Australians ‘complacent’ to rapid growth in digital surveillance
innovationaus.com
innovationaus.com
We have very little media diversity. The few billionaires who own the few outlets enjoy the continuing tax cuts, random free grants, advertising spend, etc. from the conservative Government, so run what some critics have called a ‘protection racket for the Liberal National Party’. Almost nothing about any of the mass surveillance laws then really gets into the media, and if something is mentioned, it’s mostly presented in light of the Government’s line on it.
The times any of this does get into the news is if there is any opposition from the Opposition party (Labor), who theoretically could get the numbers to block laws in the Senate by one vote. If it looks like they might not allow the Government to sweep them through, the Government then does what we call ‘wedging’ the Labor party. This is where they say “Labor wants the terrorists to win” or “Labor is voting in the interests of paedophiles”, and the media amplifies that narrative.
Unfortunately it works because nobody knows what the laws are about (even though human rights groups, law groups, civil society groups, often even the Government’s own security legislation review committee have raised serious flaws, tried to get them out in the open but are ignored by the media).
The Government also makes a mockery of any due process - sometimes having a public consultation period but ignoring it when basically every submission is negative and it’s clear nobody actually wants the laws (it’s just a box ticking exercise - if people bring it up later, they will seriously claim “but we consulted the public and experts” even though they ignored all of them). Some of these laws they have pushed through both Houses of Parliament in one or two days, with basically no debate.
It’s a truly atrocious situation. There is an election coming up, but with most of the media enthusiastically running the protection racket and pushing basically just lies about politics, and only fairly actively politically informed people knowing what’s actually going on (that’s a small proportion of the population - the conservative party relies on that a lot), things may not improve.
I'd also go as far as to say this is what Australians want. Many people believe these laws won't be used against regular citizens and will assist in law enforcement efforts.
If you'd like an explainer on how security laws such as TOLA are enacted, this channel is a great resource:
Democracy dying with a whimper. Complacent is an understatement.
As far as most people would be able to tell, the Federal Police would have just raided you on an anonymous tip, seized your computers and found material you never knew was there…
It’s still heinous misconduct, but they’ve legalised 80% of the process and the level of secrecy around these agencies is so ridiculously high and the accountability so low, so it’s a lot less of a stretch now than it was just months ago - if they really feel you deserve it…
You would need to both know it happened, and be able to prove it happened, and the usual targets for something like this (journalists) can usually only suspect the former at most.
It's one of the most dystopian laws I've ever seen.
However, entrapment as a legal defense is less an overall a defense and rather a reason to exclude a particular piece of evidence from the case. There will also likely be no punishment for those who attempted the entrapment, even if the evidence ends up being excluded.
Australia does have other mechanisms by which something similar may sometimes be used, such as conflict of interest (such as in the Lawyer X trials) are more appropriate defenses, where the US may simply use entrapment.
They also are the the Ministers that promulgate regulations under those bills and direct their Departments to implement them.
The LNP owns this.
I've explained how the LNP is responsible for it - it was their bill, written by them and passed through a process they control.
Make no mistake, they had the numbers to pass it regardless of what the Opposition did on the floor. The Opposition's vote either way was merely symbolic - and frankly I find it hard to fault them for making the cynical political calculation that their future political chances could only be hindered by a pointless vote against it.
I don't buy this "they're secretly anti-surveillance!" line. They are complicit.
It's also puzzling how you imply that amending these bills would fix them. As if one more check and balance would make them not a horrific disaster. In fact, Labor's "amendments" to "fix" the AA bill was adding mandatory judge approval for mass surveillance -- sounds fixed to me!
Labor are pro surveillance and have been for a very long time. They have voted for every single surveillance bill. Their MPs ignore feedback about surveillance from constituents.
Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak. They won't change anything, they support it.
The metadata retention bill that Labor vehemently supported has already been viciously abused. Originally touted as being a bill designed to combat terrorism and child abuse, it's now used to investigate things like littering(!!!). Federal police have been caught using it to stalk girlfriends repeatedly. Labor support this.
I don't imply that "amending the bills would fix them". I am pointing out that the Government rejected all other input on these bills, so they cannot be meaningfully described as "bipartisan".
Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak.
I imply nothing of the sort.
"Cling to power"? What power?
I am stating that voting against a Government bill that has the numbers to pass anyway is a quixotic action, and in this case probably both a strategically poor option.
You know what's a fundamental principle? The principle that you get the laws that the Government you vote in wants to make. The Opposition can't save you from the Government you voted for.
By definition they represent the minority (or else they would be the government) so almost any action they take will be "quixotic".
To me the fundamental job of the opposition is to point out the failures of the government and paint alternative paths forward. The opposition can move the public sentiment and there are enough poll watchers in the government to respond to pressures.
Just look at what’s happening now - in the last few days - Morrison and Joyce claimed they’re going to bring a bill to outlaw anonymous posting on social media sites - for the sole reason that some people were talking about a rumour that the just departed NSW deputy Premier was allegedly having an affair with Joyce’s daughter… That’s just an insane basis for legislation!
However, I would like to point out the legislation to force people to provide ID to use social media and dating sites has been in the works for some time.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hou...
Also note ALP's remarks on the bill, which call for sooner action and do not disagree with the report's findings.
Again, I'm not here to discuss partisan politics. I am only saying these laws seem to enjoy wide support.
They are waving through these laws so that they cannot be portrayed as "weak on security/law-and-order" by a predominantly hostile (read: News Corp) press.
It is extremely disappointing to see Labor raise all sorts of concerns about similar legislation and then wave it through anyway when the Libs refuse to make any amendments.
2PP has Labor winning the next election. Some key figures in the Liberal party (Frydenberg, Hunt) have some tough campaigns ahead of them after the massive bias against their home state that's been on display.
Then there's the whole friendlyjordies thing, which I've heard commentary about in circles where I would have never expected it.
I don't know if the usual election lies will cut it this time.
People say that every time though and they always do.
I think that is because of media portraying these laws as a positive thing. Almost exactly the line you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I have heard politicians saying exactly: "If i'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about"
Its a sad but true fact that 99% of Australians (probably rest of the western world) only gets their ongoing education (beyond high school/bachelors in a specific industry) from the mainstream media. And we have close enough to dictator level of media diversity pushing a single narrative. Its not wonder people dont care about their privacy being eroded.
The irony being that the current government seems particularly opposed to any form of accountability or public scrutiny.
It's moronic. I try to explain but I'm met with looks like _I'm_ the moron.
There is more to a political party than their stance on a single issue. If you can't see that then you are a moron. And yes, I did just call you that, outright.
It is technically preferential and sure, it could happen, but none of the independents have, or will ever have enough of a following to win a federal election.
Also, for the record. I don't choose either of the two evils as my number one pick when I vote. I always do choose the party I think is best for this country privacy wise. But sadly, they will never win a federal election.
If somebody doesn't vote, then they're basically giving a free pass to the incumbent - which if you're in a Liberal, National or LNP seat is literally making things worse in these respects.
It really shouldn't be surprising that the incumbent party benefits from this attitude, yet I get the same look from likely just as many people.
We all have only a finite amount of things we can care about in a day and for many Aussies, laws, especially laws around the use of technology aren't front of mind for the average Australian. But as time goes on and these laws actually start to impact us, then you will see people caring.
And while it's painted in forum's like this as all negative, the reality is it's not. In fact there have been some pretty big positives. Crime levels have been dropping, while prosecutions have gone up. Criminologists have put that down to better surveillance. Cameras everywhere have meant the odds of getting caught for a given offense have gone up, so more people have been getting caught on their first offence. Amusingly, it's just just the criminals who have been on the receiving end of this - it's the law enforcers too. They used to be able to hide their overreaches behind the solidarity of the blue line. Now misbehaviour is very likely caught on a camera that's not behind the line, and the results have been on the world's headlines.
I know the naturally privacy conscious feel like this is a personal invasion, I feel like that too on occasions. Their problem is that to date it's most likely been a net positive. Open societies with less criminality and corruption do better, and that seems to have been the net result so far. While like you I doubt many people have analysed in these terms, what they have done is evaluated how life is now vs before, and it seems OK. In simple terms, we can have more shiny things. Therefore the simply don't care some privacy guru seems a privacy apocalypse around the corner. So far the reverse has been true, and wot do these supposed experts know anyway?
Still, I feel decidedly uncomfortable with the Assistance and Access bill, and its friends. My problem is not that they allow enough information to be mined - it's that they don't allow enough. Specifically, while they allow the government agencies to gather information on its citizens, the bills go out of their way to ensure the citizens have no idea how much their government is spying on them, or who is being spied upon, or why, or at whose behest. Without a little sunlight to sterilise things, it's inevitable malfeasance will grow in the dark. We already have numerous examples of petty privacy theft - police spying on their ex's, taxi's chasing credit card owners and the like. It's just a question of time before one politician plunders another's emails and polling data, or one of these systems gets hacked and mined for identity data for years before anybody becomes the wiser.
The sad bit is, it is only after they have blatant examples staring them in the face that voters will conclude this overreach has downsides too. So we will have to suffer some real pain before there is a correction. The good news is the public education has already started. The Huawei bans are an example of that. It was only after Huawei won the contract to run the Danish telephone system, and later the Danish discovered their private data leaking across the world that politicians and intelligence agencies woke up to the fact the same data gathering capabilities they were exploiting could also be used against them.
They reacted by banning Huawei. One day they will figure out that isn't going to fix the problem. We've since learnt Juniper was hacked for years, apparently by the Chinese who could watch all data flowing through their gear. And that's just the foreign players. In Russia we have private criminal gangs gathering data on a scale well beyond their Law Enforcement Agencies, and using it to shake down institutions like banks. The only cure I can see for this is a transparency on a scale we haven't seen to date. We have to put the days of blindly trusting government bureaucratic caesars to determine what data is collected, who can see it and what it is used for behind us. That information is too dangerous to be kept in the dark - it must be open to all citizens to inspect.
They banned single mothers from taking their child to playgrounds after being locked in their homes for weeks and then fined them thousands for doing so. They got rid of this absurd rule when cases rose by 3x, further highlighting how absolutely ridiculous it was.
Certain state governments have clearly overstepped the mark and anyone defending them will not go down well in time. Thankfully you can't delete comments here.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, however my experience is that people who intentionally misrepresent a scenario usually don't go down well in time either.
It was example of the outcome, not a declaration of the actual law.
The Victorian government now has more cases than ever before and is amusingly opening up, dropping nearly all restrictions/curfews, they've been dragged kicking and screaming though this whole thing and have prided themselves on being the strictest state government possible with a tough on covid approach. Despite that, having the toughest restrictions and the world record for lockdowns, they still end up with the most deaths and infections in the country. Clearly whatever they are doing isn't working, yet the rusted-on types will support them no matter what while ignoring the clear and plain facts about the massive differential between state policy outcomes in Australia.
Having read The Gulag Archipelago, I am worried what will become of Australia in coming decades. While I am in opposition to how the current government operates, they're only part of the problem because the Identify and Disrupt bill flew through the senate in a day with support from both major parties. Not even taking into account that the suggested amendments to the bill to remove the broad clauses were ignored and the bill was passed anyway.
There is even some provision for being able to declare it’s an emergency and just getting an internal “emergency authorisation”. So a lot of it has become (by law) actually warrantless.
Terrifying -- we are trusting officers who are incentivised to make convictions with the power to remove, add and modify data which could be used as evidence in determining the outcome of criminal cases.
Would love for someone to tell me that I am missing something here that makes this acceptable.
"Under Ministerial direction, an operator would be compelled to provide information, take certain actions, or potentially have ASD insert itself into the incident response and provide direct “assistance” to counter the threat."
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-cyber-incident-intervent...
You might be interested in reading "Psychopathology of totalitarianism" by Ariane Bilheran. While she's French I think it applies to most of the western countries.
It's 3 articles, so shorter than a book, maybe 30 min read in total :
https://www.arianebilheran.com/post/psychopathology-of-total...
https://www.arianebilheran.com/post/psychopathology-of-total...
https://www.arianebilheran.com/post/psychopathology-of-total...
Unfortunately, by the time the effects are felt by the vast majority of the population it will be too late - indeed with the recent Identify and Disrupt legislation, it would be completely legal for the government to take over the accounts of the leaders for any meaningful protests or awareness groups and use that trust to break the groups from the inside, or at the least crush momentum as it appears.
If anyone has any useful advice or tips to raise awareness please let me know.
Are further on the freedom spectrum than the typical liberal or labour party member. In cases like these they are allies!
It's important to realize that a large number of Australians will never vote for the greens or other progressives (for both fair and unfair reasons). We can work together on issues we agree on.
There is a very large gap between the haves and have not's in terms of property wealth.
It's a strange situation here. A 25 year old on 150k p/a will have major difficulty getting into the property market because owner investors, who bought in a couple of decades ago (or even a decade ago!) are reaping major benefits with regards to lending and tax policy.
The so called 'good' life is not enjoyed by the majority, but by a certain cohort of property owners.
Overall, as we'd say, it's 'not too bad', though.
errrrr... Australia is a big place so this isn't as concrete as you've made it sound. There's quite a lot of affordable property, but sure, the handful of places (cities) where a 25 year old can manage to get 150k p/a pre-tax income might also be inaccessible for buying property for a few reasons, one of which are the situation involving investors. However, this kind of person I wouldn't really exclude from being able to live the 'good life' available to Australians, but I get that this is moreso an example of a benchmark esp. related to the demographic of this forum.
Seriously though, many young devs in Australia can live a pretty great life beyond "home ownership" haha. And the average Australia can find decently priced property, just maybe not exactly in the neighbourhood they like most. But I don't think that's the point of property ownership.
"Australian adults are the wealthiest in the world, a new report has found.
Aussies topped the global rankings for median wealth per adult, at $A315,000 per person, according to Credit Suisse’s annual Global Wealth Report."
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/australian-adul...
I would suggest that the restrictions on Australians being able to _leave_ the country has been a direct result of their poor voting choices. However tying the two together seems to approach conspiracy theory level of thinking.
I'm not sure if it's the same in Australia, but in NZ there's another saying that really kills me as it deflates any conversation, "if you don't like it you can leave"
Honestly, the drive to have a better country for all left a long time ago. Everyone seems to just want what's better for themselves and for the richer people that they want to one day be.
It has been 80 years since the ANZACs actually had to fight off forces like this. We've had a good run but unfortunately we need to get ready to gear up again... I just never thought it would be the tradies out protesting
I don’t think the lack of guns is the problem. My family are keen hunters and have a > 1:1 ratio of guns to people.
The apathy and lack of involvement in political processes along with the boiling frog are what I see as the problem.
Lockdown is hard, police have overstepped here and there -- but my family is safe and healthy, and my parents are alive.
[1] https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/australians... [2] https://youtu.be/FUKqliBYIvM [3] https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/florida-s-per-capita-covi...
So no... Your rights of life and liberty are inalienable.
Even if you were to look at it on a national level, the US death rate per million is 2,142, the Australian death rate per million is... 56. That's a 38x rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_...
Australia is a beautiful country but you are not going to be granted an exception to the exact same sequence of events as other countries with high vac rates that opened up.
Hope you actually get your promised freedom.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Maybe literally with those sayings, but up until sometime in the 80s, "its a free country" was a common refrain, which was rooted in the culture and expectations of the people.
Something changed though.
That’s something we used to say as children to each other at school.
I’m now 40 amd don’t recall the last time I heard anyone say that.
Something else we used to say to each other at a school in the 90s was “BANG! - The Victorian Police Force”, if I recall correctly that was a running gag Full Frontal or Fast Forward did.
It was a hard trade off but a good trade off. I'll be interested to see what the sentiment is going to be 12 months from now here with regards to that.
Speak for yourself! It's just another thing to add to the long list of inter generational thefts.
One estimate I saw here earlier in the pandemic suggested it takes 50 person months of lockdown to save one person month of life. Not sure if those numbers have been updated but when I am elderly I hope that I don't enforce that upon others.
Which of course completely ignores that it's still a terrible idea for Canada.
The Australian media have a very strong influence on people's lives - they daily create some uproar or other that people get addicted to, wound up about, and then forget. Two weeks ago it was the nuclear sub deal with USA (and dropping France), then it was some state leader resigning, then it was how Covid was badly handled, then it was... You get the idea.
Anyway, what the media doesn't do is report on things the government doesn't want them to, like all the new surveillance laws being passed. Or when they do, it's very much labelled as "in your best interest" and "think of the children" and all that. Even if there is a 10 second mention of how this might be stepping on our privacy, there are quickly a line of experts saying that is not the case and that is clearly wrong.
I watched a random segment about people protesting covid restrictions and they dropped the nugget "using encrypted communication apps on their phone to coordinate". My Dad immediately jumped to the conclusion that encrypted communications the police can't read is obviously a bad thing. So the Australian media works hand-in-hand with the government to keep everyone distracted, and to paint a very one-sided picture.
It was fascinating to watch the whole "Facebook and Google must pay Rupert Murdoch money every time anyone posts a link to one of his news sites" play out from abroad, then come here and see what Australians know about it. The Australian law literally says Google and FB have to give money to Rupert Murdoch, but Australians think it's about getting FB and Google to pay their fair share of taxes. I've talked to dozens of people who say things like "That money will help build schools and hospitals, Facebook can certainly afford it." (which is utterly untrue)
I find the majority here are severely misinformed, because the media inside the country is very controlled (And of course Australian don't know that, and get offended if I try to point that out or discuss it)
Then I think the problem here is your dad, not the media. Your dad's lack of clear thinking or otherwise is his responsibility.
You can't run around in square circles claiming that it's all the media's fault for your dad's supposed wrongthink. There are two possibilities:
1. Your dad is a dumb, unsophisticated, unthinking lump who has no ideas of his own and who is easy for the evil Media to manipulate.
2. This is his genuine opinion.
Either way, he gets to take responsibility for himself. And you get to respect him enough to engage with his point of view rather than invoking The Media as a pantomime villain.
He was a High school Maths/Science teacher for 40 years, and I'd generally consider him to be very thoughtful, intelligent and good with reasoning.
He has been exposed solely to Australian media for essentially his entire life - he lives on an island that is very far away from the big wide world, and his thinking on topics like this reflects what I consider to be "The average Australian", which is why Australians seem "complacent" as the title says.
I'm currently residing in Australia and it's the same conversation as the UK, no one takes liberty seriously. The inherent trust that the it only affects people that have "done something wrong", of course that's a very nebulous concept.
The US seems to be last place where a significant portion of the population value their liberty and where the worm tongue promises of the state are taken with a healthy bucket of sodium.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/quarantine-stations-us.html
Things aren't going back to normal, when Australia opens up regardless of vaccination status thousands of people will die if they are lucky and tens of thousands if they are not.
The vaccines have been a huge disappointment with constant goal post moving the only way to keep people from noticing.
The biggest problems are a huge focus on the risks of AstraZeneca, and the overall lack of availability of Vaccines.
The vaccine rollout is progressing well, despite the rocky start and general fuckups by the federal government.
We're on track for 70% double-dosed by 24th of October, and 80% by 7th of November[1].
Those are the two major figures for rolling-back restrictions that were put in place. Individual states are varying on their own internal restrictions.
So, you can see that coercion isn't required.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-inter...
> An extremely long list of “authorised workers” are now required to be vaccinated, including marriage celebrants, personal trainers, emergency service workers, public sector employees, religious workers, and many others. All authorised workers who do not comply with the vaccination requirement will not be permitted to attend their place of employment but will have to work from home or lose their jobs.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/human-rights-and-mandatory-c...
We have substantially lower death rates than Florida, which has a comparable population.
Florida: 3,600,000 covid cases 56,667 deaths
Melbourne: 54,470 covid cases 913 deaths
This remains true for the rest of Australia. Unfortunately, we are in a remarkable position compared to many parts of the world.
The median covid death is 85 years old. We spent 4 million dollars to save one 85 year old person for a few more years.
You keep quoting 300 billion, where are you getting that from?
It's like that classic Pirates vs Global Average Temperature chart[1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-f...
One is not the cause of the other, in either direction.
The US Federal Government has spent trillions on COVID related bills. Over $5.3 trillion if this[1] is to be believed.
USD$5.3 trillion / US Population = $16k/person (approx)
AUD$291 billion / AU Population = AUD$11400/person (~USD$8,300 approx)
On the face of it, we spent a whole lot less, and have had at least as good, if not a better economic outcome.
[1] https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/heres-everything-congress-...
Using the US dataset as an example of mortality when covid-19 is allowed to spread unrestricted in a population, 700,952 died. Only 193k were 85 and older, so the median covid death must be younger than that - in the lower end of the 74-85 age cohort where another 185k have died.
So you found one number in my argument that you dont like and that invalidates my entire point? Is that what you're saying? What number would you prefer instead of the 85? Does that change everything?
Australia’s numbers won’t match what happens when covid-19 spreads widely, because they successfully stopped it.
Yea, it does invalidate your point, the average years of life lost from a Covid-19 death is fourteen not a few as you suggested. Many, many people lost more than a decade of productive, happy life to this virus in countries where it was allowed to spread. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/16/americans-l...
“That car is running really well. Why don’t we dismantle the engine?”
My American-born kids are going to school in KN95 masks and spent most of last year doing temperature checks and health screenings.
One of these looks like "a work of mid 20th century dystopian fiction", certainly.
Now have them attempt that on the mainland. They'll be liable to have their bones broken by the police response.
Say what? Got a link?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-23/how-will-south-austra...
https://katv.com/news/coronavirus/new-program-tracks-quarant...
[Home quarantining] participants will receive advice via the smartphone app as to their obligation at random times to provide the selfie back to the public health teams. Should that not be responded to in a period of time, follow up calls or visits are made so as to make sure that the person is where they should be,” Foley explained.
Considering this is being trialed as an alternative to being locked under guard in a hotel or cabin for two weeks, it’s actually less invasive too…
Modern technology reducing it to 14 days and a few photos in the comfort of your home seems an improvement, not a slippery slope.
Slippery slope aside, why can’t the government merely enforce the curfew by telling citizens not to leave their homes instead of forcing them to take selfies at random intervals? If you don’t comply they send the police to your home. If you don’t comply out of protest, they’ll jail you for your safety, where you’re more likely to catch the disease they’re trying to keep you from catching. Pure insanity.
Since when is the choice between "in-home photo surveillance" and "intentionally spreading COVID"?
Almost every country was hit hard by covid except those who stopped it at the border.
They're attempting to equate anybody who leaves their home with being a rioter who attacked police.
This is not true at all. As an Australian who has been following protests closely and the police response, they are clearly only shooting rubber bullets at those who are:
- Throwing glass bottles at police
- Attacking "fake news" journalists
- Damaging buildings and monuments.
Black Lives Matter protests peacefully marched through the city last year and no rubber bullets were used.
> why it's normal to be required to take surveillance photos of themselves in their own residences
Unless you're in quarantine, this is not a requirement. Are you suggesting that we should not have a quarantine program? Or continue to use hotels, which are ill-equip for quarantining, and lead to the initial outbreaks here in Australia?
> I guess strict authoritarianism must be accompanied with equally strict media propaganda.
Media diversity has never been worse. I agree that things need to change. That however, has nothing to do with CHO directives.
NSW: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/09/23/australia...
VIC: https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1447314509949984768
The second one it's pretty clear they were.
I don't know which protests they were, but a number of anti-lockdown/vaccine protests were violent, which is likely the reason the police were investigating. That it's months later is almost certainly because police have been going through a shitload of leads.
The same thing is happening in the US where people suspected of participating in the January 6 riots are/were being investigated months after events.
The events aren't remotely comparable in terms of background, the events themselves, or what led to the events. If you can't see the difference between protests against state-wide lockdowns including curfews, restrictions on freedom of association, travel bans, etc and a group of people rioting to contest an election result all it shows is that you are so biased to the point that your opinion isn't worth considering in a serious discussion about events in Australia relating to the response to the pandemic.
There are potential defences of Australia's response (although they are increasingly seen as apologetic at best, or an outright defence of human rights abuses at worst) but saying the protests are in any way similar to the US capitol attack is not one of them.
You said:
> Police going door to door in NSW/VIC investigating protestors against lockdowns months after they have occurred.
Police are not going door to door. So, that part is inaccurate.
Police are investigating someone suspected of an offence. It's hardly unusual for it to take police months to conduct investigations.
Talk about misrepresenting facts to mislead.
People who were rioting were met with force. These protesters weren't being peaceful, they were attacking camera crews and reporters. They were assaulting police officers.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/21/victo...
> it's normal to be required to take surveillance photos of themselves in their own residences
It's not.
If you're talking about the quarantine system that's under trial, yeah, I'm not particularly keen on that either. It's optional. You can choose to stay in hotel quarantine instead.
And to address the wider point of violence in protests is it not sometimes necessary? If you believe your government has become tyrannical and they are willing to use force against you then what other option do you have?
You've got that arse-about.
They were met with regular uniformed police, like in the BLM protests that happened multiple times in the last 12-18 months.
The BLM protesters managed to remain peaceful, didn't assault reporters, bystanders, or police, and didn't damage property. They protested, and then dispersed on their own.
All while protests were illegal.
There were uniformed police there as well but they were definitely met by public order response teams who are much more heavily armoured/equipped and travel around in vehicles with blacked out windows. [1] [2] [3]
[1] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXL5iC...
[2] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiM5bT...
[3] https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cee5e8e0abbb5138fa1c8d40...
You said:
> The problem is that when you make protests illegal and meet them with riot police only the most hardened/radical protesters will turn up.
This is not what happened. The initial response was, as is typical with all large scale protests - to have regular uniformed police monitoring it, and controlling traffic/the direction of the protest.
The specialist/better equipped teams like the Public Order Response Team are almost always on standby during a large protest/march. They're only deployed when things get heated or actually turn violent.
This is pretty much the same thing that happens in other western countries whenever there's a large protest.
Ummm no that's just false. You can easily search the amount of damage caused by those "protests". There were billions of dollars in property damage.
https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/black-lives-matter-protesters-...
https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/riots-following-george-floyds-...
The links you provider are all about the US.
The Australian BLM protests remained peaceful.
The 3rd alternative is that you're not aware of what BLM means when they discuss systemic racism. It is not just guilt, it opines that the entirety of western civilization is corrupt due to it's creation by racist evil white men.
It's also not necessary the same governments, or just government at all.
The federal government abdicated their responsibility to manage quarantine and border security to the states. It's been the states that have been managing quarantine, largely through Hotels (except in the Northern Territory, where they've had the Howard Springs facility.
Please point out where protesting is illegal.
* Shopping for necessary goods and services
* Caregiving or medical care
* Authorised work or education
* Exercise (limit of 4 hours a day)
* Social interaction (included in the same 4 hour limit above)
* To get a vaccination
As you will see protest is not a permitted reason to leave home.
Even if a protest of 10 people was permitted that's not a serious argument. Basically all protests aim for strength in numbers.
Australia has been mostly unvaccinated until recently[1] due to a botched vaccine procurement process[0] by the federal government. After a quarantine leak in NSW[2], harsh interstate border controls were implemented by all other states, including quarantining of all interstate travellers from NSW in hotels. Cases leaked into Victoria and the ACT and started their own outbreaks[3,4], but the remaining states are still Covid-free.
The requirements described in [5] are a significant easing of freedoms for interstate travellers. I would personally have loved to have quarantined in my own home, and if I need to send a photo of myself occasionally, so be it. I think it is a justified exchange of privacy in exchange for, in the example of Queensland (population 5.185 million), only 558[6] local cases and 7 deaths over the entire pandemic.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/world/asia/japan-south-ko... [1] https://chrisbillington.net/aus_vaccinations.html [2] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html [3] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_VIC_2021.html [4] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_ACT.html [5] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-23/how-will-south-austra... [6] https://covidlive.com.au/qld
The problem in Australia is not the media or the politicians, it's the actual electorate. Ordinary Australians pine for despotism. Unfortunately the general public are the last group outsiders think to blame, so there's this real mismatch between their theories of what's happening in Australia versus the on-the-ground reality.
This time length shouldn't compromise most investigations. It would raise awareness to over reach, so if a small handful get this it's probably well focused but if ~5% of the country start getting letters, people realise the overreach, it will become discussed and create push back politically.
Shining light on things is often the best solution to government issues.
2) Secondly, I'm seeing strange commentary on this thread and other locations a heap about Australian repression and tyranny type comments. And while there are privacy issues and there has been police overreach in the protests/quarrantine, comments seem way off the mark. I'm not sure if it bots/paid players trying to drive agenda or really skewed views. Some of the language is very properganda like and I've seen many posts on other platforms showing things out date or context clearly aimed to drive emotion. So I'd say fact check and consider context before getting too worked up about Australian issues of late. It's still a great country and not the run for the hills situation some people seem to be pushing.
I'm not an Australian citizen, but I make sure the Australians I know are aware that it isn't like this everywhere around the world.
If you don't like it, it's better to try to change it or bring awareness than just leave.
It's not even just the police - the goons on the doors of JB Hi-Fi will demand to root through your bags on your way out of the shop. Nobody even seems to question it.
It's why I like the story of how Fry's Electronics, which had a similar practice in the US, was taken for $65M by one of their executives. They were guarding every penny and treating every customer like a thief while one of their own walked out the back door with millions. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/frys-electronics-execu...
If you were a senior public servant and had uncovered some wrong doing in your, or any other department, you would care.
If you were a journalist and writing a story that could embarrass somebody with power, you would care.
If you were in the military and a witness war crimes, you would care.
Even if you were a lawyer working to represent somebody, anybody with any power, you would care.
People are being "disappeared" and legal proceedings conducted in secret. We found out about Witness K. What haven't we heard about?
Back home in Melbourne there's essentially been various levels of lockdown continuously for 18 months.
Currently there is a nighttime curfew in place, limits on how long you allowed outside (pretty much unenforceable though), compulsory mask wearing anywhere outside of the home, permits required to go to your place of work, no right to protest, no right to organise your fellow citizens to protest, etc. It's pretty scary to me that all that can be brought in and accepted by large parts of the population.
How long will it take to unwind all this? I imagine it will be at least another year or two before we properly return to normal.
By the time complacency ends, it will be too late.
Australia is "first" because it is being used as the testing ground for this stuff, but the same playbook will be used in other countries in the coming years, especially those in which Murdoch's (a pretty unapologetic authoritarian) influences extend.
I have my thought-fingers around an idea to offer some kind of privacy-as-a-service service, but it'd have to be incorporated outside of Australia and its ownership made opaque through the use of shell companies - thankfully (/s) Australia has no legislation against conducting business in the country with such untraceable ownership (I think it was the Panama Papers that revealed both Wilson[0][1] Security and SA Power Networks[2][3] had opaque international ownership structures and it was essentially unknown which individuals were actually responsible for their operations - Wilson Security has government contracts and SA Power Networks literally run the power grid in South Australia).
Australia doesn't have a terrorism problem, and yet is leading the charge in writing legislation to combat it. It smells long-rotten, but most of the Australian population have their noses buried in their socials.
Australia has a corporate tax collection problem that neither side of government want to touch with a ten-foot pole.
The small fish are easy to catch and therefore easy to score political points from. Legislation follows from this realization.
[0]: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/82965338/low-pro...
[1]: https://www.smh.com.au/business/wilson-security-implicated-a...
[2]: https://indaily.com.au/news/business/2016/04/05/sa-power-net...
[3]: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-power...
Can't go to Kmart because the government tries to fight the pandemic? Riots in the streets.
And you're surprised there's complacency to digital surveillance, when people are more outraged by slight personal discomfort than by murder. It's not even criticism, just an observation. People are very comfortable in their bubble and do not care about anything on the outside; you only get a reaction when the comfort bubble is disturbed.
The current policy in Australia is that foreign citizens are forbidden from leaving the country. This violates numerous international agreements on the freedom of movement for citizens, including ones Australia is signatory to. The only other countries preventing exit of foreign citizens are names like North Korea, China and others.
I think it's fair to say that a country should be able to control inbound immigration to some extent. But preventing outbound immigration to foreign citizens is despicable.
I know dozens of foreign citizens who have been stuck in Australia because they cannot leave without a permit, that isn't guaranteed even for compelling reasons. Numerous valid permits are being denied.
That's one element. Then there's blatant police state policies and abuses such as a curfew with absolutely zero health evidence backing, police throwing unarmed people to the ground unprovoked into a pool of their blood and refusing medical attention for them [1], pepper spraying elderly people for peacefully protesting and more.
[1] https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/video-emerges-of-c...
Article 13
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.That said, are bad government policies worse than the murder of civilians? I'll let you guess which one is more likely to make me go out and protest. Of course I'll ridicule people who call Australia an authoritarian state over the suboptimal handling of a public health problem. First of all because I know what an authoritarian state actually looks like, and second because having temporary movement restrictions is only a mild inconvenience for most people. Also, your government actually wants you out of your house working and spending money, and they would much rather not have lockdowns at all than lose votes over this. I never thought I'd see the day where I talk about an Australian politician in a non-critical way, but here we are.
> foreign citizens are forbidden from leaving the country
Only permanent residents are not allowed to leave without a permit, as per the home affairs page. But to address your point, I can absolutely promise you that people did not go on protests for the sake of foreigners that couldn't leave Australia.
Must be outdated information, it was changed recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/06/austr...
>The Australian government has quietly expanded its ban on Australian citizens leaving the country to include people who are ordinarily residents in another country, meaning that even people who live overseas may not be allowed to leave Australia.
Absolutely despicable, and contrary to UN freedom of movement human rights charters -- of which Australia is a signatory.
When your country steps on basic human rights as defined by the UN, you no longer have an excuse to not call what's happening "authoritarian".
Sorry, but preventing foreign citizens from leaving by force is authoritarian. That's North Korea tier. No other Western country prevents outbound travel for non-citizens.
The quote specifically says people who are ordinarily resident in other countries. I don't think it matters whether they're an Australian citizen/PR or not. They literally live elsewhere.
Here's a more clear source [1]
Not that it even matters, because preventing anyone from leaving is a violation of UN Human Rights charters which Australia is a signatory to. They chose to ignore international agreements and trap people. It's authoritarianism. The only parallels exist in North Korea, China, or the USSR. North Korea will stop you leaving by force, as will Australia -- international treaties be damned. "Permits" aren't automatic, nor guaranteed. That's like saying North Koreans can leave at any time -- as long as the NK government permits it.
[1] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-says-it-wi...
Only if you're a permanent resident of Australia.
https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
> If you are an Australian citizen or a permanent resident you cannot leave Australia due to COVID-19 restrictions unless you have an exemption.
> Due to the current COVID-19 situation in Australia, including state and territory border restrictions, business closures and social distancing requirements, international visitors are encouraged to return home when possible to do so.
Hyperbole overload.
Here in Victoria, we're still in the world's longest lockdown. Curfews, strict rules, masks outside, closed local businesses, police ready to pounce on anyone waving a sign saying "end the lockdown".
To express any anti-lockdown opinion, is to be a traitor of public health. You're not a team player unless you submitting to the world's longest lockdown.
"This is literally a war", said the NSW Premier a few months ago in her description of the pandemic. I guess it's fitting a military man in uniform heads the vaccine rollout.
A small group of health workers, mostly women, sat silently socially distanced in a Victorian park recently, with masks on. They were protesting vaccine mandates. A bus load of cops pulled up and surrounded them. Can't even protest in a responsible covid-safe manner. It's illegal. You're an anti-vax menace to society if you express anything against whatever the government throws your way because "fighting the pandemic" as you put it.
"slight personal discomfort". You know nothing about the toll of the world's longest lockdown when you frame it as "Kmart inconvenience".
And what exactly should "batting an eyelid" look like for the average person on the subject of war crimes in Afghanistan? Would it please you if more than 250,000 marched though the city like they did in protest of committing Australian troops to the war on terror?
I have no idea what your eyelid battering minimum standards are for war crimes, but one would expect a common reaction would be to allow the courts to deal with the offenders. The average person can't email the judge and provide external influence in those matters. But hey, "nobody bats an eyelid" sounds more dramatic for a good story, I guess.
> Can't even protest in a responsible covid-safe manner
Breaking lockdown to protest lockdown kinda misses the point of a lockdown. I understand people's frustration but once you compare the number of covid-related deaths to other countries you can reasonably conclude that the overall effort of fighting the pandemic was successful. Were there some badly implemented measures from the local governments? Possibly. But the idea behind them was to preserve life, which seems to have happened. I don't know of any country that managed to somehow allow people free movement and keep covid-related deaths to a minimum, so it's a trade-off between the two.
> You know nothing about the toll of the world's longest lockdown
Well, I know that in any democratic society citizens have not only rights but also responsibilities. Lockdowns are a way in which the community temporarily sacrifices some freedom in order to protect vulnerable people, and I believe that this must be done in any civilized society. Yes, it will take a toll on people, and it's the right thing to do. We've known it since Socrates. The reason I'm calling it a Kmart riot is because I can see the avalanche of social media comments by your average Joe, radicalised in his own bubble to believe that Australia is creating the fourth Reich because he has to wear a mask. Another very common lockdown complaint is "my kids are bored they want to go out". Yeah, sorry, I can't take this seriously. I'm sure there are some real dramas out there, I have empathy for people who experience hardship, but the majority (totality?) of the complaints I've heard are just laughable.
> Would it please you if more than 250,000 marched though the city like they did in protest of committing Australian troops to the war on terror?
Yes it would, but my minimum standards would be to have a social media response of at least the same magnitude as the one to the lockdowns. That's an easy way to gauge public opinion these days, just count the number of articles, likes and comments on Facebook and YouTube. Bonus points for writing letters to MPs, government and journalists to inquire on the progress of the investigation, if there are enough resources allocated for it and what is being done to protect the witnesses, for example. Edit: I'm not against war, sometimes it's absolutely necessary. Targeting civilians however is simply abominable and it's not clear to me how one can be at peace knowing unconvicted murderers are walking around in the community. If morality isn't an issue, at the very least we have the practical concern of whether they'll murder civilians again. Brushing this off seems not very prudent.
Everyone has a line where breaking lockdown to protest lockdown becomes an option. For some that line is approximately 30 weeks in.
Some family units will cope better than others. The wealthy ones with large houses, spare rooms, backyard retreats do better. Families locked up in tight, affordable housing suffer more. And when education becomes a tedious long-term chore delivered via choppy laptop without quality social interaction, the need for ending lockdown weighs heavy.
> citizens have not only rights but also responsibilities
Many of the rules have been made on the run, with vast differences between states and countries. There is no universal playbook for lockdowns. People will disagree, strongly disagree, and sometimes protest.
In regards to "fourth Reich", some look at history and are concerned by scope-creep, or foot in the door power-grabbing opportunities by law-makers. Before the pandemic, there was much condemnation of policy-making, over-stepping, even corruption and flatout lies in and around Gov HQ and parties. Endless juicy material for commentators and critics, paints a picture of alarmingly untrustworthy political power sources and related corporate associates. One might be forgiven for questioning or resisting the box-ticking responsibility demanded of citizens by those distrusted so vigorously in normal times.
"Today we are announcing a 2 week snap lockdown", said literally hundreds of days ago. IMHO protesting lockdowns is safer from moral corruption than the nightly news would have you believe.
To most Australians, "liberty" is a silly concept for yanks, much like halloween and black friday sales.
And people are still carrying trackers in their pocker. They put cameras in the front door bell, always online microphones with speech analysis in their living room, give all their life records, textual or in images, to giants companies that have demonstrated the ability to store and analyse that forever.
People don't use more free software. They look at you like you are mad if you don't want to install whatsapp. Even in HN we have people still wondering why we should use Firefox.
Why would we be judging Australians as "complacent" ? Humanity is complacent.
I've been told the boiling frog is a myth, but I'm pretty sure frogs are talking about boiling humans as a telling metaphore.
The latter pays little attention because they generally do not care whilst HN will debate and suggest endless fixes to the problem - which are always technically more difficult or cumbersome. This is why people buy Apple products on each iteration, religiously for some, because they want it to work, be pretty and the desire of everyone.
The UK has been well known for their love of CCTV and yet crimes still go unpunished and people don't get caught.
Australia has actually moved on ending secure encryption for example. That's not yet the case in the US and it's questionable whether the authorities will be able to (they already would have, if they could have), overcoming the significant constitutional hurdles.
With secret subpoenas, gag orders and programs like PRISM, they get what they need directly from the source. Either from the services hosting the data, or the devices producing/receiving the data.
The data is never collected while in transit, when it's encrypted. They got the keys for the servers, and back-doors to our devices. They don't care about encryption at all.
Once again, freedom is not a technical problem:
I'll preface this with, I chose to be vaccinated - I believe the science, however...
I watch people allow the Government and Corporations infringe on peoples body autonomy through mandatory vaccination. If you don't received a vaccine by a certain date - you'll lose your right to work in essential industries (it's a lot broader than just aged care or health care).
If you protest(ed) this, you're labelled selfish, an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. You're pepper sprayed or shot with rubber bullets - All enabled through health mandates - designed to protect your health (last I checked pepper spray will cause coughing and potential aerosol transmission).
We officially have the most locked down state in the world yet we have a higher vaccination rate than North America.
While our fully vaxxed rates lag behind the EU, our first dose coverage is marginally greater with an assumption that the fully vaxxed rate will catch up and potentially surpass.
We have minimal deaths, but at a great cost to our freedom. When we do get our 'freedom' it'll be with surveillance and vaccine passports. Those who have decided not to be coerced into having a vaccine will not be allowed to participate in the economy and society at large.
I fear this has set a precedent in this Country and we will see this occur again and again.
Oh yeah, and there's also this[2]:
> In an effort to boost vaccination rates in Australia, the Australian government has decided that starting on 1 January 2016, certain benefits (such as the universal "Family Allowance" welfare payments for parents of children) will no longer be available for conscientious objectors of vaccination; those with medical grounds for not vaccinating will continue to receive such benefits.
Again, it seems like it was fine to deny welfare benefits for those without vaccination. But when it becomes mandatory for the more privileged classes there's a sudden moral panic.
[1] https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/immunisation/Pages/childcare_q...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy#Australia
[1] https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia
(quote from that link: "Australia’s borders are currently closed and international travel from Australia remains strictly controlled" )
Like you, I make money from travel, but difference is being stuck in AU suits me because it's where I have my contacts!
This has been the status quo for dozens and dozens of countries around the world with regards to for example Yellow Fever Vaccination, so it's nothing new at all. Many people just didn't know about it because they never tried to go to those countries before (West Africa is my personal experience)
There are countries that require all arrivals to quarantine regardless of vaccination status. I live in one of them (Taiwan).
The issue with COVID vaccination is that it's still possible to become infected and transmit the virus to others even if you're vaccinated, so requiring vaccination for arrivals is a good way for countries to reduce the risk of arrivals getting seriously ill and burdening their healthcare systems, but it doesn't at all prevent the virus (including possibly new variants) from being introduced into their populations.
The science shows that neutralizing antibody levels wane quickly after COVID vaccination, and with Delta, this appears to be what's causing large numbers of breakthroughs. For example, we had a case here recently where an ostensibly healthy airline pilot in her 40s caught a Delta breakthrough case just 2 months after she received her second Moderna jab.
A single jab of yellow fever vaccine on the other hand provides lifelong protection and we have decades of data showing its efficacy. Also of great importance to note: unlike SARS-CoV-2, yellow fever does not transmit directly from person to person.
I'm just saying they will all require proof of vaccination for covid to be allowed in.
And again, I'm just saying that this doesn't stop the introduction of the virus into the population, which is ostensibly the primary reason for requiring vaccination.
And what constitutes "vaccination"? 2 jabs? 3? 4? How are you going to verify vaccination records when most people are just getting cards that can easily be forged? What about people who have been vaccinated with a vaccine not approved for use in your country?
SARS-CoV-2 is well on its way to becoming endemic. There's likely to be a temporary phase where quarantines and/or proof of vaccination are required but this isn't going to be permanent.
Source and video: https://twitter.com/crypto_bitlord7/status/14472012597825044...
- Troy Hunt, notable Australian Security dude
In Canada it's certainly true that the major province with the most lax policies and the lowest vaccination rates - Alberta - is seeing the most COVID infections and deaths.
Absolutely disgusting what the government there is doing to our Australian brothers and sisters. And of course no media coverage to speak of in the states.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/21/victo...
If being thrown to the ground and sat on is a bad as it got for illegal protests during a public health stay at home order we still have some way to go before we reach full dystopia.
The yanks had 5 people die during their failed insurrection. There were another 20 dead in riots in the same year. They had cops firing on media.
The federal government's yearly bipartisan expansion of surveillance powers to catch up with our allies is seriously chilling shit that doesn't get reported in our media or pushed by the usual suspects on Facebook. But it concerns the hell out people in technical and legal areas and the problem will be with us long after emergency health orders are cancelled.
If they let it rip there would be even more people protesting that they couldn't get into hospital.
Everything is open where I live. Plenty of people out and about last weekend. Festivals, bbqs in parks, people at beaches and restaurants. My kids have lost more days of school to teacher training than covid restrictions in the last two years.
There have been a few incidents in other states but they don't define the whole country.
IMO if the states that are in the mud had taken proper precautions before they did, they wouldn't be in this mess and the cops wouldn't have had an opportunity to abuse their power like they definitely are in say, NSW.
These incidents are in the population centers (melbourne, sydney). They represent the country to about half of it's inhabitants!