‘Dictatorships often start in the face of a threat’: UN privacy chief warns | Hacker News Reader

‘Dictatorships often start in the face of a threat’: UN privacy chief warns

independent.co.uk

72 pointsrahmaniacc11 comments

Honestly relieved to see this being discussed. In South Africa we are currently under lockdown with the military deployed to enforce the new restrictions. I'm not necessarily against this as we have a particularly vulnerable population and can't afford to be late to implementing distancing measures. However, the conversation towards these steps seems to be dismissive of people who raise concerns about potential abuse of power during this time or people who are more interested in learning how they plan to dismantle these emergency powers rather than how they implement them.

Australia has recently enacted emergency legislation that suspends certain civil liberties, including allowing the usage of phone data to be used to track and enforce quarantine [0]. What's more, parliarment has also been suspended for an extended period until August, meaning there is no parliarmentary oversight for any decisions made by the PM and co until it resumes.

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/01/labor...

Australia is also good at taking rights away and never giving them back.

As an Australian, I can confirm: Australia is _excellent_ at this.

Why is parliament suspended? Here in Norway parliament has given the government the right to act against some statutes but has kept the right to effectively veto things if necessary. A one third minority can block measures under the law passed to deal with the crisis (this has already happened).

And we haven't had to suspend any civil liberties yet except for the right to holiday in your cabin in the mountains, go to the pub in Oslo (you can go but they can only serve food), and there are penalties for not quarantining yourself if you are infected or have arrived from outside the country.

Pretty much everything is working on the basis that we trust the advice we are given and trust each other to behave well. So far it seems to be working except for a very small number of idiots.

Instead of tracking us by mobile the government uses the mobile phone network to send everyone texts to explain what is going on and where to get more information.

SO, can we establish something: There is no such thing as "fascism science" - trying to characterise a government or authority via fascism experts and such. It's all just political Phrenology.

That doesn't mean we can't be wary of erosion of freedoms, but lets not assume it has to look like historical fascism to be bad, or tied to some top-ten list of fascism indicators.

IMO, whether you are for or against Trump, he deserves credit for not using the virus as a way of advancing his office's powers.

This includes both not passing legislation (such as Bush who used a crises to pass the PATRIOT ACT, or stuffing a relief package with unrelated items), and not creating a fait accompli (passing rules that will be accepted in the current environment, but would make for precedent, as is happening in some countries now).

Now, it could be argued that he SHOULD be passing sweeping laws and/or legislation, and that both the PATRIOT act and the expansion of powers in various countries are worth it.

But still, the good of his restraint is worth appreciating, since it is by no means a given. (Especially considering that he is often depicted as being very authoritarian.)

> But still, the good of his restraint is worth appreciating, since it is by no means a given. (Especially considering that he is often depicted as being very authoritarian.)

Trump has always worked within existing law, which is why his opponents have been frustrated in their attempts to stop him. Congress enabled him long before his election.

A good executive uses the whole suite of tools available to him.

Didn't he attempt to suspend Habeas Corpus recently?

Not yet, but there is legal precedent.

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com