De facto id will be a massive step backwards, if they move forward despite saying they most likely wouldn't, but not as far backwards as raising a generation on reactionary and divisive social media
In no possible future, do I foresee our government managing this as a "good thing".
The last time they tried censorship (aka Stephen Conroy) it was thwarted by a 15 year old and abandoned. Let’s not even talk about their current piracy website ban where all you need to do is point DNS to someone non-Australian.
Not to mention their KYC regulations led to the Optus disaster, by forcing telecoms to store PII longer than necessary.
Your position is that everyone in Australia should have their PII exposed because parental responsibility belongs with the state, as parents shouldn't be trusted to parent. It is an absolute CERTAINTY that the ID mandate will be mismanaged and be a security catastrophe.
Don't forget Australian Parliament House was hacked as well.
But this time it'll be different, right? Your position is especially egregious because it is a global ID mandate (and it'll be totally ineffective as a 10 year old can figure out a VPN).
ID's can be reissued like we saw with optus and while there's a lot of pain and misfortune from insecurity of assets etc we can reverse that, mostly. You can't reverse the childhood of an entire guinea pig generation once you find out that social media mentally broke them. Obviously, assets and security aren't a concern at my age so my perspective might be a little different.
If you have anything about a global ID mandate i'd be interested, because it definitely hasn't been publicised in the media, though that doesn't always count for much.
I have a lot of conflicting views on this, but I think overall we are better off addressing the threat from social media right now.
You might view the current generation of younger people with the notion of at least a warm childhood like your own, and regular life milestones and rite of passages behind whatever struggle they're currently facing as slightly older people. That's increasingly not the case.
ID helps to lock a certain class of people out of government services. That group is generally the disenfranchised, the mentally unwell, the disabled, and the kind of people that always get screwed over. The people those services were set up to help - because helping them is actually cheaper than just letting them cause chaos and then die. Unfortunately, post-setup, that cost is ignored for brownie points with various audiences.
You can't reissue IDs for people when you cancel the only ones that they have.
You can't save a generation, when their entire childhood is spent being attacked on the street because their parents dared to create them.
I hadn't heard about that particular intrusion. Got a link?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-04-14/clearview-ai-...
- it will put every Australian's PII in the hands of people who have a bad track record on security - de anonymize the internet as we know it - make it easy for a foreign actor to break in (remember if there is a backdoor, it will be exploited) - increase the state's surveillance capabilities on their own citizens
All of this to do what exactly? Save democracy? Save the children? Can you prove that if we do that the outcome would be better than if we did nothing?
Do you have anything tangible in terms of proofs as to what outcome will be achieved?
My take is you don't because if you did, we would not be having this conversation.
I think you are trolling and your response is just a bunch of word salad without much meaning.
You agree with the ban because you agree with the ban because you think the ban is good. There seem to be no critical analysis as to why this is good besides some supposed good intentions.
If you have a different opinion at least try and be civil.
Coincidence: in portuguese tolo means fool
The swipe in your response was totally unnecessary.
Ah, yes, I too trust government to keep their words. Pinky promises and all that.
> but not as far backwards as raising a generation on reactionary and divisive social media
This is your opinion. You use of "reactionary" in this context implies that whatever views are being shared, you are against them. Instead of winning over people, you prefer the easy solution which is to silence them.
That is not very democratic of you.
Finally if you think that the "division" that most western societies are experiencing currently is only due to social media, then you haven't bothered researching theses topics.
These problems that are coming to light now have been a long time in the making. In reality decades, but before the governing powers could simply pretend that they did not exist whereas now, it is plain sight.
Silencing opposing voices is not moral and it is delusional to think that this will fix the broken state of western democracies just like sweeping the dust under the carpet doesn't mean that your apartment is clean.