Les Kitchen (LUV) wrote:
> Start: Mar 4 2014 19:00
> End: Mar 4 2014 21:00
> Location: The Buzzard Lecture Theatre. Evan Burge Building,
> Trinity College, Melbourne University Main Campus, Parkville.
> Link: http://luv.asn.au/meetings/map
>
> Suelette Dreyfus: Whistleblowers
>
> Colby Swandale: Vagrant
>
> Suelette Dreyfus is a Research Fellow in the Department of
> Computing and Information Systems at the University of
> Melbourne. Her research interests include: Digital
> whistleblowing; Health informatics; Computer security and
> hacking; Organisational change; Social media for school
> education. See
> http://www.cis.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff.php?person_ID=7291.
> She was a keynote speaker at this year's Linux Conference
> Australia, http://linux.conf.au/media/news.
>
Curiously no mention of her as the famous author of:
"Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic
Frontier"
........with research by Julian Assange
regards Rohan McLeod
Quoting "Tim Josling" <tim.josling(a)gmail.com>
> From: Petros
>
>
>> Quoting "Tim Josling"
>
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people
>>> arriving by boat or plane, if any?
>>
>> What we do now is not "dicouraging" - we are plainly refuse to help
>> others and push them away.
>>
>> From personal experience: besides of shooting people there is not
>> much you can do. I know an East German woman who was smuggled by bad
>> bad people (the West Germans called them "freedom helpers" then - it
>> is all a matter of perspective isn't;-) She was not in material
>> strife, not harmed in physical ways etc. - she was just sick of living
>> under Communism.
>>
>> The proposal above includes a camp for screening etc - it is not a
>> free ticket.
>>
>
> You did not provide an answer to the question.
I did. You just do not like the answer.
People from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Sri Lanka etc. are not fleeing
for fun - they escape war, were tortured, have often lost relatives etc.
The only deterrence is making life more miserable than in a war.
Finally killing them. That what we start to do now.
It is a crime. Full stop.
Regards
Peter
Quoting "Tim Josling" <tim.josling(a)gmail.com>
> From: Petros
>> Since when is the Migration Department responsible for running the
>> navy? What is the Department for Defence for? What is that dude of a
>> general standing next to Scotty when he does not report about his
>> service for our glorious country?
>>
>> It is a shame that this country not even sees how pathetic this show
>> is. Monty Python is just half as funny as this.
>>
>> Well, Hitler was funny too. Just watch Charlie Chaplin.
>>
> As an aside, Chaplin actually got into a bit of trouble for that
> movie. It confirmed in the minds of some that he was a leftist (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator#Reception )
>
> " During its production the British government announced that it
> would prohibit its exhibition in the United Kingdom in keeping with
> its appeasement policy concerning Nazi Germany."
>
> Of course things changed shortly thereafter as views about Hitler changed.
Well, it just shows that so called Realpolitik does not want to know
about moral standards.
Last week a man died on Manus Island. His name is Reza Berat, he is a
Kurdish refugee coming from Iran.
Here some background (Wikipedia). (By accident I know someone from the
similar background who had some horrible years before his family was
safe, finally.)
"In modern times the Feylis have been subject to state
persecution.[6][7] They are considered as a stateless people, with
both Iran and Iraq claiming they are citizens of the other country."
More detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feylis
The riots were more or less known to happen. I am not the only one who
is not surprised.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/tensions-at-detention-centre-had-been-brewin…
And, having not dealt with the situation, it will happen again.
In a bizarre twist there is a new 20 month contract to run the centre
with the same staff responsible for the dealings. Worth 1.2 billion
Dollars.
Australia is disregarding its obligations, breaks International law
and is responsible for death, serious injuries and systematic
deterioration of physical and mental health of people fleeing
persecution and war, including women and children.
We are responsible for it.
If that isn't a disgrace - I do not know what is.
Australia is run by a bunch of bullies and many people behave like it:
All fine as long as it does not him them. Just have a five bedroom
house with three toilets for family synchrone shitting. And encourage
the bully to hit others.
Regards
Peter
From: Petros
>Quoting "Tim Josling"
>
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people
>> arriving by boat or plane, if any?
>
>What we do now is not "dicouraging" - we are plainly refuse to help
>others and push them away.
>
> From personal experience: besides of shooting people there is not
>much you can do. I know an East German woman who was smuggled by bad
>bad people (the West Germans called them "freedom helpers" then - it
>is all a matter of perspective isn't;-) She was not in material
>strife, not harmed in physical ways etc. - she was just sick of living
>under Communism.
>
>The proposal above includes a camp for screening etc - it is not a
>free ticket.
>
You did not provide an answer to the question.
>> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there
>> still be a limit?
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>The only rub: the one arriving have to e dealt with. This is part of
>our obligations - at the moment a legal one we do not fulfil.
>
You did not answer the question. What would you change the quota to?
>> 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported
>> if they did not get work?
>
>Of course they should work - it is in their and our interest. I
>mentioned that.
>
We have an answer - 1/3!
>> 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are
>> 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of
>> one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level
>> of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout
>> a long-drawn-out legal process?
>
>The majority of people arriving here are recognised by legal processes
>as genuine.
>
>We just stopped processing them - ignoring our obligations.
>
You did not answer the question.
>> 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe
>> these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous
>> question?
>
>I described them in detail above.
>
>>> Instead of locking up people (please explain what we will do with
>>> them in Nauru or PNG?) infinitely, we can establish a routine and
>>> timeframe which is balanced on needs to run security checks, as
>>> well as helping refugees to adapt and train to fit into our
>>> society. Running the internal affairs while in the camp (e.g. cook
>>> for themself, build houses etc.) helps them - and maks it cheaper
>>> for us too.
>
What does this mean? What you are saying is that we could establish a
policy and it would be good. That is not the same as actually stating your
policy.
>If we aim for all peopke being processed in a year - that would give
>them hope and us time to screen.
>
You cannot apply an arbitrary limit to a legal and investigative process.
This is nonsense. There will be people whose cases are not determined
within 12 months. Then what?
>> 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or
>> who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
>please explain what we will do with
>>> them in Nauru or PNG?
>
>As done before. We send them back.
OK. We now have two answers - 2/6.
>
>> 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People
>> arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their
>> predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It
>> is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute
>> them?" and expect a useful answer.
>
>As Trent wrote, there will be false positives. I mean, even I sneaked
>in this country - who knows what I did in the past? False papers
>happen for 1000 years. It is the job of the processing parties to
>figure out - it has done before and until now we did it more or less
>right, the Opera House is still standing;-)
>
No answered.
>> 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could
>> do? How would you enforce this?
>
>We have that in place, we have regional visas.
>
>Every employer asks for the visa, and Centrelink too, I believe.
>
No answered. Saying <we have that now> does not answer the question of what
is your policy recommendation.
>> 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving
>> world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution?
>
>Well, the current government thinks we are doing so badly that we have
>to slash International aid..
>
>There is a problem with International aid - it is subject of being
>purpose-driven and feeds corrupt regimes.
>
>Personally I believe it is better to donate on a personal level to an
>organisation you trust.
>
>> Then you should be able to have a chance of estimating the impact on
>> the existing occupants of Australia. In particular, impacts on
>> government finances, the job market, funding requirements for
>> infrastructure, and social impacts.
>
>Half-way self-serving community camps, regional development visas
>(taking in account "our needs" etc. are helping us to cope with the
>costs we have now.
>
>I mean, we are dealing with the Navy, with lifeboats, financing camps
>in other countries - do you think that is cheap?
>
>It is not. Curiously nobody asks how much we spend on this. And you
>know what answer you what get from Shire Scotty. "Operational matters"
>- we do not even have the right to know.
>
>> I would suggest that you policy proposals are well short of what is
>> needed, in the sense that a hill of beans is short of the Himalayas.
>
>Well, that's what I can illustrate (to give you an idea) in a few minutes.
>
>I asked you before:
>
>>> please explain what we will do with them [refugees] in Nauru or PNG?
>
>Can you please answer one question? Thank you.
>
See my previous email. They would be detained in spartan conditions until
they reach the top of the queue (if they are accepted refugees) or they are
repatriated.
>> Again I ask if people are serious - as opposed to moral posturing -
>> why don't they come up with a specific proposal and show us the
>> analysis of its impact?
>
>Did you do one for the politics in place?
>
By definition the current policy is defined by what is currently being
done. I can reverse engineer this as well as anyone. It is much the same as
my policy with the exception a) more legal aid in the current policy b) a
lower quota than I propose.
>The one we have in place is above scrutiny, an operation where the
>government cries foul if someone wants to report etc. - do not ask
>questions!
>
>Since when is the Migration Department responsible for running the
>navy? What is the Department for Defence for? What is that dude of a
>general standing next to Scotty when he does not report about his
>service for our glorious country?
>
>It is a shame that this country not even sees how pathetic this show
>is. Monty Python is just half as funny as this.
>
>Well, Hitler was funny too. Just watch Charlie Chaplin.
>
As an aside, Chaplin actually got into a bit of trouble for that movie. It
confirmed in the minds of some that he was a leftist (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator#Reception)
"During its production the British government announced that it would
prohibit its exhibition in the United Kingdom in keeping with its
appeasement <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement> policy concerning
Nazi Germany."
Of course things changed shortly thereafter as views about Hitler changed.
>The politics in place are made up to buy votes and to distract from
>other problems.
>
>Thinking about Corby and the boats may prevent you from thinking why,
>finally, our industry falls apart while some are getting fatter and
>fatter.
>
>But the falling apart is good for Liberals and fat cats: at Ford and
>Toyota and Alcoa and SPC the workers have the smell of unions on them.
>
>Well, it is as having a fly in your ear. Take the gun and shoot the fly!
>
>That's how this country gets governed. With a foresight of three
millimetres.
>
I could not find an answer to the question among all that. Plenty of abuse
of the stupidity and evil of governments, the Australian people, evil
corporations etc.
This suggests you would not increase official aid "Personally I believe it
is better to donate on a personal level to an organisation you trust." so I
will give you 1/2 for this questions.
>Good luck with this
>Pete
You scored ... 2.5 out of 9. About the same as the "Greens".
I believe that is a person is genuinely interested in helping the needy of
the world they will a) Donate significant resources of their own (
http://80000hours.org/what-is-an-effective-altruist) to that cause, and b)
If they believe Australia's refuges policy is significant in this regard
they will have in mind a well thought out policy whose implications they
have considered.
On the other hand, a person who is more interested in status whoring will
a) devote large fractions of their postings to denunciations of the evils
of other people, and b) Be less interested in articulating and analyzing an
actual policy proposal.
Applying Bayes's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem) to
most posts on this topic, the probabilities have shifted more to the latter
hypothesis in my view.
Sorry for the slow reply. I have had some health issues in my family and
other technical problems, to wit an exploding PC. Also I was trying to find
a way to get people to actually articulate their policies with no success.
Tim Josling
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:33:43 +1100
From: "Lev Lafayette"
Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au
Message-ID:
<2df1d8a631f1b032f8386d080bbee7a6.squirrel(a)webmail.levlafayette.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> ...
>> Not that hours of searching were able to uncover. If what you are saying
>> were true, it would be very simple to provide a link, or to fill in the
>> answers the questions. I had no trouble finding proposals for other
issues
>> such as global warming.
>This took three seconds - and for the record I'm neither a Greens member
>or voter.
>http://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees
> Lev Lafayette ...
The url does indeed contain the word "policies" but the headings on the
page are "Principles" and "Aims" and it is indeed a *very* high level
document.
Let's map it against my questions that an actual policy would easily answer
> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by
boat or plane, if any?
Not clear, though they state that "mandatory and/or indefinite detention"
would be eliminated. [What is non-mandatory detention by the way? Would
they retain <voluntary> detention? Or do they really mean automatic?] Not
clear if carriers would still be penalized for bring in people without
visas. See also Q5 below.
Not fully answered.
> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be
a limit?
There would still be a quota, but it would be increased to an *unspecified*
number.
Not fully answered.
> 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if
they did not get work?
" Asylum seekers to have work rights, and access to social security, legal
representation, interpreters, health services, case management, and
appropriate education for the duration of their assessment." Presumably
this is after the initial checks mentioned in Q5 below. No indication what
happens to those who are rejected as asylum seekers.
Not fully answered.
> 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine'
refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or
another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be
possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal
process?
> 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these
arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question?
"Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a
maximum of 30 days, asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to be
accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with
periodic judicial review thereafter." Note that this seems to contradict
(1) above, in that it seems to imply some form of temporary detention, and
perhaps permanent detention for those who fail security etc checks. They
imply that people can be detained with court approval. But not very clear.
Not clearly answered.
> 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who
are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
" fair and appropriate accommodation" would be provided. Not clear if they
are allowed to work or not.
Not clearly answered.
> 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive
without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You
cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this
person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful
answer.
There is no explicit description of what happens to people whose status is
or remains uncertain.
Not clearly answered.
> 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do?
How would you enforce this?
"Greater incentives for rural and regional distribution of refugees and
immigrants using successful models for settlement." This is rather
mealy-mouthed and it is hard to know whether any restrictions would apply.
Not clearly answered.
> 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world
hunger (as suggested above) **as part of the solution**?
There is no mention of increased foreign aid within the page referred to.
But elsewhere they propose a significant increase in foreign aid.
Not clearly answered.
So I am giving them 0/9 or 2/9 (Q3 is fairly close and perhaps Q9) and I am
saying this is a poor excuse for a policy.
---
To be fair, and on the principle of not asking someone to do what you are
not prepared to do myself, here are my answers:
> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by
boat or plane, if any?
Significant penalties for carriers who bring in people without visas.
Mandatory detention of unsolicited arrivals until a) They are found to be
refugees per the UN definition, and b) They reach the top of the refugee
queue.
While this seems cruel at a first approximation, my argument is that this
will reduce unsafe arrivals (eg by boat) to low levels, and, combined with
an increase in the quota, is a better solution that what we have. I think
that for any given level of intake that we are prepared to accept, taking
that number in an orderly way is better than encouraging people to risk
their lives on boats.
> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be
a limit?
Increase to 100,000 at the expense of family reunion quota and the lower
end of skilled migration.
> 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if
they did not get work?
No. They would be provided with subsistence support in custody. Children
would receive basic education to year 10.
> 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine'
refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or
another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be
possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal
process?
Applicants would be fully vetted administratively. Legal costs would not be
paid for by taxpayers for any appeals.
> 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these
arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question?
Yes they would be detained as per (1). Similar to current arrangements
including offshore detention.
> 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who
are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
Deport if possible otherwise detain.
> 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive
without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You
cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this
person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful
answer.
Decisions would be made on the balance of probability. If there are
indications of deliberate destruction of documentation, or false claims,
this would be taken into account.
> 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do?
How would you enforce this?
No. Once released from detention, once they have reached the top of the
queue they would get work permits and a path to citizenship subject to the
usual requirements.
> 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world
hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution?
I don't believe that any feasible increase in foreign aid by Australia
would have any noticeable impact on refugee numbers. But for other reasons
I would support an increase in foreign aid to around 1% of GDP and the
removal of strings attached (eg must buy Australian products).
My assessment of the impact of such a policy is
a) A rapid reduction of unsolicited arrivals as happened in the past when
word got around that a boat ticket only got you a ride to a detention camp.
b) Slightly reduced welfare of the Australian people due to the foreign aid
cost and to a certain extent a reduction in the average quality of
immigrants. By definition if we are selecting people on the basis of
refugee status, then other factors like skills and assets will have lower
priority.
c) Unhappiness among communities that enjoy family reunion.
---
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not claim that the above policy is
wonderful, and that it avoids all suffering. I claim that it is probably
politically tenable, albeit at or close to the limits of what the
electorate will stand.
Contrary to what happens in school, the world does not always send us
problems that have simple, clean, appealing solutions. The refugee issue is
IMHO opinion a problem that does not have such solutions.
Tim Josling
I want to choose a tablet, mostly for use by family members - although I'll
probably end up running applications on it myself to some extent. I'll
undoubtedly be the "technical support" for it.
What I have in mind:
A 10/10.1" tablet - size is negotiable to some degree.
Reliable, long-lasting hardware, i.e., not low-quality components from a
company that expects you to buy a replacement within several years.
Ability to take a data SIM card, without requiring it, i.e., it will run from
a local wireless LAN whether or not there's a SIM card installed, but we can
buy a card for it if desired. LTE isn't essential but would be desirable for
the sake of low-latency and high speed. Apparently, at least in other parts
of the world, LTE is great for VoIP applications and it would be desirable to
support these if Australian networks reach the point of being suitable in
the coming years. I've heard very good reports about network latency on LTE
connections in North America, for example.
More than sufficient memory and CPU performance - this is a case of "buy the
hardware and use it for as long as possible without replacing/upgrading".
Software upgrades available well into the future, including security support
and new versions of the operating system.
It will be coming into an "all Linux" environment, which suggests Android
might be the best operating system, but I'm certainly open to other
possibilities.
It will be used for the usual kinds of applications: Web, mail, video/audio
playback, possibly GPS navigation (if a SIM card is purchased at some point).
Other applications are possible, too.
I know there are enumerable brands/models that will meet many of the above
requirements, but I don't know which manufacturers and models occupy the
quality end of the spectrum so far as hardware, longevity and software
reliability are concerned. I'm looking for one of the "engineered to work
exactly as advertised" options.
