shads

To expand a little Australian politics has a bad habit of coming up with grandiose solutions to problems that they can push for headlines then worrying about details afterwards. If we had GDPR like privacy and data security laws in place before this it would be better. If we had a clear and understandable reporting system for data breaches, better again. If we had actual education programs to demystify and explain Internet awareness and literacy. If we had control over the scope of data harvesting.

But no we jump straight to the headline, details and workability can come sometime later.

Oh cool we solved identity theft then, right? Right? Seriously this is a poorly veiled mechanism to have Internet usage tied to specific identities, the people pushing for it are not even going to be the public faces we see doing the pushing. I also find it really telling that they have weaponised the grief of a mother who lost a child to suicide after sustained online bullying, but are choosing to ignore the fact that youth advocates are outright telling them that loss of online safe spaces and community will be jeopardising the safety of marginalised kids such as the LGBTQI+ community. How many suicides is an acceptable trade off for them?

My own kids will be forced to log out of YouTube, this makes it harder for me to monitor their usage as now it will all be anonymous and as much as I can helicopter around them at home, as the government seeming wants me to do, I won't be able to see any of the content they are consuming when I am not directly behind them. The current method is so smooth and frictionless that the kids don't bother with finding workarounds, the new system...

My take, leave the kids logged in with accounts and start holding social media companies accountable for the content they provide. It will be imminently more traceable when this stuff is reported and knowing they could be fined hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars when they fail their subscribers might convince these companies to do better.

Lastly, the government is already seeing alternatives spring up to take over these niches in the ecosystem. The fact that the ban hasn't even gone into effect yet and the whack-a-mole has already begun really says something. The only way these current laws can be salvaged once this cycle starts will be to institute blanket bans, rather than targeted. When every website with a comment section begins to ask for ID things are going to get messy, at that point OpSec goes out the window.

Apparently the eSafety commissioner can bring fines of up to $850k per user whose data has been mismanaged, but I don't see that happening. Discord leaked a bunch of details recently and to the best of my knowledge all that was required of them was a pinky promise to try harder.

I especially like how we are bending over and taking it from a Non-Profit so they can make more money.

Did what I could between Peter George and Rosalie Woodruff, but Dean Winter still got back in as did vice chairman Abetz.

As a state though we did the Australian Signature move of voting against our best interests. We aren't quite as polarised as the US yet but I see people whinging about Leftists with disturbing regularity.

Plus the whole way through this stadium crap they have been calling anyone with even basic questions about the process an "Anti". I always wanted to reply with Anti-Corruption, Anti-Crime, Anti-Bankruptcy. But most of those mouth breathers wouldn't appreciate that sort of nuanced position.

Have you seen the weather system down in Antartica that's driving those temperatures though? Shouldn't complain as it's keeping my tank topped off but I could do with a few more days of mid 20°+.

They don't that would be old people social media. Snapchat and Tiktok on the other hand... Maybe some Instagram.

Yeah I mean the one good thing we can agree on about social media is that it's a perfect record, no one lies and all the information uploaded to it is so truthful that you can basically treat it as a complete record. Imagine, if the opposite were true, people could engage with social media without having to provide any information they didn't want to. Not even going to get in to the pros and cons of this. But it all comes down to penalising those who engage in good faith. Don't forget, we have a wildly impractical law om the book that allows our government to compel any citizen who works for one of these large companies to install back doors into the system with a potential stay at a Federal prison for any objection or disclosure. The groundwork has been getting laid for a long time on this project.

So the government mandating ID checks on the must popular websites makes it harder to monitor people? You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Imagine if you couldn't enter certain public spaces without providing ID, because otherwise unsupervised kids might get in there, then imagine the records of who had been in that places was stored in some random spot online with only loose platitudes that the government expects companies to try really hard not to leak that data. Would you then feel that this was a safe place?

Also because the kids are smarter and more motivated than the government gives them credit, they start using work arounds to access that place, so the main way to get penalised and potentially have your identity stolen is to engage with this pointless and flawed system in good faith.

This is a debacle on an epic scale, they could instead be putting in place some real legal consequences for companies that facilitate or engage in abuse. We know for example that Facebook has experimented on manipulating algorithmic results of teenaged girls to make them better consumers by heightening body image issues. Round up the Australian Meta executive team and throw then in jail for a decade or two when that sort of shit comes out. When a data leak takes place extradite the CEO and give him a day of jail for every user that was put in jeopardy, it'll only take a couple of CEOs sing jailed for multiple centuries before data security becomes a top focus in every company.

No instead let's institute a poorly thought out ban on a non voting block, to disguise the first steps in establishing the framework of the actual surveillance state we are working up to.

If this law had even a tiny bit to do with protecting children they might start considering all the perverse incentives and counterintuitive outcomes. But since it is just a surveillance measure that they are couching in "won't somebody think of the children" they do not give a fuck.

The real players pushing this are unelected members of the intelligence community who are entirely insulated from accountability so they are going to push until they get their way no matter what it costs the country or how many politicians it costs their positions and/or souls.

Oh yeah, which one gets you going?

The substance affected bleach blonde answering the door in a towel then trying to entice the guy a couple of years younger than her with some transactional sex?

Chunky "straight" bear trying to get some strange off the straight & unimaginative delivery driver while his wife is out of the house?

Or the attempted blackmail after sexual misadventure with a meth-head?

I mean I can see all of those scenarios cropping up in different porn films, I'm not trying to yuck anyone's yum here.

Speaking from experience, the pizza delivery thing is weirdly plausible. I was propositioned twice while delivering Pizza, once by a very drunk lady who really wanted someone to take her to a particular club (about twenty minutes away) the other time by a guy who really wasn't my type, but apparently I was REALLY his. I politely declined on both occasions as besides the relative sobriety levels being a dealbreaker my girlfriend wouldn't have appreciated me taking up the first offer and I wouldn't have appreciated the second.

Plus another driver I worked with got invited in for some hanky panky at a remote house. The scantily clad woman rubbed up against him and stripped his clothes off, while her partner in crime stole all the cash he had on him. They then followed up by snapping a Polaroid and threatening to send it to the store if he told anyone. Obviously he didn't let that stop him and they never sent I'm the photo. Early stages of Meth abuse seem like fun.

Well that's embarassing, is it bad I felt compelled to immediately go fix that?