Curiosity Jailed the Frog

[Hermit]

...I'd rather sacrifice extra hundreds, even thousands of lives...

Tell that to their families.

Nobody said lives lost is not tragic or traumatic. What's your point? If it is to argue that losing democracy is preferable to it, you'll have to try a different angle.

And you are exaggerating the loss of freedom to an absurd degree. I am not talking about anything else than increased levels of surveillance on individuals and organisations that already have raised red flags, not automatic big brother surveillance of all. If such increased levels of surveillance required legal tweaks, then so be it. As far as I'm aware, in Oz at least, judicial oversight is part of the deal.

Yes, an angle like that. Let me deal with it.

It may surprise you to hear that I am not opposed to increased surveillance on individuals and organisations that already have raised red flags either. What bothers me is how the law provides for searches and surveillance without warrant, the ability to detain individuals without charge for fourteen days, a period which can be extended for another 14, the fact that individuals who have been freed because they've done nothing wrong face a gaol sentence if they talk about their experience and the fact that their right of legal representation has been curtailed, entirely cut and that they can even be held totally incommunicado. In all cases judicial oversight has been curtailed or abolished, particularly so in the ones concerning warrantless searches and surveillance. The various state and federal special branches within the police departments were abolished precisely because they were privileged to effect searches, surveillance and arrests without warrants, and inquiries into their activities have discovered that these activities were conducted for political more so than crime fighting reasons. As if that were not enough, searches and surveillance were lopsided. Unions, members of the Labor party, and organisations working for progressive reforms went under the microscope. No member of the LP, or DLP and no members of right wing organisations were ever checked in that manner. Now the special branches are back, only now they are called anti-terrorist squads. I am not overly worried about the ones on the street. The ones working in offices are the main worry.

My view on the loss of freedom may seem absurdly exaggerated to you, and indeed at this point, and very likely for some period into the future the weakened or altogether lacking judicial oversight has not been abused, but the door for that to happen is open. Eventually, though, people will use the existing laws for purposes they were not designed for. That is not hypothetical. The first instances of it happening can be found in the laws the nascent Frankfurt parliament passed in 1848, again when liberals and centrists passed certain laws in the 1920s, and I'm sure there are other instances in other times and other nations.

If none of that worries you, keep in mind that the Labor party tried to reverse infringements of the right to free speech reversed and to introduce measures for more effective scrutiny of the law's application when the Anti-Terrorism Bill was debated in 2005. They failed on both counts, but voted to enact the Bill in December of that year just the same.

So, Hermit, get fucked with your insinuations that I am turning into a right-winger.

Again: Reading comprehension. So far I have said "you are not nearly as close to the centre of the political spectrum as you imagine yourself to be" and "Your drift from centre to right seems to be accelerating." That definitely means I think your political stance is right of centre. It does not insinuate that you are a right winger, though. There is a big gap between you and Seth, and believe it or not, there is another big gap between him and a total right-winger.

[pErvinalia]

My view on the loss of freedom may seem absurdly exaggerated to you, and indeed at this point, and very likely for some period into the future the weakened or altogether lacking judicial oversight has not been abused,

Actually this is part of the problem as we don't really know due to the lack of judicial oversight. In addition to harsh punishments for journalists that report on anything the AG deems a "national security" operation. And increasingly reduced whistleblower protections.

[Brian Peacock]

It's one big step closer to state-enforced censorship programs and totalitarian regimes and a step in the opposite direction we should be taking as we need, in today's diverse and pluralistic societies, to foster understanding and informed decision making through the reinforcement of the democratic principle of free communication. My issue with this isn't so much the surveillance program that caught him but the law that convicted him. He's guilty of viewing so-called pro-ISIS websites and nothing else. There was zero evidence found that he is in collusion with terrorists or part of any terrorist plot. He was jailed because in France they have legalized who you can and cannot communicate with and it is punishable by 2 years in prison and a 30,000 Euro fine.

Yep. It says that to seek out or possess certain information is in and of itself a threat to society or the state. You can't control ideas and how they influence people by just outlawing them. Invariably these kinds of security measures are easily written laws drafted by people who want to demonstrate how tough they are at election time. They'll be burning books next.

[Svartalf]

France jailed a man for visiting pro-ISIS websites

He'd ... reportedly grown a beard, become "very irritable" when talking about religion with family and began wearing sarouel pants.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/01/fra ... -websites/

Just as I expected, and I am certainly not the only one, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is steering us toward totalitarianism. France is by no means the only nation where this happens. Homeland Security style legislation has sprung up in just about every democracy, and is busily undermining the very system it is supposedly meant to defend and protect.

Yep, looks like it, unfortunately... they get obsessed with preventing attacks,n and that means monitoring everyone and destroying our civil liberties.

[laklak]

I love Big Brother! He watches over me to keep me safe! If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about!

It's a bit of a conundrum. If terrorists carry out a successful attack the public screams that the government must DO something. "The government" (whoever that is) goes to their security experts and they say "the only way to stop this is mass surveillance". When they implement that the public screams "they're spying on us!" I have some sympathy for the government(s), they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If we want to maintain our civil liberties we must accept a higher risk of terrorist and criminal activity, there's no way around it. So we, as societies, must decide what is more important. I'm happy to move to the mountains and arm myself to the teeth, but that's certainly not for everyone.

[JimC]

My view on the loss of freedom may seem absurdly exaggerated to you, and indeed at this point, and very likely for some period into the future the weakened or altogether lacking judicial oversight has not been abused,

Actually this is part of the problem as we don't really know due to the lack of judicial oversight. In addition to harsh punishments for journalists that report on anything the AG deems a "national security" operation. And increasingly reduced whistleblower protections.

Those issues are definitely problematic, and I would agree that some parts of our security legislation have gone over the top and are a danger to freedom (not as much as France, clearly, but, to be fair, they have had a lot more murderous terrorist activity than us...)

Dosen't stop me agreeing with the purely increased surveillance parts, though...

[pErvinalia]

I love Big Brother! He watches over me to keep me safe! If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about!

It's a bit of a conundrum. If terrorists carry out a successful attack the public screams that the government must DO something. "The government" (whoever that is) goes to their security experts and they say "the only way to stop this is mass surveillance". When they implement that the public screams "they're spying on us!" I have some sympathy for the government(s), they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If we want to maintain our civil liberties we must accept a higher risk of terrorist and criminal activity, there's no way around it. So we, as societies, must decide what is more important. I'm happy to move to the mountains and arm myself to the teeth, but that's certainly not for everyone.

Yeah, this.

(although, while i'd happily move to the mountains and arm myself to the teeth, I'd do it for fun, not out of any fear. )

[Hermit]

My view on the loss of freedom may seem absurdly exaggerated to you, and indeed at this point, and very likely for some period into the future the weakened or altogether lacking judicial oversight has not been abused,

Actually this is part of the problem as we don't really know due to the lack of judicial oversight. In addition to harsh punishments for journalists that report on anything the AG deems a "national security" operation. And increasingly reduced whistleblower protections.

Those issues are definitely problematic, and I would agree that some parts of our security legislation have gone over the top and are a danger to freedom (not as much as France, clearly, but, to be fair, they have had a lot more murderous terrorist activity than us...)

Dosen't stop me agreeing with the purely increased surveillance parts, though...

I agree with more surveillance too, but you do rather more than that. You regard some bending of previous concepts of civil liberties for the purpose of preventing deaths and injury as worth it. I have argued that concepts of of civil liberties have not merely experienced "some bending". They have been negated. Warrantless searches and surveillance, for instance, are said to be applied in relation to fighting terrorism only. In reality it is a signed, open cheque precisely because they do not require a warrant.

Warrants, as you are undoubtedly aware, are a key feature of judicial oversight, and it has been removed. The searchers can go right ahead without even having to demonstrate that they are doing so in order to pursue possible terrorist activity. They could, should they feel like it, remotely hack into any and every Labor senator's or environmentalist's computer, or tap their phones, and there is no way to check if that's what they do, for they don't have to apply for a warrant first or even retrospectively.

Won't happen? Bullshit. In pre-internet days the equivalent has happened on a routine and systematic basis, which is precisely why the special branches in the various Australian police forces have been abolished one by one. As I mentioned before, now those special branches are back, only under a different name.

Where you and I differ is that you would trade democratic rights and freedoms for the well being and lives of possibly several thousand humans, I would not. I'll go with Benjamin Franklin instead: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." except I would replace "deserve" with "will get", but that is perhaps what Franklin implied anyway.

Franklin, were he alive today, would be more or less regarded as a liberal democrat (though he derived his ideas regarding democracy from the Puritan values of self-government). At the risk of getting your feefees up in a tizz again, I say that your mindset is located somewhere to the right of his.

[cronus]

Only the guilty have anything to fear. If you've done nothing wrong it is very likely you've nothing to worry about. But if you are a wrongdoer then be afraid, be very afraid. You are being watched. Everything you do is being recorded. Nothing but trouble is coming your way. Be afraid.