Not that this is any good, but at least in the US the state pays for the surveillance. Here the businesses have to foot the bill for who knows hoe many unending requests. If you thought it was hard to make a viable tech business in Australia before, well you can forget all about that now.
It's more like if Microsoft and FB were in bed with the NSA. And then they sent you the bill for your own surveillance. And if you didn't pay, then sent you to jail.
That's not necessarily true. For TCNs there is an explicit section that deals with compensating businesses, through an "Applicable costs negotiator". See s.317ZK(16).
And there is no criminal liability for non-compliance. "Just" very hefty civil fines.
But don't forget these fools whose pants constantly fall down can do horrendous damage as they run smack bang into the modern age. And they are unlikely to "move on". They are more likely to wreck everything, and then when they fail, try again but worse.
It's exceptionally sad since Australia has order of preference, instant runoff and mandatory voting. Even with all those safeguards to prevent major parties and ensure equal representation, Australia still ends up with major parties and too many people who don't bother with the bottom of the ballot.
I think this is partly the fault of how electorates work. Imagine an election where every electorate votes 30% party A, and the remaining 70% of the vote split somehow between parties B and C. Then you get only members of parties B and C in office, and so you could argue that 30% of the population is not even represented.
This is not so far off what happens with the Greens - in the last federal election they had about a 15% first-preference vote across Australia, but ended up with only 1/150 seats in parliament.
> This is not so far off what happens with the Greens - in the last federal election they had about a 15% first-preference vote across Australia, but ended up with only 1/150 seats in parliament.
As someone who has lived in the US and Australia... the difference would be that in the US, the Greens would get nothing, zero. And due to gerrymandering, it's equally likely that even without party C in play, you can and do easily get situations where 30% votes for party A but win a majority.
Even in our recent mid terms here, whilst the House went back to Democratic control, in the Senate the Republican vote went down 20% but they didn't just keep the same number of seats, they _increased_ their majority.
ya and it will happen every year... those in power have been trying to take control of people's lives forever but so far they have been unable since it requires physically being present. but as technology becomes seamless and is woven into the fabric of society, eventually our thoughts too wont remain private. the only thing protecting us is we are just one data point in billions...
Do you think that will just magically happen on its own?
The party that may win the next election already supports the bill. They claim they would update it with a few inconsequential changes, to make it look like they're "fixing it". But that's about it.
> soured my view of him forever. He’s revealed himself to be a man of no principles.
I don't have a strong opinion of Shorten one way or the other, but I've read a lot of people express a similar POV and it strikes me as extremely naive.
If you went into politics with a view to die on your sword rather than compromise any of your values you'd have a very short career. Losing the battle to win the war is the only way to achieve anything.
I mean, be realistic. If the ALP had blocked the bill it would be political suicide for them. For now some nerds (us) are debating the issue on an obscure forum. The alternative would be for every man and his dog having our corrupt media ram the "Labor has made it easier for terrorists to kill you" story down their throat for the next few months.
> If the ALP had blocked the bill it would be political suicide for them.
They opposed the bill over the weekend and then backflipped because if there's an attack over Christmas they'll look like fools. I don't think that risk was worth selling out 25 million people, but maybe that's just me. They get attacked constantly in the media anyway, it's not going to make much difference.
> The alternative would be for every man and his dog having our corrupt media ram the "Labor has made it easier for terrorists to kill you" story down their throat for the next few months.
In some ways that would be a good thing, because it would force a public debate about warrantless surveillance at a time when relatively few people trust the LNP government or its law-and-order rhetoric.
If you sell out your principles to get that power, what's the purpose of having it? By the time you get there, you're no better than the person you ousted.
Realistically, I don't think the majority of the Australian community is particularly aware of, let alone opposed to this legislation. The idea that law enforcement should be able to gain access to encrypted communications if they have a warrant doesn't seem particularly controversial in the wider community either.
Given this, I'd assume the law is here to stay. The question we need to ask is how can we constructively engage politicians to minimise the flaws in the law. On that front Labor has been much more open and were instrumental in addressing some of the deeper flaws in the original legislation.
So to be clear:
1. The law specifically forbids the government requiring weakening of encryption / authentication / authorisation mechanisms.
2. The law specifically forbids the government requiring systemic vulnerabilities be introduced.
3. The law defines a consultation, review and appeal process.
4. The law prevents the government requiring someone commit a crime in a foreign jurisdiction
5. The law allows publishing the number of aggregate TAN/TCN/TAR received in aggregate in a 6 month period.
The question is where should the law be fixed and how do we engage Labor / Liberals to fix those aspects.
Personally I would like to see:
1. Better protection for software exported for use outside Australia
2. Better definition of what defines a 'systemic' vulnerability
3. Greater protection for individuals. For if a TCN/TAN could be otherwise issued to a company, then the law should not allow a notice to be issued to an individual.
Actually they voted on the promise from the Libs that the amendments they proposed would be revisited in 2019, just to make Australia safe over Christmas. Which is somehow even more boneheaded than unanimously agreeing.
What your statement misses is that the problem is confounded by most people simply not believing it. They will believe that "people do fucked up shit to get more resources", while simultaneously believing that government is good, central banking in necessary, the money system is sound, the commercial banks are solvent, voting works, the justice system is blind, the wars are necessary and so on and so on.
And people who point out the truth of this corruption are derided, ridiculed, called a conspiracy theorist, compared to David Icke and so on.
I would concede you your point if people en masse really did think that Icke's statement was common knowledge, but it is clearly not. The myths that keep the common person conforming to the powers that shouldn't be run deep in the psyche.
Well, he did marry Wendy Deng. Some have said it was to help break into the Chinese market. If it wasn't for Tony Blair, they'd probably still be married.
Did you not get the memo? Gender is purely a social construct. It has no biological underpinning. One can identify as any gender they feel. And then they are that gender. Thus any "differences" you may think you perceive between genders are not real. They are purely cosmetic.
There's a lot of evidence that the gender felt by a trans person is biological, fyi.
If they could just change it, I assure you so many people that suffer dysphoria would snap their fingers and cure themselves.
.
And it's gender roles that are a social construct, not gender identity. It's unfortunate that both those terms are referred to as "gender", but please try not to spread the confusion.
I don't disagree with you at all. There are a huge amount of people who do disagree with you, though. You just commented that you didn't know anyone pushing such a narrative. And that surprised me because it's everywhere. So I thought I'd just flesh out that dominant point of view so that you could identify it in the society around you.
What I think this study shows (and its not the first) is that it debunks the notion that discrimination is the only reason for any differences in gender representation. If a particular field does not have a 50/50 gender split, then that must be wholly explainable by discrimination. This study shows that this is not the case. There is a component of the unequal split that is based on personal preference. And that personal preference has a biological component. This idea is taboo.
I generally take the view that any time you are dealing with a biological system, whether it be a single cell or the global economy, should you find yourself in a quandary where you are wondering if something is caused by this thing or that thing (nature/nurture being the classic), the answer is nearly always both, plus a whole bunch of some other stuff you hadn't even begun to consider. Biology is horrendously complex and messy, and anything built on biology is even messier.
Well, that notion is certainly used to argue about gender pay gap, where figures like 77 cents to the dollar are touted of.
For representation, if you increase the scope of the notion from "discrimination is the only reason" to "discrimination and unconscious social biases are the only reason", it certainly applies.
Set a timer on your computer that goes off while programming. When it goes off get up and do 10 pushup no matter where you are. Right in the middle of work. Then go back to coding. Next time 10 squats. Then 10 lunges. Or 10 chair dips. At first you'll get funny looks but soon people may join you.
I still remember when kenneth closed every single open ticket on his envoy project without any fixes. Problems? What problems? Serves me right for taking the time to write a detailed bug report. I won't make that mistake again.
Using the technically incorrect term "angular momentum" rather than the more correct term "moment of inertia" made me think the same thing. I would think a person tasked with building such a device would know their physics well enough to use the right term, but I may be wrong.
The same exact (lack of) self-assessment that is enjoyed by the white exec also applies to the minority hire, does it not? That is to say, anyone, regardless of race, gender or protected status, can feel free, in the absence of further knowledge, to assume that they achieved their position by merit. It's a non sequitur to presume anyone is a diversity hire.
It's more like if Microsoft and FB were in bed with the NSA. And then they sent you the bill for your own surveillance. And if you didn't pay, then sent you to jail.