Comment by stephen_g | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephen_g | Hacker News Reader

The biggest problem with the whole thing is that they've been completely on-board with the Government's creeping authoritarianism, as long as they get some exemptions for journalists. But more recently, they found (just as all the tech experts, law groups, civil society groups and human rights groups warned - but mostly ignored in the media's coverage) that these laws can actually be used against them - and they have. Sources are drying up as the Government destroys whistleblowers financially (through endless lawsuits) and now subjects them to harsh jail terms. And the whistleblowers we are talking about are the the ones that bring Government wrongdoing to light.

The other blatant hypocrisy is Labor jumping on the #righttoknow bandwagon. They waved through the draconian TOLA act, warrantless metadata retention, voting for them and all the other over-reaching, flawed legislation despite huge campaigns by experts and the public, when they had almost the numbers to block it in the Senate.

> The other blatant hypocrisy is Labor jumping on the #righttoknow bandwagon.

And encryption, same deal. Consider the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 (the one that makes it illegal to have secure end-to-end encryption in Australia) [0].

The Labor party managed to work in with the government's tight timeframe and get the bill passed in a single day on the 6th of December [1] after a very short timeframe for consultation and gathering opinions. Labour did note that when introduced a two and a half months before that they didn't like the bill, but frankly it is obvious that they were working with the government to rush it through without scrutiny. No serious debate as far as I'm aware.

The bipartisanship on these issues is frankly miserable. Labour is in no position to claim that they support free and open communication. I honestly havn't figured out why these issues get such unanimous support by the political class. I do wish that Australian's would take it more seriously, our laws surrounding free speech and civil liberties are in a really bad state.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...

[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... - see Progress heading

> I honestly havn't figured out why these issues get such unanimous support by the political class.

I think its because too few Australians care enough for this to matter to politicians and the parties, who respond to incentives like everyone else.

This doesn't absolve pollies of responsibility for passing these draconian measures, but it is an important fact to acknowledge if we want to successfully change the culture around security issues in Australia.

Picking on end-to-end encryption; if my messages are insecure then the messages of the politicians are also insecure. They have a lot more to hide than I do.

It isn't obvious to me why they think the incentives align for making Australians less secure. If nobody cares, why not write laws that protect everyone including politicians?

The Liberals literally called the Federal Police down on the AWU and notified the press before the raid. For those who aren't Australian the AWU is a union that is basically part of the Labor party organising body. Are federal politicians really so stupid as to think this stuff isn't going to be used against them at some point? Police enforcement actions are clearly entering the world of the political federally and probably in Victoria. There is a lot of talk about ICAC. China is breathing down our necks to gain more access to our computer networks, our University networks were hacked just the other week. This is not hypothetical stuff for our politicians; these are all actions targeting people like them.

I can all but guarantee that there is a technician at any Australian digital-communication company who can be bribed by a foreign actor to hand over all communication a given politician has made on that service.

"Are federal politicians really so stupid as to think this stuff isn't going to be used against them at some point?"

Yes. They are. "Stupid" is often a straight-talking way to say they are "lacking sufficient wisdom to fully understand the implications."

Some people really do need to learn by getting burnt. Others need multiple burns before they think it is serious. There are people who need to be on fire before they will agree that being burnt is a possibility.

Lately on HN I have made a number of comments about censorship: today it sounds great cause it shuts out those you hate. Tomorrow its used against your very voice. Do not disarm yourself entirely and give the government total power. Laws that are too strong in an attempt to stop criminals wind up punishing law abiding citizens.

These comments have been in regards to Twitter, Discord, Google, Facebook and so on all trying to define fake news or ban people with certain political affiliations. The saddest thing is that mainstream media pushes unverified sources on the race to being first. Nobody punishes them for being incompetent. If theres eyeballs for ads who cares?

There is a reason in America we have a constitution and a bill of rights. It could very well be argued our bill of rights was written in blood. The blood of those who fought against totalitarian type of governments who forbade: freedom of speech and religious beliefs, freedom to protect oneself and their families against bad people and rogue governments. Those two foundational things shouldnt be compromised under the guise of a safer country. It will not end well. History says so.

Sadly there are some in America who are quickly forgetting these things and are foolishly ready to give the kings to the kingdom away.

Without free speech we will perish and follow in the steps of bad forms of government. Without the right to defend ourselves legally, we give the government all power over us. Just ask Russia and Venezuela how those democratic elections are going for them.

I’ve had incomplete ideas about this bouncing around my head for a while now.

My current analogy is:

Censorship is the opium of the government.

Pain feels bad, but is good because it tells you when something bad has happened. Investigative journalism revealing wrongdoing is a type of pain. Censorship makes the pain go away without solving the real problems.

If you’re doing the political equivalent of surgery, you need the painkiller, but it is highly addictive — if you don’t stop using it as soon as possible, you’ll find you can’t stop, and you’ll use it to your own detriment. If your political situation needs a lot of ”surgery” you should ask yourself serious questions about that happened.

Well put. “Censorship is the opium of the government,” made me snort my coffee and is highly quotable.

What’s the term for when a small amount of something that hurts is actually good for you? Hormesis?

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?

It is so, so tempting to use today's power to silence people who say things you don't like. It is much more prudent to imagine the powers you ask for today in the hands of those who wish you ill.

Imagine what would have happened to the gay rights movement if it was trying to get off the ground in today's world? If people's locations were tracked, speech was censored, privacy denied?

LGBT rights are a poor example, as that movement is most heavily associated with the stonewall riots which were sparked by a police raid following decades of oppression, and separately that LGBT rights are improving even in the face of ongoing anti-LGBT censorship of various kinds.

Note that those riots were in '69, and the T was only added in the late 90s.

The rioters included many who were trans.

Just to add to the chorus of noise, I hate how very, very fucking right you are on every point.

The big news organisations here in Australia have grown to despise the very beast they helped created.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com