Hacker News Reader

Comment by jp0d | Hacker News Reader

I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google or even worse Facebook. The way the article has twisted the words in Google's favour is commendable though. Marketing really is everything.

View on HN

> I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google or even worse Facebook.

I would not.

The Australian government seems entirely incapable of creating any technical project of a decent size correctly. The list of disasters is quite long, but a few from recent memory are ones such as the census website which collapsed when people tried to use it [0] and the myGov project which has had so many data breaches [1].

Atop of which, the government's usual response to someone exposing flaws, is to attack them.

Whilst I don't want Google or Facebook to have my data, because they will use it in ways I don't appreciate, my government will leak it. And then claim it wasn't serious and excuse themselves from any repercussions.

[0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-up-a...

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-in-...

[2]

I run on the assumption that the government has my data anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether they get it directly or via google. Since google wants to target me with ads, I preference removing google as a middle man. Bonus points for removing the only half-decent excuse for collecting that data anyway, so now the surveillance state is a bit less defensible.

I feel less comfortable handing my data over to an entity that has a monopoly on violence but that’s just me.

Really? They regularly have huge data breaches and are totally incompetent at protecting data and security in general. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/03/home-affa...

The government that mandates backdoors in every software product? That government?[1]

1. https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...

While I vocally opposed that piece of legislation (and are included in the public comments collection), that is not an accurate description of the law. The government that can force you to add backdoors in certain circumstances, and you cannot tell people about it. Yes that is utterly abhorrent, but that isn't the same as "government mandated backdoors in every software product" -- though funnily enough, the US Senate actually did try to pass a law like that in June[1].

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encry...

If you aren't allowed to know the difference, there's no meaningful difference, and certainly not a difference worth defending.

Sorry, you're right. The government that can demand backdoors in any software product. That's a lot better. /s

I didn't say the US Senate is a lot better, but to be completely fair there isn't a backdoor law in the US yet. It's possible Australia was the testing ground for that type of legislation though.

I didn't say it was better, I said that the description wasn't correct. If we're going to criticise something, we should describe it accurately -- otherwise our opponents can simply say "they're being hysterical and don't know what they're talking about".

Heck, that's exactly what the ASD did when the vast majority of people were screaming about employees being individually targeted by the legislation (which wasn't accurate). Now, the ASD also did misrepresent the legislation too -- but now it's less obvious to the general public who is actually being sincere.

Sigh. You're right.

Looking at how many people opted out of MyHealth over the concerns of Government having their data, I think your reason will not resonate with many.

I really hope they made good on that. Can we confirm that if we opted out, we indeed don't have a my health record, or whether they just set one up regardless?

They may have set one up regardless, as the basic registration data comes from MyGov, and you may have a user.

However, it would require your health professional to upload data to the service - and most have simply refused.

But to actually check if one's MyHealth record exists and has data, one must first opt-in to MyHealth, which is a bit chicken/egg.

I don't understand why my comment got down voted. But yes, as one of you have pointed out, it's just my opinion. And I don't think the original draft of this law as much to do with giving your data to the govt, but more about Google/Fb being more transparent with the conditions under which, our data will be used by them. I'm not a legal expert and I may have misunderstood some of it. It's my opinion that big monopolies like Google, Facebook and Amazon should be regulated in some ways and be held accountable. I honestly don't have an answer to the question "What if govt loses your data"!

https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...

The context you're missing is that in Australia, the "big monopoly" is News Corp and not FAANG.

Thanks mate. Yes that's true.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374

I can't agree, but to each his own.

Considering Google and Facebook are willing participants in PRISM [1] it can't be any worse

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...

> The actual collection process is done by the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) of the FBI, which on behalf of the NSA sends the selectors to the U.S. internet service providers, which were previously served with a Section 702 Directive. Under this directive, the provider is legally obliged to hand over (to DITU) all communications to or from the selectors provided by the government.

Being legally compelled to provide data isn't the same as being 'willing'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com