling to me normal people are so compliant in the clear authoritarianism.
Being in full lockdown where I'm not allowed to go outside and all stores are closed and food stocks are so low at the supermarket their is no point in waiting an hour in line.
Speak out out has very real social and career consequences you are reminded daily on the media.
The only place to get information from your community, is Facebook comment section news articles, but if you know programming you can clearly see these posts are filtered and highly curated and any post that has slight disagreement with the governments actions is quickly corrected by government employed commentors paid 95k to tackle disinformation.
People are lead to believe if they just follow along and be good they will get their freedoms back.
These people are right. You should address your disdain forwards rule breakers and not those imposing the rules. Because that would be incitement.
I'm thankful I am a high wage earner and can work from home and don't have to rely on government rations ($600) like most people.
I believe we are witnessing history, in the fog. And only from the future does everything make sense. In my personal opinion I believe we are preparing for war with *insert enemy here* and covid was a dress rehearsal for real biological war.
With the USA leaving Afghanistan the "pivot to pacific" is almost complete.
Has the government of Australia given any rational for banning Australians from leaving? What is the public discourse like over this?
I also heard that Australia was making it very difficult for Australians who were abroad prior to COVID from coming back, is that true? Has that changed much? Again, does the government give a rational for this decision? And the discourse?
I think that Australia and NZ were right to lock down hard and stamp out COVID but I'm a bit baffled by the fact that it has managed to get in a few times and more specifically how it has managed to get in.
It seems to be that once if you're an island the size of Australia and you've eliminated domestic transmission the simple solution is to route all international flights to an airport in remote location (not one in a large city) where absolutely everyone involved in the process be they passangers, crew or quarantine staff must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
If you did that then you could easily repatriate Australians living abroad.
I also heard that Australia was making it very difficult for Australians who were abroad prior to COVID from coming back, is that true? Has that changed much? Again, does the government give a rational for this decision? And the discourse?
I think that Australia and NZ were right to lock down hard and stamp out COVID but I'm a bit baffled by the fact that it has managed to get in a few times and more specifically how it has managed to get in.
It seems to be that once if you're an island the size of Australia and you've eliminated domestic transmission the simple solution is to route all international flights to an airport in remote location (not one in a large city) where absolutely everyone involved in the process be they passangers, crew or quarantine staff must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
If you did that then you could easily repatriate Australians living abroad.
> I also heard that Australia was making it very difficult for Australians who were abroad prior to COVID from coming back, is that true? Has that changed much?
As an Australian living abroad - nope, nothing has changed. It's near impossible for us to get back although at this point, why would I want to..
> And the discourse?
Australians overseas are distraught with many being forced to watch friends and family go through tragedy from afar. The ones living at home don't seem to give a crap at all - "you left, serves you right" isn't an uncommon sentiment.
It's been discussed in other posts recently on HN about Australia - life there is pretty good and Australians are generally laid back to a fault. If a problem doesn't affect an individual on a personal level, it doesn't exist.
</rant>
As an Australian living abroad - nope, nothing has changed. It's near impossible for us to get back although at this point, why would I want to..
> And the discourse?
Australians overseas are distraught with many being forced to watch friends and family go through tragedy from afar. The ones living at home don't seem to give a crap at all - "you left, serves you right" isn't an uncommon sentiment.
It's been discussed in other posts recently on HN about Australia - life there is pretty good and Australians are generally laid back to a fault. If a problem doesn't affect an individual on a personal level, it doesn't exist.
</rant>
Because you might have family you love and care about living there who you'd want to see?
Feeling a bit East and West Berlin right now.
Feeling a bit East and West Berlin right now.
That’s what I read many times. Politicians and corporations can do whatever they want because “life is good”.
The rationale for preventing citizens leaving is that they may catch COVID abroad then rely on govt. intervention to get back home as a "stranded" Aussie. This is of course nonsense, as govt. intervention to get home has been worth exactly fuck all over the last 18 months. An acquaintance of mine went overseas for his mother's funeral, was told he wasn't allowed to return, managed to get back on the constraint that he flew business (we want rich people back here, after all), then had to fly to South Australia (we are in NSW), quarantine for two weeks, hire a car, and drive back to NSW where he was required to quarantine for two weeks at the border before returning home.
Whether all that was indeed necessary to prevent the spread of COVID (despite several negative tests and all but total isolation in that time) is up for debate, but yes the government certainly makes it as hard as possible to enter the country, virtually impossible unless you can purchase upper-class tickets (bribe the border force).
Whether all that was indeed necessary to prevent the spread of COVID (despite several negative tests and all but total isolation in that time) is up for debate, but yes the government certainly makes it as hard as possible to enter the country, virtually impossible unless you can purchase upper-class tickets (bribe the border force).
It got in because quarantine is a complex system (unless you completely seal your borders, and don't accept things like medicine), and complex systems do not operate perfectly forever.
Australia foolishly believed that they could choose if and when Covid entered their country, which explains the sheer complancy at all levels of government in dealing with it. This was never true.
The result was that Australia purchased, at enormous cost, some covid-free time, and then proceeded to piss it up against the wall.
(As an aside: I'm Australian, and live outside Australia. I do not want to be "repatriated", I want to simply be able to visit the country I'm a citizen of, without being banned from leaving again, and without spending thousands of dollars on quarantine.)
Australia foolishly believed that they could choose if and when Covid entered their country, which explains the sheer complancy at all levels of government in dealing with it. This was never true.
The result was that Australia purchased, at enormous cost, some covid-free time, and then proceeded to piss it up against the wall.
(As an aside: I'm Australian, and live outside Australia. I do not want to be "repatriated", I want to simply be able to visit the country I'm a citizen of, without being banned from leaving again, and without spending thousands of dollars on quarantine.)
> Australia foolishly believed that they could choose if and when Covid entered their country
No. They believed they could limit covid cases and they were right. Australia's still got some of the best covid results in the world, even with the currently rising case numbers:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
No. They believed they could limit covid cases and they were right. Australia's still got some of the best covid results in the world, even with the currently rising case numbers:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
If your pursuit of "best covid results" (and all the goal post shifting justifications that come with it) requires that your ostensibly democratic, free country turns even more towards something resembling East Germany, i'd say you've failed in some more fundamental way. Many other countries also managed to decently deal with a highly difficult and fluid situation like this without imposing absurd Stasi-like equivalents of exit visas. What a shameful thing for a western democratic state to shift to and what a shame that so many idiots defend the normalization of these things in their terror of this relatively moderate virus.
No. You're confusing public health measures with political ideology.
This confusion is one of the reasons that the US covid response was, and continues to be, such a failure. The US is at 649,754 deaths from covid and counting.
This confusion is one of the reasons that the US covid response was, and continues to be, such a failure. The US is at 649,754 deaths from covid and counting.
The U.S. response has been extremely variable and has operated under circumstances entirely different, geographically and politically from those of a much smaller, island country like Australia. Comparing the two as countries is absurd. With that said, there are many legitimate criticisms of the Australian government reaction, and yes, on authoritarian grounds as well. The U.S response is in many ways worth criticizing as well. Furthermore, what has Australia really gained? Endless rolling lockdowns and a fragility against covid upticks that's laughably tenuous while also being highly authoritarian. It's wonderful to see the exceptionally low death count among COVID cases in the country (taking into account its unique geographic situation) but had vaccination not become available, this would have been a very fragile, unsustainable thing bought at enormous social cost.
> Furthermore, what has Australia really gained?
A lot, economically. Australia & NZ returned to growth faster than just about anywhere else on the planet, and the states that locked down hardest returned to growth fastest.
So it was a big win heath wise, and a big win economically. Whether the new rules were a big loss of freedom is a matter of taste I guess, but we already have lots of rules like don't drive too fast, don't yell Fire! in a theatre, your kids must be schooled, don't has sex with minors. More rules than you can poke a pointed stick at in fact. In comparison the new ones were a drop in the ocean, and they disappeared as soon as they weren't needed (ie, when the lock downs worked). I sincerely wish the other rules were reviewed as quickly.
A lot, economically. Australia & NZ returned to growth faster than just about anywhere else on the planet, and the states that locked down hardest returned to growth fastest.
So it was a big win heath wise, and a big win economically. Whether the new rules were a big loss of freedom is a matter of taste I guess, but we already have lots of rules like don't drive too fast, don't yell Fire! in a theatre, your kids must be schooled, don't has sex with minors. More rules than you can poke a pointed stick at in fact. In comparison the new ones were a drop in the ocean, and they disappeared as soon as they weren't needed (ie, when the lock downs worked). I sincerely wish the other rules were reviewed as quickly.
> The U.S. response has been extremely variable
Yes, the US has failed as a nation in its covid response.
You claim Australia's health measures are now "normalized" which is absurd. They are abnormal measures to deal with an abnormal situation.
Let's make a bet: I bet Australia will remove its lockdown restrictions when either the covid case numbers are under control or it decides to just give up and let covid infections rise (like the UK did).
You bet the lockdowns are "normalized" and Australia remains an "authoritarian regime".
Let's see who turns out to be right.
Yes, the US has failed as a nation in its covid response.
You claim Australia's health measures are now "normalized" which is absurd. They are abnormal measures to deal with an abnormal situation.
Let's make a bet: I bet Australia will remove its lockdown restrictions when either the covid case numbers are under control or it decides to just give up and let covid infections rise (like the UK did).
You bet the lockdowns are "normalized" and Australia remains an "authoritarian regime".
Let's see who turns out to be right.
In WA we've been pretty much living a normal life sans about ~4 lockdowns, most of which went for 4-7 days. It feels like ancient history. Last one we had was around April 24
At what cost? Hasn’t NSW been under a severe lockdown for months now? And it’s being further tightened because cases are at an all time high and still going up? I mean they had to designate approval of friends for single people so they at least have human contact.
So sure, great job on keeping Covid numbers down until now, but it’s not like it wasn’t costly in other ways.
And I say this as someone with family in Vietnam who took a similar approach. They felt like it would be a great time to create a domestic vaccine industry since they had zero cases for most of last year - plenty of time to develop their own Covid vaccine.
Well in the past 4 months cases have increased by almost 200x (2,000 to near 400,000), same with deaths and it still hasn’t peaked. Total number full vaccinated is a little under 2% (though 1 dose is almost 20%).
Now they are scrambling like mad to get any vaccine they can. And they have the military distributing food in their biggest city because nobody can leave their homes - unless for medical care.
To the grandfather’s point, the control of Covid was admirable, don’t get me wrong, but it was squandered out of complacency that they could always get it under control.
So sure, great job on keeping Covid numbers down until now, but it’s not like it wasn’t costly in other ways.
And I say this as someone with family in Vietnam who took a similar approach. They felt like it would be a great time to create a domestic vaccine industry since they had zero cases for most of last year - plenty of time to develop their own Covid vaccine.
Well in the past 4 months cases have increased by almost 200x (2,000 to near 400,000), same with deaths and it still hasn’t peaked. Total number full vaccinated is a little under 2% (though 1 dose is almost 20%).
Now they are scrambling like mad to get any vaccine they can. And they have the military distributing food in their biggest city because nobody can leave their homes - unless for medical care.
To the grandfather’s point, the control of Covid was admirable, don’t get me wrong, but it was squandered out of complacency that they could always get it under control.
> At what cost? Hasn’t NSW been under a severe lockdown for months now?
It's a meaningless question without any numbers. Show me the economic impact for, for example, the UK versus Australia. Who comes out better in growth and GDP?
It's a meaningless question without any numbers. Show me the economic impact for, for example, the UK versus Australia. Who comes out better in growth and GDP?
Why is growth and GDP the determinant? How about mental health?
Singapore had the highest suicide rate last year since 2012. No doubt the lockdown contributed to it.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/suicide-highest-re...
Singapore had the highest suicide rate last year since 2012. No doubt the lockdown contributed to it.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/suicide-highest-re...
Well, they have lower numbers of confirmed cases, but they have a higher death rate than some countries. As an example, Norway has registered 3 times as many cases, but fewer deaths. And while Norway, especially Oslo, has had strong lockdowns, they were nowhere near as onerous as what Melbourne and Sidney have gone through.
Australia bought themselves time, but squandered it rather than ensuring that as many people as possible were vaccinated.
Australia bought themselves time, but squandered it rather than ensuring that as many people as possible were vaccinated.
> Well, they have lower numbers of confirmed cases, but they have a higher death rate than some countries. As an example, Norway has registered 3 times as many cases, but fewer deaths.
Norway's population is 5,469,887. Australia's population is 25,839,176.
Norway's covid deaths per million is 149. Australia's covid deaths per million is 38.
Australia's doing much better than Norway.
Norway's population is 5,469,887. Australia's population is 25,839,176.
Norway's covid deaths per million is 149. Australia's covid deaths per million is 38.
Australia's doing much better than Norway.
Our, Norway's, economy has already recovered to pre-COVID levels. We have never needed a lock down. We expect to have 95% of the eligible over 18s fully vaccinated before the end of October.
We have never been forbidden from travelling abroad, just advised against, always been able to return. Now that I am fully vaccinated I can return without having to quarantine, without tests, I don't even have to fill in a passenger locator form.
We have never had any violent protests, or violent reactions to protests, about COVID restrictions.
> Australia's doing much better than Norway.
It seems to me that reducing performance to a single dimension is counter productive both literally in GDP terms and qualitatively on a personal level.
We have never been forbidden from travelling abroad, just advised against, always been able to return. Now that I am fully vaccinated I can return without having to quarantine, without tests, I don't even have to fill in a passenger locator form.
We have never had any violent protests, or violent reactions to protests, about COVID restrictions.
> Australia's doing much better than Norway.
It seems to me that reducing performance to a single dimension is counter productive both literally in GDP terms and qualitatively on a personal level.
> We have never needed a lock down.
You chose not to. That's why your deaths per population is four times higher than Australia's.
You chose not to. That's why your deaths per population is four times higher than Australia's.
And yet, Canada did do lockdowns and is around 4.7x worse than Norway. Plus the gov’t spent $240 billion by Dec 2020; a significant part of which ($80B) was the unemployment program introduced so that people didn’t go broke when they couldn’t work.
The retrospective studies on all of this across different countries is going to be really interesting.
The retrospective studies on all of this across different countries is going to be really interesting.
Squandered is not really an appropriate take. Australia's cases are just about to leave triple digits daily and we've already got 30% of the country vaccinated, and most people have been given at least a first dose. This is an enviable position, the edge is going to be taken right off when the case numbers are get high. And the elderly have nearly finished with the vaccination campaign.
And we were struggling to lay hands on the vaccine a few months ago. Supplies were going to countries that honestly needed it more than Australia (cough India cough).
And we were struggling to lay hands on the vaccine a few months ago. Supplies were going to countries that honestly needed it more than Australia (cough India cough).
They did that; Howard Springs is a remote quarantine facility. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/australia/howard-sp...
> route all international flights to an airport in remote location (not one in a large city) where absolutely everyone involved in the process be they passangers, crew or quarantine staff must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
That's not practical.
You need capacity to house at least 10,000 people in quarantine, then another 1,000 staff to look after them. Ideally you'd also be close to a major hospital and the airlines certainly wouldn't sign up to having their staff made to quarantine after every inbound flight.
That's not practical.
You need capacity to house at least 10,000 people in quarantine, then another 1,000 staff to look after them. Ideally you'd also be close to a major hospital and the airlines certainly wouldn't sign up to having their staff made to quarantine after every inbound flight.
So increase the price until it's a break even proposition?
A country shouldn't be lock their population inside and refuse to let citizens back in for an indefinite period of time. That's insane.
A country shouldn't be lock their population inside and refuse to let citizens back in for an indefinite period of time. That's insane.
I didn't say anything about price.
A large federally-funded quarantine facility on the outskirts of each state capital would fulfill the need for quarantine that can operate at capacity, whilst limiting transmission. It's not rocket science, but unfortunately it is politics.
The past couple of years have caused me to really become ashamed of being Australian. Being part of an increasingly globalised society, I found the government's blanket dictat of "Australians come home now" to belong to another era. With 4% of its population living in other countries, one would assume they would try harder to not alienate their diaspora.
The past couple of years have caused me to really become ashamed of being Australian. Being part of an increasingly globalised society, I found the government's blanket dictat of "Australians come home now" to belong to another era. With 4% of its population living in other countries, one would assume they would try harder to not alienate their diaspora.
It's not rocket science but does require some foresight. Realistically it would take 6 months - 1 year to fully build out quarantine sites that could fully replace hotel quarantine.
If the governments had started on this in March 2020 it would have been worthwhile but these facilities are only just starting to be built now, are too small to entirely replace hotel quarantine, and will be largely redundant by the time they open if NSW and VIC continue on their current paths.
If the governments had started on this in March 2020 it would have been worthwhile but these facilities are only just starting to be built now, are too small to entirely replace hotel quarantine, and will be largely redundant by the time they open if NSW and VIC continue on their current paths.
You assume there won't be a variant for next year. IMO covid is going to be like the flu.
Maybe we could use some of the 600 million earmarked for politically convenient carparks? [1]
Compared with the eyewatering sums thrown about to keep the economy alive while closed off to the world, a series of quarantine facilities that allow us to open up is surely doable.
1 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-04/cph-minister-denies-t...
Compared with the eyewatering sums thrown about to keep the economy alive while closed off to the world, a series of quarantine facilities that allow us to open up is surely doable.
1 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-04/cph-minister-denies-t...
It's not really a cost issue it a logistics (better to locate them on the edge of large cities rather than remote areas) and timing (these facilities weren't seriously considered until it was already too late) issue.
Singapore has allowed ~240,000 people to enter since Covid hit last March and that's with a few months where entries were a couple hundred.
They are a pretty strict process from the time you step off the plane to when you leave the hotel quarantine. It's certainly possible.
They are a pretty strict process from the time you step off the plane to when you leave the hotel quarantine. It's certainly possible.
> It seems to be that once if you're an island the size of Australia and you've eliminated domestic transmission the simple solution is to route all international flights to an airport in remote location (not one in a large city) where absolutely everyone involved in the process be they passangers, crew or quarantine staff must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
Good luck staffing such a facility.
Good luck staffing such a facility.
> Has the government of Australia given any rational for banning Australians from leaving?
Somewhere after "flatten the curve", Australia aimed for "covid zero" - so they don't want any cases in the country, at all. They did well at that for most of the pandemic, but now delta is running rampant.
They don't want anyone leaving, because they know you'll just come back again and you might bring covid in.
> What is the public discourse like over this?
There was a court case about it being unconstitutional, but it got over ruled because "dangerous times". [1]
> I also heard that Australia was making it very difficult for Australians who were abroad prior to COVID from coming back, is that true?
(for what it's worth, I returned to Australia from Canada in late June 2021 - so I went through all of this).
Again, they're trying to keep covid out, so they have a strict limit on the number of people that can fly into the country from the outside world. Right now it's 3,035 people per week for the entire country [2]. With numbers so restricted, and a mandatory 2 weeks of being locked in a hotel for the cost of $3000, it's difficult to get a flight. From Canada it wasn't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but supposedly there are well over 10,000 people "trying" to get back... though in my experience, and talking to everyone in my quarantine hotel and on my flight, I don't actually believe that's true.
> Has that changed much? Again, does the government give a rational for this decision? And the discourse?
The incoming people cap was halved in July because of the current Delta outbreak (which escaped hotel quarantine). The government's justification is "dangerous times". The discourse is "this is being done for your safety, and you should be thankful".
> I'm a bit baffled by the fact that it has managed to get in a few times and more specifically how it has managed to get in.
After going through it myself, I'm shocked covid didn't escape quarantine more. Just in Sydney airport more than 10 people spoke face to face with all of us arrivals, touched my passport with bare hands, etc. etc. Multiple people picked up and moved my bags, were physically close to me in elevators, etc. etc. If I were running the show, anyone coming into the country would be treated like they had the zombie plague and nobody would get within 10 feet of them. Certainly nobody would be touching their bags and physically touching documents.
> the simple solution is to route all international flights to an airport in remote location (not one in a large city) where absolutely everyone involved in the process be they passengers, crew or quarantine staff must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
Surely good in theory, but where will you find a remote location with a big enough airport and enough accommodation you can just take over? also remember staff want to have days off, food must be delivered, people in quarantine want packages delivered, etc. etc.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/asia-pacific-australia-lifestyle-...
[2] https://www.mondaq.com/australia/health-safety/1090494/decre...
Somewhere after "flatten the curve", Australia aimed for "covid zero" - so they don't want any cases in the country, at all. They did well at that for most of the pandemic, but now delta is running rampant.
They don't want anyone leaving, because they know you'll just come back again and you might bring covid in.
> What is the public discourse like over this?
There was a court case about it being unconstitutional, but it got over ruled because "dangerous times". [1]
> I also heard that Australia was making it very difficult for Australians who were abroad prior to COVID from coming back, is that true?
(for what it's worth, I returned to Australia from Canada in late June 2021 - so I went through all of this).
Again, they're trying to keep covid out, so they have a strict limit on the number of people that can fly into the country from the outside world. Right now it's 3,035 people per week for the entire country [2]. With numbers so restricted, and a mandatory 2 weeks of being locked in a hotel for the cost of $3000, it's difficult to get a flight. From Canada it wasn't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but supposedly there are well over 10,000 people "trying" to get back... though in my experience, and talking to everyone in my quarantine hotel and on my flight, I don't actually believe that's true.
> Has that changed much? Again, does the government give a rational for this decision? And the discourse?
The incoming people cap was halved in July because of the current Delta outbreak (which escaped hotel quarantine). The government's justification is "dangerous times". The discourse is "this is being done for your safety, and you should be thankful".
> I'm a bit baffled by the fact that it has managed to get in a few times and more specifically how it has managed to get in.
After going through it myself, I'm shocked covid didn't escape quarantine more. Just in Sydney airport more than 10 people spoke face to face with all of us arrivals, touched my passport with bare hands, etc. etc. Multiple people picked up and moved my bags, were physically close to me in elevators, etc. etc. If I were running the show, anyone coming into the country would be treated like they had the zombie plague and nobody would get within 10 feet of them. Certainly nobody would be touching their bags and physically touching documents.
> the simple solution is to route all international flights to an airport in remote location (not one in a large city) where absolutely everyone involved in the process be they passengers, crew or quarantine staff must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
Surely good in theory, but where will you find a remote location with a big enough airport and enough accommodation you can just take over? also remember staff want to have days off, food must be delivered, people in quarantine want packages delivered, etc. etc.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/asia-pacific-australia-lifestyle-...
[2] https://www.mondaq.com/australia/health-safety/1090494/decre...
>supposedly there are well over 10,000 people "trying" to get back... though in my experience, and talking to everyone in my quarantine hotel and on my flight, I don't actually believe that's true.
Speaking for myself, I am not wanting to return permanently, so I do not want to take the quota place of someone who does want to. There is also uncertainty for me if I would be able to leave the country.
I do want to see my family however, and I have no idea when that will be possible. Video calls only do so much.
Speaking for myself, I am not wanting to return permanently, so I do not want to take the quota place of someone who does want to. There is also uncertainty for me if I would be able to leave the country.
I do want to see my family however, and I have no idea when that will be possible. Video calls only do so much.
I'm in a similar boat, and I chose to come back. I'll be here for 18 months.
I will now have to apply for an "exemption" to leave, though with my proof of residency and personal business in another country, I should be fine (all fingers are crossed)
I will now have to apply for an "exemption" to leave, though with my proof of residency and personal business in another country, I should be fine (all fingers are crossed)
> If I were running the show, anyone coming into the country would be treated like they had the zombie plague and nobody would get within 10 feet of them.
> Surely good in theory, but where will you find a remote location with a big enough airport and enough accommodation you can just take over? also remember staff want to have days off, food must be delivered, people in quarantine want packages delivered, etc. etc.
The planes full of zombies can land in an air force base with a suitable air strip and then they are lead to quarantined trailer camps like you would find in many remote mining and oil and gas operations around the world.
At the end of it all the camp that you've built can be dismantled and either sold to the mining industry in Australia or redistributed to the armed forces.
> Surely good in theory, but where will you find a remote location with a big enough airport and enough accommodation you can just take over? also remember staff want to have days off, food must be delivered, people in quarantine want packages delivered, etc. etc.
The planes full of zombies can land in an air force base with a suitable air strip and then they are lead to quarantined trailer camps like you would find in many remote mining and oil and gas operations around the world.
At the end of it all the camp that you've built can be dismantled and either sold to the mining industry in Australia or redistributed to the armed forces.
> where absolutely everyone involved [...] must stay for two weeks with zero exceptions.
You might be infecting some more people during those two weeks, which means you'd have to prolong the quarantine.
You might be infecting some more people during those two weeks, which means you'd have to prolong the quarantine.
Why would a mere 2 week quarantine be sufficient to prevent someone coming in from spreading it domestically? AFAIK 2 weeks is only good enough to catch around 99.99% of cases. That's plenty of cases getting through.
I don't believe Australia or NZ has had anyone leave quarantine after 2 weeks and then test positive. The only exception might be where there was transmission inside a facility.
Actually the famous case that escaped in Adelaide quarantine was exactly that.
Guy tested negative before the flight, and on days 2, 7 and 14 of quarantine. Then drives around and spreads it. They assume he caught it on his last or second last day in quarantine.
Which is why I had to have tests 72 hours before my flight, then on days 2, 7 & 14 of quarantine, then yet another test on day 16
Guy tested negative before the flight, and on days 2, 7 and 14 of quarantine. Then drives around and spreads it. They assume he caught it on his last or second last day in quarantine.
Which is why I had to have tests 72 hours before my flight, then on days 2, 7 & 14 of quarantine, then yet another test on day 16
I am aware that has happened on a couple of occasions. "might be" was probably the wrong choice of words, "have been" would probably have been better.
This happened in NZ, so they started separating into cohorts.
Old don't mix with new arrivals, previously anyone could go to the common room
Old don't mix with new arrivals, previously anyone could go to the common room
Well that's just pure luck. Incubation periods of 34 days for this thing are not unknown
I think a generous interpretation of my comment regarding 2 week quarantine would be "the period that is sufficient to catch 100% of active infections of COVID-19."
Perhaps that is 2.5 or 3 weeks?
Either way, the fact remains that Australia's decision to leave thousands of their citizens stranded abroad and to lock their citizens in their country is both peculiar and unreasonable.
Perhaps that is 2.5 or 3 weeks?
Either way, the fact remains that Australia's decision to leave thousands of their citizens stranded abroad and to lock their citizens in their country is both peculiar and unreasonable.
I was actually taking that generous interpretation - that you might mean 21 days since that's what HK demanded for example. But my point is that nature doesn't work that way as far as I know. There is no 100% point, just increased 9s on the end of 99.9. Scientists have identified 34 days as what seems like the upper end now, but that doesn't mean we'll never see a case of an infection showing up only after a longer period.
Meanwhile if 10,000 people enter the country, 1 makes in to the community and incubates on the 34th day, and things aren't detected immediately with amazing contact tracing it can turn into 1000 cases in no time.
All at the incredible cost of already having put 9,999 unnecessarily through a ridiculously long 34 days quarantine.
So there is a certain impracticality in this type of thinking, since a human lives for only so long. A human has only so many years of his life with which to develop his career and save for his old age. A lot of 0 covid policy countries are seriously going to spiral into territory where the sacrifice of individual human lives by "portion" is no longer insubstantial if we don't see some 180 degree reversals (perhaps by violent revolt). Like if NZ and AZ carry on for 5 years like I expect them to.
Meanwhile if 10,000 people enter the country, 1 makes in to the community and incubates on the 34th day, and things aren't detected immediately with amazing contact tracing it can turn into 1000 cases in no time.
All at the incredible cost of already having put 9,999 unnecessarily through a ridiculously long 34 days quarantine.
So there is a certain impracticality in this type of thinking, since a human lives for only so long. A human has only so many years of his life with which to develop his career and save for his old age. A lot of 0 covid policy countries are seriously going to spiral into territory where the sacrifice of individual human lives by "portion" is no longer insubstantial if we don't see some 180 degree reversals (perhaps by violent revolt). Like if NZ and AZ carry on for 5 years like I expect them to.
> but having written this and other anti-government sentiment, it’s entirely possible that they stop me at the border.
I've seen "Border Control Australia", and if leaving the country is anywhere near as difficult as entering it, you're in for a rough time.
"Do you have dirt from another country under your shoes?"
/s
I've seen "Border Control Australia", and if leaving the country is anywhere near as difficult as entering it, you're in for a rough time.
"Do you have dirt from another country under your shoes?"
/s
Reading the link, it appears that travel abroad is currently restricted due to COVID.
Ordinarily, I don't believe Australia practices any meaningful exit controls beyond the usual: visa overstays, warrants. Certainly not capriciously based on your feelings regarding the current administration. In fact, I believe it's automated.
Ordinarily, I don't believe Australia practices any meaningful exit controls beyond the usual: visa overstays, warrants. Certainly not capriciously based on your feelings regarding the current administration. In fact, I believe it's automated.
I remember having to do a full on interview at the airport to leave Australia. That didn’t seem normal to me
I assume they suspected you of something or your name matched a person of interest. After all, while the US has no formal interview to leave, if you're trying to do so by air, the manifest is forwarded to the FBI and DHS well in advance of departure. If they want to chit-chat, they'll be waiting for you at the gate. I've seen people yanked off the jet bridge haha.
If you're trying to do so over the land border with Canada, I believe the Canadians will notify the Americans on your way over, and happily hold onto you for a hot minute.
You'll always have to answer to an authority when attempting to leave a country.
However, ordinarily, neither AU, US nor CA will stop you from exiting. Now re-entry is another matter.
If you're trying to do so over the land border with Canada, I believe the Canadians will notify the Americans on your way over, and happily hold onto you for a hot minute.
You'll always have to answer to an authority when attempting to leave a country.
However, ordinarily, neither AU, US nor CA will stop you from exiting. Now re-entry is another matter.
Australia is nuts when it comes to overprotecting their bio-integrity. Even withing Australia, you're not allowed to bring an apple when you're crossing a state border.
There are extremely good reasons for that:
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/pests-diseases-weeds/plant/fr...
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/pests-diseases-weeds/plant/fr...
There's a disposal bin for fruit a stone's throw away from the border. And I bet you that the apples you can buy in, say, Victoria, are imported from the same place as the ones you can buy in South Australia.
That's not just Australia. You'll encounter similar rules going to Hawaii, and even to California - although I think they have a harder time due to the number of land crossings.
Another example, specifically about apples even.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Maggot_Quarantine_Area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Maggot_Quarantine_Area
I agree with most of your points, and I want the current government gone, but would you mind elaborating on the following?
> ... but having written this and other anti-government sentiment, it’s entirely possible that they stop me at the border. [2]
> [2] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
It seems like a bit of a disingenuous stretch to push your points across.
> ... but having written this and other anti-government sentiment, it’s entirely possible that they stop me at the border. [2]
> [2] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
It seems like a bit of a disingenuous stretch to push your points across.
This is truly a whole new level. I can understand countries that lock their borders down to arrivals, but not letting your own citizens depart as a general policy? I can't even think of any country other than North Korea that still has exit visas for citizens, which is basically what this is.
Yeah, it is a whole new level.
The level was created by the 350,000 Australians living overseas noticing Australia had almost no covid while all the infections were going through the roof everywhere else. Understandably, they all wanted to come home.
Sadly, they couldn't because of three reasons. The first is the airline industry collapsed, and so flights went from $3K to $30k each - or more, and there was a very limited number. The second is we don't have the quarantine capacity. The third is every so often quarantine system leaks, which can cost billions.
They demanded the government fly them home for free, they said they the government had to do it because they had a duty to protect all Australians, even ones who earlier on decided not to fly home when covid started, and to bolster their case they went to the media with on sob stories about needing to see their dying long lost cousin or whatever.
No one came out out it smelling like a rose. Some came out of it dead. And understandably, no one wanted a repeat performance. Other solutions, like insisting they had an open return ticket were kiboshed by the travel industry not honouring return tickets or anything else.
Which is how we ended up with the current ham fisted approach at people needing visa's to leave Australia. It's not a good look I agree, but fortunately every politician is very aware of how unpopular it will be when the country open up after the vaccinations are done. Australian's like their travel. The policy will be dropped like a hot potato as soon as the majority political sentiment becomes "it's OK to open up". The vaccination program has been a monumental clusterfuck so it's progressing god awfully slowly, but nonetheless it's looking like we will be in that position by Xmas.
The level was created by the 350,000 Australians living overseas noticing Australia had almost no covid while all the infections were going through the roof everywhere else. Understandably, they all wanted to come home.
Sadly, they couldn't because of three reasons. The first is the airline industry collapsed, and so flights went from $3K to $30k each - or more, and there was a very limited number. The second is we don't have the quarantine capacity. The third is every so often quarantine system leaks, which can cost billions.
They demanded the government fly them home for free, they said they the government had to do it because they had a duty to protect all Australians, even ones who earlier on decided not to fly home when covid started, and to bolster their case they went to the media with on sob stories about needing to see their dying long lost cousin or whatever.
No one came out out it smelling like a rose. Some came out of it dead. And understandably, no one wanted a repeat performance. Other solutions, like insisting they had an open return ticket were kiboshed by the travel industry not honouring return tickets or anything else.
Which is how we ended up with the current ham fisted approach at people needing visa's to leave Australia. It's not a good look I agree, but fortunately every politician is very aware of how unpopular it will be when the country open up after the vaccinations are done. Australian's like their travel. The policy will be dropped like a hot potato as soon as the majority political sentiment becomes "it's OK to open up". The vaccination program has been a monumental clusterfuck so it's progressing god awfully slowly, but nonetheless it's looking like we will be in that position by Xmas.
Can you not leave by boat? I heard about some guy who nearly escaped on a jet-ski and would have succeeded if not being actively pursued by the police?
In theory yes, but there is a whole lot of empty ocean in all directions but the north (New Zealand nonwithstanding), and that happens to be an intensely monitored region of the globe due to Australia's desire to prevent refugee arrivals by boat. "Stop the boats" is Australia's "build the wall".
Whether the border force will put any effort into apprehending a boat that's leaving, rather than entering, I can't say, however it's hard to slip under the radar (or sonar, as the case may be).
https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/
Whether the border force will put any effort into apprehending a boat that's leaving, rather than entering, I can't say, however it's hard to slip under the radar (or sonar, as the case may be).
https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/
> having written this and other anti-government sentiment, it’s entirely possible that they stop me at the border.
The reference you linked was a national travel restriction related to Covid, not a case of preventing dissidents from leaving as some form of punishment. Maybe you meant to link a different article?
The reference you linked was a national travel restriction related to Covid, not a case of preventing dissidents from leaving as some form of punishment. Maybe you meant to link a different article?
I wonder if any South Africans in Australia are wishing they had stayed. Pick your poison right?
In all seriousness, do you think the Australian citizens stand a chance of succeeding at a violent Revolution, when your citizens have largely surrendered [0] the necessary freedom to bear arms capable of fighting said civil war? Do you think that act of civil disarmament emboldened the current rise of totalitarian authoritarianism?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
There doesn't really seem to be any countries in the world which let their citizens arm themselves in ways which would enable meaningful revolution.
Not even the US - which famously has guns all over - would have any kind of chance against their own military.
Like... "people with guns" vs "stand off artillery, over the horizon warfare, etc".
Not even the US - which famously has guns all over - would have any kind of chance against their own military.
Like... "people with guns" vs "stand off artillery, over the horizon warfare, etc".
> Not even the US - which famously has guns all over - would have any kind of chance against their own military
That is correct, if the objective is to glass the entire place. The US military is the mightiest force in the world when it comes to that.
As far as quelling armed rebellions among the citizenry goes, I think just pointing to this months' news should suffice in lieu of an argument?
That is correct, if the objective is to glass the entire place. The US military is the mightiest force in the world when it comes to that.
As far as quelling armed rebellions among the citizenry goes, I think just pointing to this months' news should suffice in lieu of an argument?
> I think just pointing to this months' news should suffice in lieu of an argument?
Thankfully, I'm not from the US. Was there there really an armed rebellion there?
Thankfully, I'm not from the US. Was there there really an armed rebellion there?
Neither am I, I was referring to Afghanistan.
No worries. :)
I'm not understanding how they're linked though.
I'm not understanding how they're linked though.
What does this mean for the Australian tech industry?
Should people be concerned about keeping commercial secrets in systems run Atlassian or Fastmail?
The oversight here seems to just be one copper asking his mate to give him the nod to go on a fishing trip whenever he likes.
Should people be concerned about keeping commercial secrets in systems run Atlassian or Fastmail?
The oversight here seems to just be one copper asking his mate to give him the nod to go on a fishing trip whenever he likes.
I think this is key. I wonder if Atlassian will release a statement.
Afaik they operate out of the US.
I'm not sure if the NSA is really any better, perhaps just less forthright.
I mean, I don't know what to believe, the whole FBI app.le thing makes me feel less cynnical about the chance of NSA knocking on the door in the name of national security - but I've heard they can do that, which seems like you'd have no choice.
As a programmer from Australia though I can't believe they are passing these laws. Seriously depressing.
I'm not sure if the NSA is really any better, perhaps just less forthright.
I mean, I don't know what to believe, the whole FBI app.le thing makes me feel less cynnical about the chance of NSA knocking on the door in the name of national security - but I've heard they can do that, which seems like you'd have no choice.
As a programmer from Australia though I can't believe they are passing these laws. Seriously depressing.
Fastmail is an Australian company and I would love to hear their response to this. Even though their servers are not located in Australia I bet that wouldn't slow the government down much.
Their datacenters are in the US and they have always complied with legal requests. So this, like the backdoor law, doesn’t seem to change much.
Both the US and AUS can access your e-mail if they just get a judge to sign a warrant (which, if Germany is any indication, is barely a hurdle).
Both the US and AUS can access your e-mail if they just get a judge to sign a warrant (which, if Germany is any indication, is barely a hurdle).
As much as I love Fastmail, I think it's time to move elsewhere. I don't feel safe trusting a Australia based company with my online identity after all those hostile laws.
While I understand the feeling, if you're emailing with anyone who doesn't use an encrypted provider (which is probably >99% of your email), state actors are easily capable of surveiling all of your email anyway, no matter what provider you use. Email isn't a secure form of communication. The advantage of a provider like Fastmail is that they're not profiling you based on your data like Google would do.
I get your point. As a EU citizen though, I want to at least have a way to realistically fight a lawful intrusion after the fact. If I understand the Australian laws correctly, they are mostly enabling hidden surveillance.
I'll be trying out https://mailbox.org/en as an alternative. They seem to have good PGP infra and are hosted in Germany.
I'll be trying out https://mailbox.org/en as an alternative. They seem to have good PGP infra and are hosted in Germany.
German here. Do not trust our government, please. Our politicians are utterly incompetent, as is the EU parliament.
The last somewhat (!) safe haven is Switzerland.
The last somewhat (!) safe haven is Switzerland.
It is a myth that swiss-based providers are in any way safer/more anonymous than others. See here for a recent article (in German): https://steigerlegal.ch/2021/08/02/protonmail-daten-usa/
Is there any email service one could reasonably trust?
If trust is the main criteria, I guess self-hosting is the only option (albeit a time-intensive one).
There are commercial providers like mailbox.org that offer the possibility to PGP-encrypt incoming mails so that only you can read them.
Mailbox.org looks interesting. I'll check them out some more
Is there a mail service that you trust?
I've been pretty happy with proton mail. The built-in PGP and signing is seamless and the domain functions work great.
A significant portion of the emails I receive are encrypted in transit using TLS. So governments would have to routinely MITM TLS traffic in order to surveil every single email.
"Sent with TLS" does not mean "cannot be surveiled".
I never said that TLS "cannot be surveilled," nor did I imply it in my two short sentences. I simply laid out a technical requirement to carry out such an attack.
For attackers to passively surveil TLS en masse, they'd need to MITM those connections. That in turn requires rogue CAs signing the attacker's certificates in large numbers. If that happens, the public would notice and the CAs involved would be permanently banned. Not sensible if the attacker's goal is to carry out persistent mass surveillance.
Much easier to just obtain the emails directly from few popular email providers instead.
For attackers to passively surveil TLS en masse, they'd need to MITM those connections. That in turn requires rogue CAs signing the attacker's certificates in large numbers. If that happens, the public would notice and the CAs involved would be permanently banned. Not sensible if the attacker's goal is to carry out persistent mass surveillance.
Much easier to just obtain the emails directly from few popular email providers instead.
But could, for instance, the Australian government compel Fastmail to hand over and hide a silent password reset email for any of my accounts, more easily than they could another provider?
Unless that password reset is sent in an encrypted email, it can easily be intercepted, no matter what your email provider is.
Is this done at an infrastructure level? IE, what level of access is need to just sniff up emails? Can anyone set up a relay or do you have to be a trusted entity?
[deleted]
can't close the subscription box on Firefox mobile, making the site unusable
Same, on the fdroid build. I just put in an obviously, nonsensical email.
I was able to close it on Firefox on Android, on both stable and nightly release channels.
Workaround - read it on Pocket (owned by Mozilla).
Kick this mob out.
Could this force or encourage people to provide backdoors that could ultimately be used by parties outside of Australia to spy on people other than Australians?
Why do you think the Five-Eyes agreement exists?
This is exactly the sort "capability" that is designed to be used through the legal loophole of "you spy on our citizens and we'll spy on yours" which is the (realpolitik) basis of the Five-Eyes intelligence sharing agreement.
This is exactly the sort "capability" that is designed to be used through the legal loophole of "you spy on our citizens and we'll spy on yours" which is the (realpolitik) basis of the Five-Eyes intelligence sharing agreement.
I always thought of Australia as an open and freedom loving country and planned to visit sometime. But what I'm reading in the (European) news the last months regarding all kinds of crackdowns on individual freedom sounds really bad and disturbing to me. Maybe it's just the news-providers here who report selectively, or are the Aussies really on board with this authoritarian direction of the government?
I'm from Australia, but live in Germany, and have been just horrified at what's happened back there. It's as though the country has lost its mind.
My personal theory is that it's a manifestation of fear and insecurity. Australia, and many of its citizens have always had a certain lack of confidence, which is often covered up by bravado about being "the best country in the world" (as if there even is such a thing) and things like the tall poppy syndrome, currently often directed at expats("Too good to live in Australia, are you?")
On top of this, a huge amount of fear has been manufactured over the Covid-19 pandemic, both by the media seeking clicks, and by politicians seeking electoral advantage. This is one of the most shameful aspects of the entire thing to me: the deliberate emotional abuse of the population. The contrast between Dan Andrew's daily fear-mongering and berating of "rule-breakers" and Angela Merkel, most of whose public statements during the pandemic were about reassuring the German people (with occasional expressions of "concern" at most when things were going badly) has been stark for me. Even Jactinta Ardern has been much more measured in her statements, although NZ wasn't immune from madness like banning the delivery of fiction books.
And so, yes, I think a lot of Australians are on board with the border closures, the lockdowns and the like, which is astonishing to me, but I think the degree of fear there is what fundamentally explains it. As for government snooping, hardly anyone in Australia cares.
My personal theory is that it's a manifestation of fear and insecurity. Australia, and many of its citizens have always had a certain lack of confidence, which is often covered up by bravado about being "the best country in the world" (as if there even is such a thing) and things like the tall poppy syndrome, currently often directed at expats("Too good to live in Australia, are you?")
On top of this, a huge amount of fear has been manufactured over the Covid-19 pandemic, both by the media seeking clicks, and by politicians seeking electoral advantage. This is one of the most shameful aspects of the entire thing to me: the deliberate emotional abuse of the population. The contrast between Dan Andrew's daily fear-mongering and berating of "rule-breakers" and Angela Merkel, most of whose public statements during the pandemic were about reassuring the German people (with occasional expressions of "concern" at most when things were going badly) has been stark for me. Even Jactinta Ardern has been much more measured in her statements, although NZ wasn't immune from madness like banning the delivery of fiction books.
And so, yes, I think a lot of Australians are on board with the border closures, the lockdowns and the like, which is astonishing to me, but I think the degree of fear there is what fundamentally explains it. As for government snooping, hardly anyone in Australia cares.
Using fear constantly is the most powerful tool to influence people, this became really clear to me the last 18 months. I hope politicians and media will get down to a more rational style of communicating, but I'm not too optimistic about it. Many countries experienced the dire consequences of a constant climate of fear in the past and might therefore a little more measured.
Permanent fearmongering leads to a moral panic. How much more people today do believe in conspiracy theories than 18 months ago?
It probably correlates to how many conspiracy theories from 18 months ago have materialised.
That's for sure. Indeed lots of things a year ago assumed as crazy conspiracies like covid-passes, mandatory vaccination, regular mandatory shots, masks mandates, etc. are now a crazy reality. So, what's next to expect?
In your psychoanalysis of the country, have you considered the possibility that it... strongly preferred not to let tens of thousands of people die painfully, and hundreds of thousands more become seriously ill?
Is the response proportional to the potential harm? Consistent with other responses? It seems like it would at least be worth thinking about it.
>bravado about being "the best country in the world"
You mean "the lucky country"? That's an ironic, self-deprecating joke.
>The contrast between Dan Andrew's daily fear-mongering and berating of "rule-breakers" and Angela Merkel
As have the number of deaths between the two countries. 90k+ in Germany vs. <1k in Aus. (If you scale it per-capita, it's still about 25k vs 1k).
>I think a lot of Australians are on board with the border closures, the lockdowns and the like, which is astonishing to me, but I think the degree of fear there is what fundamentally explains it.
No, we're on board because it saves lives and people don't want to see their family die in the name of some abstract concept.
You mean "the lucky country"? That's an ironic, self-deprecating joke.
>The contrast between Dan Andrew's daily fear-mongering and berating of "rule-breakers" and Angela Merkel
As have the number of deaths between the two countries. 90k+ in Germany vs. <1k in Aus. (If you scale it per-capita, it's still about 25k vs 1k).
>I think a lot of Australians are on board with the border closures, the lockdowns and the like, which is astonishing to me, but I think the degree of fear there is what fundamentally explains it.
No, we're on board because it saves lives and people don't want to see their family die in the name of some abstract concept.
I'm well aware of the "lucky country" stuff (and even have Donald Horne's book on my shelf). For those who don't know what we're talking about, the full "lucky country quote":
"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."
I find it a bit disconcerting you responded defensively to a quote to prove you know it - choosing to not respond to the more consequential data, which seems to address the heart of your argument.
>You mean "the lucky country"? That's an ironic, self-deprecating joke.
It's both. It started (I learned today) as a negative criticism, but is also used favorably and positively, also it is sometimes a joke. I'd heard the positive and joke usage but wasn't aware it started life as a negative thing. Funny to think that Aussies were previously more self-critical than we seem today.
Different context, different people, all referencing the same phrase. There's no "one true" meaning...but it's good to know there's might be more to it than just what you've seen already. :)
It's both. It started (I learned today) as a negative criticism, but is also used favorably and positively, also it is sometimes a joke. I'd heard the positive and joke usage but wasn't aware it started life as a negative thing. Funny to think that Aussies were previously more self-critical than we seem today.
Different context, different people, all referencing the same phrase. There's no "one true" meaning...but it's good to know there's might be more to it than just what you've seen already. :)
Most people I know that throw around "best country in the world" and "the lucky country" are not at all aware that the latter is a joke.
I second these.
For anyone reading GP's comment, my take is that some expats do hate their home country.
It's insanity that some people think that strict lockdown rules are an invasion of freedom.
I'll tell you what's an invasion of freedeom: selfish, infected people partying and infecting everyone else sticking the the rules and toughing in out.
For anyone reading GP's comment, my take is that some expats do hate their home country.
It's insanity that some people think that strict lockdown rules are an invasion of freedom.
I'll tell you what's an invasion of freedeom: selfish, infected people partying and infecting everyone else sticking the the rules and toughing in out.
Maybe my response was emotional, but if everyone is going to pile on and down vote, it would be nice to at least get an explanation -- even if it's just an emotional disagreement it's still great and appreciated.
I couldn't care less about my karma, it just feels like I am getting punished simply for expressing my point of view here in a way that's not any more or less emotional than the GP.
I couldn't care less about my karma, it just feels like I am getting punished simply for expressing my point of view here in a way that's not any more or less emotional than the GP.
a) painting people with negative opinions about something in society as "hating their country" to invalidate their opinion is a bad trope, and one one is in terrible company with when using it. (e.g. see use of it against people opposing involvement in wars, and it gets worse from there)
b) strict lockdowns are invasions on freedoms, quite obviously, because they suspend rights you have. They do so for a reason, and society can very well decide "this is a legitimate restriction on freedoms" (hopefully guarded by legislative and judicial process), as it has in much of the world to varying degrees, but that is not the same as pretending it's not a restriction.
b) strict lockdowns are invasions on freedoms, quite obviously, because they suspend rights you have. They do so for a reason, and society can very well decide "this is a legitimate restriction on freedoms" (hopefully guarded by legislative and judicial process), as it has in much of the world to varying degrees, but that is not the same as pretending it's not a restriction.
Yes, most are. In general Australians are apolitical and only seem 'freedom loving' in nature, behaviour. Most don't care or give a damn about politics, abuses of power, etc. I'm pretty conflicted myself about the lockdowns. People are scared of getting the virus. Our federal government was incompetent at preventing the virus from entering, kept the borders open for too long because "muh economy", and the result was all these lockdowns and procedures. Protestors are looked down upon by the general public due to the lockdowns, whether protests are regarding political policy or the lockdowns themselves.
I am of course against wrongful online surveillance such as this new passed legislation, but when it comes to the lockdowns I don't know where I stand. I just hope lockdowns end as our vaccine roleouts start. One thing I know for sure though is that I will not be staying in this country for too much longer, if I can avoid it.
I am of course against wrongful online surveillance such as this new passed legislation, but when it comes to the lockdowns I don't know where I stand. I just hope lockdowns end as our vaccine roleouts start. One thing I know for sure though is that I will not be staying in this country for too much longer, if I can avoid it.
Why is this legislation needed if the Assistance and Access Act exists?
Could the difference be a lack of cost recovery for individuals or businesses having to implement backdoors? The new legislation[1] inserts a section 64B "Person with knowledge of a computer or a computer system to assist disruption of data" which appears to be similar to the Assistance and Access Act, but doesn't appear to allow a telecommunications carrier, data centre owner, computer repair shop, DNS hosting provider, some random contractor that worked on a software project 10 years ago and is now retired and going fishing every day to recover costs of complying with an order to backdoor something or provide advice on how to backdoor it?
[1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
Could the difference be a lack of cost recovery for individuals or businesses having to implement backdoors? The new legislation[1] inserts a section 64B "Person with knowledge of a computer or a computer system to assist disruption of data" which appears to be similar to the Assistance and Access Act, but doesn't appear to allow a telecommunications carrier, data centre owner, computer repair shop, DNS hosting provider, some random contractor that worked on a software project 10 years ago and is now retired and going fishing every day to recover costs of complying with an order to backdoor something or provide advice on how to backdoor it?
[1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
The political necessity of a continual stream of headlines to give the appearance of 'doing something'.
The ratcheting up of surveillance legislation whilst the opposition are absolutely impotent.
There are no practical reasons for this that have anything to do improving life for Australian citizens as a whole.
The ratcheting up of surveillance legislation whilst the opposition are absolutely impotent.
There are no practical reasons for this that have anything to do improving life for Australian citizens as a whole.
Because the Assistance and Access Act is widely misunderstood as doing things that it doesn't.
The media drastically overreacted to that act, to the point where the Department of Home Affairs now has an entire page dedicated to addressing the false reporting [0].
The TL;DR is that the act doesn't allow the government to introduce mass surveillance. Section 317ZG [1] expressly forbids any law enforcement request from _having the effect_ of introducing any systemic vulnerability or weakness and _explicitly_ calls out new decryption capabilities as under that umbrella.
The media's widespread report that e2e encryption was dead in Australia was therefore false. The purpose of the act was more like if Facebook or Google have data that are encrypted at rest and they hold the keys, they can be compelled to decrypt it.
[0]: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
[1]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...
The media drastically overreacted to that act, to the point where the Department of Home Affairs now has an entire page dedicated to addressing the false reporting [0].
The TL;DR is that the act doesn't allow the government to introduce mass surveillance. Section 317ZG [1] expressly forbids any law enforcement request from _having the effect_ of introducing any systemic vulnerability or weakness and _explicitly_ calls out new decryption capabilities as under that umbrella.
The media's widespread report that e2e encryption was dead in Australia was therefore false. The purpose of the act was more like if Facebook or Google have data that are encrypted at rest and they hold the keys, they can be compelled to decrypt it.
[0]: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
[1]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...
Under the new legislation, section 27KP(2)e(ii) refers to MITM attacks on network traffic if it'd be reasonable for the ISP to implement, or section 27KP(2)i refers to a surveillance device being provided to the ISP which then must integrate with it for whatever purpose (MITM attack or something else).
Isn't this the purpose of the Assistance and Access Act where the ISP in question doesn't have a present ability to perform MITM attacks on network traffic, and would therefore have to build and engineer at a significant cost a new solution for law enforcement use? And once that is achieved, 27KP(2)e(ii) of this new legislation is then reasonable for an ISP to perform because the capability has been built and is now present?
Isn't this the purpose of the Assistance and Access Act where the ISP in question doesn't have a present ability to perform MITM attacks on network traffic, and would therefore have to build and engineer at a significant cost a new solution for law enforcement use? And once that is achieved, 27KP(2)e(ii) of this new legislation is then reasonable for an ISP to perform because the capability has been built and is now present?
I believe section 317ZK, subsection (3) of the act [0] prohibits a provider from bearing the costs of compliance. If I read correctly, the cost is negotiated between the provider and the government and the government bears the cost.
And section 317ZGA [1] explicitly puts compliance with interception warrants (which I believe are the warrants in the new bill) out of scope.
I _think_ the effort a provider has to put in to comply with the new act is primarily limited by 27KP(2)e's "reasonable" wording.
[0]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...
[1]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...
And section 317ZGA [1] explicitly puts compliance with interception warrants (which I believe are the warrants in the new bill) out of scope.
I _think_ the effort a provider has to put in to comply with the new act is primarily limited by 27KP(2)e's "reasonable" wording.
[0]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...
[1]: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997...
[deleted]
Perhaps I can partly answer my own question? Section 64A of the in-force Act[1] already has similar provisions for assistance to be provided by a third party in accessing a computer, copying and converting data into a format accessible by law enforcement. However there does not appear to be current provisions for cost recovery if that assistance requires the company/person involved to dedicate significant time and expense.
Table 8 (PDF page 14) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 Annual Report 2019-2020[2] states that only 20 such warrants were issued in that year and 11 extensions issued, and none of them were issued as a result of international requests (PDF page 25). The report doesn't indicate how many of these 20 requests resulted in assistance needing to be provided and who needed to provide that assistance.
Given the low count (20) of computer access warrants issued and likely nature that anyone providing assistance would be well aware of whether the request related to e.g. CSAM, I'd guess that most businesses involved may be happy to help out for free even if their business wears a small cost of complying with the order. I suspect though if this Act or new types of warrants generated significant workload for Australian private sector companies, and warrants were difficult and expensive to comply with, there would suddenly be a lot of backlash.
ACMA states[3] that the private sector self-reported costs during 2019-2020 of AUD$24m related to telecommunications interception legislation and AUD$21m related to metadata retention for at least 2 years. It also reported only 8 requests to block websites (7 being ACMA wanting to block foreign gambling websites) and 17 requests for Internet/communications services being switched off.
Aside from the metadata retention laws which the private sector has reported costing $237m to implement to date (with only ~21% cost recovery from the government), the other costs of complying with law enforcement warrants appear to be fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things and are just a small consideration towards the cost of doing business in Australia.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00296
[2] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/nat-security/files/surveillan...
[3] https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/Telecomm...
Table 8 (PDF page 14) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 Annual Report 2019-2020[2] states that only 20 such warrants were issued in that year and 11 extensions issued, and none of them were issued as a result of international requests (PDF page 25). The report doesn't indicate how many of these 20 requests resulted in assistance needing to be provided and who needed to provide that assistance.
Given the low count (20) of computer access warrants issued and likely nature that anyone providing assistance would be well aware of whether the request related to e.g. CSAM, I'd guess that most businesses involved may be happy to help out for free even if their business wears a small cost of complying with the order. I suspect though if this Act or new types of warrants generated significant workload for Australian private sector companies, and warrants were difficult and expensive to comply with, there would suddenly be a lot of backlash.
ACMA states[3] that the private sector self-reported costs during 2019-2020 of AUD$24m related to telecommunications interception legislation and AUD$21m related to metadata retention for at least 2 years. It also reported only 8 requests to block websites (7 being ACMA wanting to block foreign gambling websites) and 17 requests for Internet/communications services being switched off.
Aside from the metadata retention laws which the private sector has reported costing $237m to implement to date (with only ~21% cost recovery from the government), the other costs of complying with law enforcement warrants appear to be fairly minimal in the grand scheme of things and are just a small consideration towards the cost of doing business in Australia.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00296
[2] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/nat-security/files/surveillan...
[3] https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/Telecomm...
Any scale is understood best if one can put forth examples for any part of the spectrum.
Australia is actually fulfilling an important role here: Exemplifying a democracy just short of becoming a dystopian banana republic.
Australia is actually fulfilling an important role here: Exemplifying a democracy just short of becoming a dystopian banana republic.
Calm down. Citizens being forcibly kept from leaving the country has nothing to do with the Berlin Wall! Remember we're just talkng about disinformants. They're probably Russian assets anyways, or useless non-vaxxed scum.
Everything is great down-under!
> “Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten!” (No one has the intention of erecting a wall!) Walter Ulbricht, State Council of the GDR, less than 2 months before they built the wall
Everything is great down-under!
> “Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten!” (No one has the intention of erecting a wall!) Walter Ulbricht, State Council of the GDR, less than 2 months before they built the wall
My money in the bank suddenly feels less secure. What are the odds this will cause a run on the banks (ah-la toilet paper) ?
Why does this country still have the best alternative to big tech mail providers (Fastmail)? Maybe it doesn’t matter that much since email is open to the world anyway. I would like to vote with my wallet, but in the end I also want my mail to arrive without to much hassle. That means avoiding self-hosting and obscure providers..
Australian people are simply being mentally prepared for the upcoming China takeover, when things such as this will be perceived as Really Not A Big Deal(tm) when compared to what standard Chinese practices are.
This is the mirror of what the UK passed a while back.
Seems like free democracy is just a brand at this point.
Seems like free democracy is just a brand at this point.
Laws on the book are always a few steps behind reality. So probably this was already occurring somehow on the sly or with lots of process, and this streamlines things. My concern is the ability to use this to 'plant' evidence on people by taking over their accounts, then using those accounts criminally and pretending the legitimate owner was the criminal actor, when in fact it was just someone abusing their LE powers.
The Australian government , throughout history has always had an element of paranoia to it, which I remember learning in history comes from being surrounded by neighbours who for the majority aren’t of European decent (feeling vulnerable), and being geographically far from the motherlands who would protect her if war broke out.
I think a lot of this fear remains to this day and drives a lot of these weirdo authoritarian, draconian policies.
Australia is like a child without her mum, scared of the dark and unknown.
Lastly the leader of the country is a religious fanatic who believes in all types of weird things.
It’s a shame it’s going in the wrong direction for sure.
I think a lot of this fear remains to this day and drives a lot of these weirdo authoritarian, draconian policies.
Australia is like a child without her mum, scared of the dark and unknown.
Lastly the leader of the country is a religious fanatic who believes in all types of weird things.
It’s a shame it’s going in the wrong direction for sure.
Session is a "secure" messaging application designed in AU. Keep that in mind.
When Australia voted a law which force all nationals comply to the order of decryption, There was a half-joking, half-serious suggestion that is, whether it's safe for the OSS project to accept contribution from Australian. The chances are, he may be ordered by the Australian government to inject backdoor. If there exists a law for it, it will be used.
Between this and extreme authoritarianism relating to COVID, like killing shelter dogs to reduce human interactions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/23/australia-do...) and aggressively suppressing protests (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/21/world/australia/melbourne...), Australia seems like it has become a hostile mess. It’s very strange to me as an outsider because I didn’t send a cultural capacity for authoritarianism when I’ve visited, and instead sensed a pioneering attitude. Where’s the disconnect? And why doesn’t the government fear its citizenry more given it’s a democracy?
A classic example of why you really shouldn't be giving the government too much power, because even so-called "modern democracies" can and will go bad.
Backdoors in encryption, free for all to hack citizens, etc. What a mess. Hope some people fight back.