Hacker News Reader

Comment by atty | Hacker News Reader

Considering Australias stance on encryption and just about everything else tech related, I don’t see this as reflecting negatively on Meta.

View on HN

Please - not “Australia’s stance”, the “Australian Government’s stance”.

Hopefully in less than six months the party in Government will be different, and things will be at least slightly better.

Not an Australian but I've observed Aussie politicians of all shades making the same stupid arguments on encryption for more than a decade, perhaps closer to two. I don't think this can be solved by voting Labor in lest they be given some lessons on elementary mathematics and data security.

Labor has not opposed any of the f'ed up stuff so far so even if Albo wins it'll be more of the same.

Our only hope at this point is a hung parliament that can wedge the parties on progressive issues. I won't mention any particular parties to avoid inflaming the conversation, but I'd strongly advise all Australians look at the parties' track records and policies on surveillance, and particularly whether they're willing to consult with orgs like Digital Rights Watch in forming legislation.

I particularly like The Juice Media from Australia to keep track of Oz politics.

In spite of me living in Romania, I love their Honest Government Ads.

Honest Government Ad | Hung Parliament - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnzaiYrvvrw

The pace of new legislation has been far, far higher and the powers granted much more broad under the LNP than it ever was under Labor. Under Labor as well, with most of the bad ideas that they came up with (like the internet filter, that has just recently basically been legislated by stealth as the eSafety act by the LNP) they were able to be persuaded to drop them.

But I'm mostly hoping for a hung parliament to keep them in check (couple more Indies and maybe another Greens MP). Labor's gutlessness in not voting against the LNP's bad laws because they were scared of the media response has shown this is needed. But experience shows that even under a Labor majority we'd be seeing far less of the bad laws coming before Parliament.

Oh you think it’s a this party vs that party problem? It’s delightful to find such a lack of cynicism.

This song comes to mind

https://theshiftersofmelbourne.bandcamp.com/album/left-beref...

Worst case, we get another tea party.

If they want again non-nuclear submarines in six months, I know people who would be happy to build some for them.

This is likely really the US government's stance, reflected in the governance of one of the US's most dependent client states. A change in political leadership of Australia is unlikely to change its government's overall attitude to online government surveillance.

Oh please. Australian government has been the worst offender for encryption for many years and it's got nothing to do with the U.S.

It's followed US policy for many years, and the only reason it's worse than the US is that the US has robust constitutional protections against unreasonable surveillance.

This is a good point. Government is always in a battle between good and evil: protecting citizens from evil corps (food safety), and actually being evil (i.e. backdoors on encryption).

> Government is always in a battle between good and evil:

Is it? It seems to me gov't is about enriching those that have found themselves in positions of gov't office and their cronnies. Long ago has gov't no longer been concerned with the well being of its citizens.

I think you’ll find a lot of very dedicated, well meaning people in government service. Especially at the local level. You have to actually talk to them and get to know them, of course, before you can judge their intentions.

If you instead base your opinion off the attention whores you see/hear in media, then yeah you’re going to be distrustful. That’s because those people optimize for being in the news. They are a small fraction of the political world.

I could have been more specific by saying elected officials. These are the people whoring themselves out, and I'd assume those working closely with them. The rest of the staff are probably there on the hopes they might parlay the experience into their own candidacy one day, but I do know there are people that are "answering the call" of public service. Sadly, they don't have enough of a voice to sway.

There's also the non-political gov't employees that do the actual work. There's plenty of stereotypes about them too, but for the most part, I'd agree they're just people with a job living their life.

I’m genuinely curious - what makes you think the typical politician is whoring themselves out and should not be evaluated as if acting in good faith?

I totally agree for the politicians who we frequently see in the media, like Ted Cruz. But that’s such a small, non-random selection that I hesitate to generalize.

What makes you feel comfortable in making such a generalization?

I base my opinion on the policies that come out of governments, not communications.

This is an example of resulting, where you look at the outcome and not a process. I personally believe it’s an ineffective way to understand the reality of a situation, but each to their own.

I would say that 'citizens' are one of the concerns of au gov

Reply on news.ycombinator.com