Astonishingly petty. Surely they could just remain in their seats and suck it up for the camera's sake even if they don't give a damn for politeness or tradition.
He's only PM -because- he was going to be a worse PM than Turnbull.
Also because he was going to be a better PM than Dutton, hence the splitting of the moderate Lib vote with.. was it Bishop? forcing her out of contention.
That is, the only reason Turnbull is out is because he was not a terrible enough PM.
The fact that these grown ass adults who are representatives in a democracy cannot just see kids protesting and at worst go "I respect their right to get involved in the conversation" is frankly disgusting. And to equate politically active, engaged kids with "no job hand out dole bludgers", as if it makes any sense or is morally ok, is just maddening.
I'm sick of these old rotten monsters smelling their own farts. The sooner they age out and all become the fossil fuel they love so dearly the better
The damage was done though as soon as the leaks started that there was to be a leadership spill.
It didn't matter that they couldn't get half the votes on Malcolm's piece of paper; so I'm not sure having 2/3 on Sco's would either.
While the rapidity of Prime Minister spills since Howard left politics is frankly embarrassing, if you can't keep at least half your members in line, and more than half are actively willing to stand against you, then you've got no fucking business being in the job.
The idea that 13 of 19 (as an example, you are the 20th) of your compatriots thinking you're doing a shit enough job that a change needs to be made, is not sufficient to expell you as leader of the country, is ludicrous.
That lines up with Dutton's Cormack's (whoever acts as PM in question time) non-answer to 'Where's Malcolm?' yesterday which was:
PMs must both enjoy a majority of support at an election, and have the confidence of a majority of the party.
ScoMo doesn't have the first.
God fucking damn it. This is so completely absurd that I knew Labor would cave in.
Edit: For more information on the proposed measures. I enjoy that the small detail of how actual tech companies will be able to enforce this is met with a resounding shrug from the politicians who're passing this. What an absurd power grab, and with both major parties supporting it, there's fuck-all anyone can do now.
I would expect tech companies to respond in much the same way amazon did to overseas tax changes, simply bar australians from being able to use their services. No-one in their right mind is going to open their services up to hacking in the way the gov't wants so the options will either be a) remove australia from being able to access the services wholesale or b) go the china route and create a separate aussie only version of the services that is open to hacking but safely quarantined from their main version of the services.
+5
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
If law enforcement cannot compel a service provider to create a systemic weakness for them, I don't see there being much encryption breaking or the like happening.
All I can see happening is demanding the provision of password hashes (which I think can happen already) or the removal of electronic safeguards to allow repeated access to password entry as opposed to 5 incorrect attempts then data-wipe.
The only other thing that I could see this being used for is potentially gaining access to account to account message metadata, so who is taking to whom but not the messages themselves.
But yeah, this all falls on the definition of 'systemic weakness'.
By the lay-reading, this should prevent encryption breaking or bugging or so on, as any provision of such a security weakness to one user allows the provision to all users.
Simon Bridges got kicked out of Parliament today. He accused the speaker of being biased and protecting the Prime Minister. The rest of the National party walked out over the next half hour.
It could all be a stunt but I honestly don't think he's clever enough. And the walk out was clearly unplanned.
Simon Bridges got kicked out of Parliament today. He accused the speaker of being biased and protecting the Prime Minister. The rest of the National party walked out over the next half hour.
It could all be a stunt but I honestly don't think he's clever enough. And the walk out was clearly unplanned.
I believe this morning they were attempting to accuse the PM of being absent, ignoring she's currently meeting with the South Koreans for talks, so it seems they're keeping up the theatrics.
Nope nope nope nopity nope fuck no noooooooooooope
Mandatory voting that requires IDs? No potential problems there.
My mind is fucking boggled. Everyone is required to vote. So you can't have someone vote using someone else's name without it becoming blatantly obvious.
So unless someone can show conclusive evidence that people are being found to have voted multiple times, get the fuck outta here.
+9
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Liberals are getting desperate to find reasons they will lose the next election but simply can’t admit that people just don’t fucking like the Conservatives taking over.
Liberals are getting desperate to find reasons they will lose the next election but simply can’t admit that people just don’t fucking like the Conservatives taking over.
It's what we're seeing in the US. Instead of considering how to moderate some of their positions, they double down and hope tribalism, voter apathy, and now potential voter suppression will carry them to a "win".
And driving moderate conservatives who might have a broader appeal from the party and electorate, in favor of the far right purity test bullshit that US Republicans are required to sign on to.
Nope nope nope nopity nope fuck no noooooooooooope
Mandatory voting that requires IDs? No potential problems there.
My mind is fucking boggled. Everyone is required to vote. So you can't have someone vote using someone else's name without it becoming blatantly obvious.
So unless someone can show conclusive evidence that people are being found to have voted multiple times, get the fuck outta here.
As different people is the important thing.
Every election some people do. There's always a few elderly people who basically go into every polling station they see and try to vote because they can't remember they did.
We know this because it gets picked up when they reconcile the books.
Nope nope nope nopity nope fuck no noooooooooooope
Mandatory voting that requires IDs? No potential problems there.
My mind is fucking boggled. Everyone is required to vote. So you can't have someone vote using someone else's name without it becoming blatantly obvious.
So unless someone can show conclusive evidence that people are being found to have voted multiple times, get the fuck outta here.
As different people is the important thing.
Every election some people do. There's always a few elderly people who basically go into every polling station they see and try to vote because they can't remember they did.
We know this because it gets picked up when they reconcile the books.
But that's not solved by this "solution".
Those same people will show up to the polling place, get their own name checked against their own ID, be found to be valid, and go on to the next polling place and do it all again.
What Voter ID prevents, is someone going to different (or the same if they're brazen enough) polling stations, and using someone else's name. And as everyone is manditorily required to vote, it only works if you know that person is intentionally not going to vote.
If there's a massive issue with people reporting that multiple votes in their name is not a result of confusion (like the example you used), I'd like to hear about it.
And I know it's anecdotal, but I've never heard of anyone I know getting called on having voted at multiple places.
Nope nope nope nopity nope fuck no noooooooooooope
Mandatory voting that requires IDs? No potential problems there.
My mind is fucking boggled. Everyone is required to vote. So you can't have someone vote using someone else's name without it becoming blatantly obvious.
So unless someone can show conclusive evidence that people are being found to have voted multiple times, get the fuck outta here.
As different people is the important thing.
Every election some people do. There's always a few elderly people who basically go into every polling station they see and try to vote because they can't remember they did.
We know this because it gets picked up when they reconcile the books.
But that's not solved by this "solution".
Those same people will show up to the polling place, get their own name checked against their own ID, be found to be valid, and go on to the next polling place and do it all again.
What Voter ID prevents, is someone going to different (or the same if they're brazen enough) polling stations, and using someone else's name. And as everyone is manditorily required to vote, it only works if you know that person is intentionally not going to vote.
If there's a massive issue with people reporting that multiple votes in their name is not a result of confusion (like the example you used), I'd like to hear about it.
And I know it's anecdotal, but I've never heard of anyone I know getting called on having voted at multiple places.
Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing.
Mandatory voting is (1) important for a democracy and (2) guarantees in person vote fraud can't happen (at the extremely low rate it might anyway).
electricitylikesme on
+3
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Is it possible to voter suppress with mandatory voting?
Is it possible to voter suppress with mandatory voting?
Sort of. You don't have to cast a valid vote, so there are tricks politicians can pull to try and divert votes into spoiled ballots. Off the top of my head
voter apathy ==> dicks drawn on ballot
choosing deliberately confusing party names ==> people think they're voting for someone else
preference deals ==> people who don't pay attention and don't bother voting below the line can find their vote trickling down to a party they don't actually like
but many of these can backfire quite badly, so it's a dicey strategy.
Preference deals aren't a thing anymore since the Libs got annoyed and removed them, due to independents gaming the system and putting all other independents first before any major party, regardless of whether they share views or not. This meant some independent was guaranteed to win the seat, but in some cases with like 0.5% of the primary vote.
They still make deals about how their 'how to vote' cards are ordered though.
Not sure if anyone uses those though.
Is it possible to voter suppress with mandatory voting?
Sort of. You don't have to cast a valid vote, so there are tricks politicians can pull to try and divert votes into spoiled ballots. Off the top of my head
voter apathy ==> dicks drawn on ballot choosing deliberately confusing party names ==> people think they're voting for someone else
preference deals ==> people who don't pay attention and don't bother voting below the line can find their vote trickling down to a party they don't actually like
but many of these can backfire quite badly, so it's a dicey strategy.
This one got Leyonhjelm in because calling his party the Liberal Democrats caused a bunch of new voters to think they were voting for the LNP.
Is it possible to voter suppress with mandatory voting?
Sort of. You don't have to cast a valid vote, so there are tricks politicians can pull to try and divert votes into spoiled ballots. Off the top of my head
voter apathy ==> dicks drawn on ballot choosing deliberately confusing party names ==> people think they're voting for someone else
preference deals ==> people who don't pay attention and don't bother voting below the line can find their vote trickling down to a party they don't actually like
but many of these can backfire quite badly, so it's a dicey strategy.
This one got Leyonhjelm in because calling his party the Liberal Democrats caused a bunch of new voters to think they were voting for the LNP.
They also had first position on the ballot that year I think.
So people didn't look any further.
Preference deals aren't a thing anymore since the Libs got annoyed and removed them, due to independents gaming the system and putting all other independents first before any major party, regardless of whether they share views or not. This meant some independent was guaranteed to win the seat, but in some cases with like 0.5% of the primary vote.
They still make deals about how their 'how to vote' cards are ordered though.
Not sure if anyone uses those though.
yeah it's out of date now, but historically that was a method you could wangle behind the scenes to try and score points off inattentive voters
None of these are super effective though, which I think is important. It takes a lot of work to disenfranchise people in a mandatory system with solid voting protections.
Crimes, smartphone applications and data can cross borders thanks to the internet, and the proposed legislation is part of a push to allow authorities greater access to suspects' secure messages.
"The lack of access to encrypted communications presents an increasingly significant barrier for national security and law enforcement agencies," Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said when introducing the bill to parliament in mid-September.
But if it passed, the Assistance and Access Bill's expansive powers could make Australia a troubling test case for the rest of the world, according to some critics.
A coalition of mostly American civil society groups and technology companies, including Apple and Microsoft, outlined issues with a draft version of the law in a submission to the Government, and members continue to voice concerns about its amended version.
The group fears the bill's proposed powers, which could see technology and telecommunication companies, among others, made to build new ways of intercepting emails or text messages, could have serious implications for online security overseas as well as domestically.
The 'Five Eyes' network
The submission's signatories are concerned about any attempt, anywhere in the world, to undermine encryption — the process that keeps online products and services secure, said Sharon Bradford Franklin, its co-author and Open Technology Institute's director of cybersecurity policy in Washington, DC.
The Government maintains that the bill cannot be used to demand the creation of "systemic" vulnerabilities, such as undermining encryption across all devices.
However, it does include a list of things a provider could be called on to do for authorities, including "installing, maintaining, testing or using software or equipment".
The coalition's submission states that installing "unknown" or "untested" software could introduce unexpected vulnerabilities into a manufacturer's products, among other outcomes.
"Tools that are available to Australia, number one, risk damaging the cyber security of everybody, depending on what type of changes tech companies are forced to make to their products and services," Ms Franklin said.
Technology policy in Five Eyes countries is considered to have global impact, according to Amie Stepanovich, global policy counsel at the open internet advocacy group Access Now in Washington.
Australia is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, which includes Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Another concern is that a technical capability built for an Australian investigation could be a gateway for similar requests overseas.
"In Apple versus the FBI, Apple said 'we can't do that'," Ms Franklin said, referring to the 2016 case in which Apple refused an FBI order demanding it provide access to the iPhone 5C of the San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook.
The company said to do so would threaten the security of all iPhones, and the agency was able to access the device another way.
"If there were the legal authority to require [Apple] to do that once, then they would be hard pressed to argue in another jurisdiction that they can't do that for the second country," she said.
+1
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
People who don’t know how technology works are making decisions after speaking to people who don’t know how technology works for political point scoring.
Posts
The Libs were big fans of the Gonski Plan until they realised that Gonski didn't describe what would be left of our natural resources afterwards.
Banks confirms she'll vote to refer Dutton if it comes up.
The liberals only hope is that the threat that they'll force a referral of some Labor MPs and Phelps in response.
Astonishingly petty. Surely they could just remain in their seats and suck it up for the camera's sake even if they don't give a damn for politeness or tradition.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Also because he was going to be a better PM than Dutton, hence the splitting of the moderate Lib vote with.. was it Bishop? forcing her out of contention.
That is, the only reason Turnbull is out is because he was not a terrible enough PM.
Someone got spooked.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I'm sick of these old rotten monsters smelling their own farts. The sooner they age out and all become the fossil fuel they love so dearly the better
The damage was done though as soon as the leaks started that there was to be a leadership spill.
It didn't matter that they couldn't get half the votes on Malcolm's piece of paper; so I'm not sure having 2/3 on Sco's would either.
Morrison can go and get fucked.
While the rapidity of Prime Minister spills since Howard left politics is frankly embarrassing, if you can't keep at least half your members in line, and more than half are actively willing to stand against you, then you've got no fucking business being in the job.
The idea that 13 of 19 (as an example, you are the 20th) of your compatriots thinking you're doing a shit enough job that a change needs to be made, is not sufficient to expell you as leader of the country, is ludicrous.
PMs must both enjoy a majority of support at an election, and have the confidence of a majority of the party.
ScoMo doesn't have the first.
To fuck it up.
God fucking damn it. This is so completely absurd that I knew Labor would cave in.
Edit: For more information on the proposed measures. I enjoy that the small detail of how actual tech companies will be able to enforce this is met with a resounding shrug from the politicians who're passing this. What an absurd power grab, and with both major parties supporting it, there's fuck-all anyone can do now.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
All I can see happening is demanding the provision of password hashes (which I think can happen already) or the removal of electronic safeguards to allow repeated access to password entry as opposed to 5 incorrect attempts then data-wipe.
The only other thing that I could see this being used for is potentially gaining access to account to account message metadata, so who is taking to whom but not the messages themselves.
But yeah, this all falls on the definition of 'systemic weakness'.
By the lay-reading, this should prevent encryption breaking or bugging or so on, as any provision of such a security weakness to one user allows the provision to all users.
So, this is absolutely another "dog driving a car" law, isn't it?
"We have no idea what we are doing, no business being in the drivers seat, but fuck it, pedal to the floor."
How many idiotic internet laws are we going to see passed that are either toothless or unenforceable?
The answer, obviously, is "all of them".
The dumbest thing has to be the clause in this 'anti-encryption' bill that says 'we cannot use this to remove encryption'
State anti-corruption bodies.
So specifically politicians will be protected from these new laws. Fuck off.
It could all be a stunt but I honestly don't think he's clever enough. And the walk out was clearly unplanned.
I believe this morning they were attempting to accuse the PM of being absent, ignoring she's currently meeting with the South Koreans for talks, so it seems they're keeping up the theatrics.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Mandatory voting that requires IDs? No potential problems there.
My mind is fucking boggled. Everyone is required to vote. So you can't have someone vote using someone else's name without it becoming blatantly obvious.
So unless someone can show conclusive evidence that people are being found to have voted multiple times, get the fuck outta here.
It's what we're seeing in the US. Instead of considering how to moderate some of their positions, they double down and hope tribalism, voter apathy, and now potential voter suppression will carry them to a "win".
And driving moderate conservatives who might have a broader appeal from the party and electorate, in favor of the far right purity test bullshit that US Republicans are required to sign on to.
As different people is the important thing.
Every election some people do. There's always a few elderly people who basically go into every polling station they see and try to vote because they can't remember they did.
We know this because it gets picked up when they reconcile the books.
But that's not solved by this "solution".
Those same people will show up to the polling place, get their own name checked against their own ID, be found to be valid, and go on to the next polling place and do it all again.
What Voter ID prevents, is someone going to different (or the same if they're brazen enough) polling stations, and using someone else's name. And as everyone is manditorily required to vote, it only works if you know that person is intentionally not going to vote.
If there's a massive issue with people reporting that multiple votes in their name is not a result of confusion (like the example you used), I'd like to hear about it.
And I know it's anecdotal, but I've never heard of anyone I know getting called on having voted at multiple places.
Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing.
Mandatory voting is (1) important for a democracy and (2) guarantees in person vote fraud can't happen (at the extremely low rate it might anyway).
Sort of. You don't have to cast a valid vote, so there are tricks politicians can pull to try and divert votes into spoiled ballots. Off the top of my head
voter apathy ==> dicks drawn on ballot
choosing deliberately confusing party names ==> people think they're voting for someone else
preference deals ==> people who don't pay attention and don't bother voting below the line can find their vote trickling down to a party they don't actually like
but many of these can backfire quite badly, so it's a dicey strategy.
They still make deals about how their 'how to vote' cards are ordered though.
Not sure if anyone uses those though.
This one got Leyonhjelm in because calling his party the Liberal Democrats caused a bunch of new voters to think they were voting for the LNP.
They also had first position on the ballot that year I think.
So people didn't look any further.
yeah it's out of date now, but historically that was a method you could wangle behind the scenes to try and score points off inattentive voters
None of these are super effective though, which I think is important. It takes a lot of work to disenfranchise people in a mandatory system with solid voting protections.
Voter ID would definitely do it, though.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-02/proposed-surveillance-laws-draw-international-criticism/10300170
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/05/why-we-are-governed-by-idiots-and-you-should-be-worried