beeb
Dr. Beebenson, PhD HA, ST, Offset (hons)
...minus the park.
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
This is all only happening because we as individuals directly or indirectly condone it.
It sucks, but we like the life we've got. We like to travel, we like to buy shit, we like to live in big, comfortable houses.
But alas, this isn't scaling well...
It sucks, but we like the life we've got. We like to travel, we like to buy shit, we like to live in big, comfortable houses.
But alas, this isn't scaling well...
Calvin27
Eats Squid
That's the easy superficial stuff. The hard questions get asked when you think about the impact of population - how many kids you have. Then talk about basic lifestyle choice eating meat for example. Travel, consumption and housing are simple problems n comparison.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
Then you get into the really tough stuff like how many people are necessary to maintain the current level of societal development.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
Nope. It's consumption.
The average poor person emits a bare fraction of CO2 compared with a rich person.
I can't find the source right now, but remember reading that if every US citizen reduced their CO2 footprint to that of the average European, yearly global emissions would immediately reduce by 30%. Or something close to that figure. It's astonishing.
Poor people didn't get us into this mess. They will simply be the first to have to deal with it.
The average poor person emits a bare fraction of CO2 compared with a rich person.
I can't find the source right now, but remember reading that if every US citizen reduced their CO2 footprint to that of the average European, yearly global emissions would immediately reduce by 30%. Or something close to that figure. It's astonishing.
Poor people didn't get us into this mess. They will simply be the first to have to deal with it.
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
Likely to be something the U.S. wants? We are their bitch.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
Sure but 1 billion people consume a lot less than 7 billion.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
I'll repeat this graph:
We need to reduce emissions by those figures per annum to reach zero (0) carbon output by 2030 to cap the temp increase to 1.5-2 degrees C (maybe...there's only a chance that this will work).
The average Strayan emits 16.3t CO2/annum. The average Costa Rican, 1.6t. The average Haitan, 0.2t. The average Namibian, 1.3t. The average Tanzanian, 0.2t.
Fuck me, I drove to visit my mate in Vic & emitted more BMW M2 tailpipe CO2 than the average Tanzanian does in a year.
We rich folk can stop emitting. Or the poor folk can stop living. Is that the choice we have?
We need to reduce emissions by those figures per annum to reach zero (0) carbon output by 2030 to cap the temp increase to 1.5-2 degrees C (maybe...there's only a chance that this will work).
The average Strayan emits 16.3t CO2/annum. The average Costa Rican, 1.6t. The average Haitan, 0.2t. The average Namibian, 1.3t. The average Tanzanian, 0.2t.
Fuck me, I drove to visit my mate in Vic & emitted more BMW M2 tailpipe CO2 than the average Tanzanian does in a year.
We rich folk can stop emitting. Or the poor folk can stop living. Is that the choice we have?
Comic Book Guy
Likes Bikes and Dirt
The criminals, as they will be able to take advantage of a broken encryption system.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
I think its at least safe to say no one believes the government has any clue about what it is they're implementing on this one....
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Cant we have both?
I haven’t met a security practitioner or an academic in the cyber and sec space (shit, I can even show you ethicists that acknowledge the requirement) that isn’t fully behind this access.
Not to say that the legislation is perfect, but this action came from the security community, not the governing coalition.
Not to say that the legislation is perfect, but this action came from the security community, not the governing coalition.
Binaural
Eats Squid
I would propose that "stupid politicians don't or can't understand technology, yet want to regulate it" is the right card to play here. Christian Porter claims that 95% of terrorists use encrypted communications as his killer point. Well, 100% of people who use a browser to check their email do so with an encrypted protocol (HTTPS). The reason all technology companies are against mandatory backdoors is that they are available to everyone, not just the government.
Nevertheless, the effect may be less than we think. All the companies have to do to avoid the law is move their operations out of Australia, or ensure that they themselves can't crack the encryption between individuals - this what WhatsApp and Apple have done. Can't hand over the keys if you don't have them, after all. I'm fine with this, as law enforcement has a whole heap of options short of warrantless eavesdropping to detect potential attacks.
You see something like this for export controls, by the way. The US imposes something called ITAR controls that limit the export of certain technologies from the USA. These technologies have been brought to market anyway by engineers in other counties, and now a lack of US-made system components or technologies is a key selling point. If the federal government wants to play king Canute, that is the realistic endgame for a small country with minimal international leverage.
Last edited:
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
Graph (and science & shit) says no.
Binaural
Eats Squid
These people are, and they are perfectly aware of their own interests in this matter. These interests are not aligned with the people they wish to regulate.
If that's really what you believe, you need to cast your net much wider to understand why opposition to this abject stupidity is so broad.
- Many technology ethicists object to such backdoors because they are available to everybody, not just the government. Is it responsible government to weaken the protections that ordinary companies individuals wish to use to protect their privacy or legitimate commercial interests?
- Such backdoors and secret access provisions are often (usually) used to circumvent long-standing legal process such as search warrants which already empower a government to demand access to certain information under pain of contempt of court. See the PRISM scheme in the US and the vast shitfight that followed the disclosure of the program for the sort of everyday civil rights violations that it involved.
- Governments can't be trusted to protect privacy if they have the means to circumvent it, this is simply a fact borne out by innumberable examples. Even governments which are broadly in the mainstream of democracy may at times act in such a way, you can't just say "it won't happen here". Backdoors in Australia will lead inevitably to backdoors in Turkey. So far the tech community has stayed mostly ahead of this sort of ham-handed regulation, at least for individual communications, and may that long continue.
- Lastly, practically speaking - terrorists can avoid these laws by choosing different software. Any teenager would be capable of using a VPN to avoid a geoblock of suitable apps. Is the federal government going to ban Signal? So did Iran, who are not ordinarily a country we want to be bracketed with. There are millions of web-based secure email providers out there. This will simply ensure that this becomes Australia's version of DECO laws, to the benefit of everyone but Australia.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Pfft. scientists... What would that lot know anyway?
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I take it you have seen the new green space in my town?...minus the park.
You only have to look at the metadata access list to see how ridiculous this security backdoor system is... for example Greyhound Racing NSW have requested warrantless access to the metadata db... wtf? It's been proven time and time again that access is given to the wrong people - see Kim Dot Com being spied upon by the NZ government despite their statement to the opposite... all in the name of a civil crime case (copyright).
The Internet is an interesting beast in that it's cross border so it's hard to have local jurisdiction that's actually useful. But I do not support the government putting in these sorts of back doors. .. let's face it, 5 Eyes have full access to *anything* that goes remotely near the airwaves so why do we even need to bother?
The Internet is an interesting beast in that it's cross border so it's hard to have local jurisdiction that's actually useful. But I do not support the government putting in these sorts of back doors. .. let's face it, 5 Eyes have full access to *anything* that goes remotely near the airwaves so why do we even need to bother?