Andrew Schulz and Akaash Singh dissect Australia's new legislation granting police unprecedented powers to access phones for dark web crimes, debating if this targets pedophilia or serves as a "smoke screen" for broader surveillance. They critique the vague definitions of terrorism that led to investigations over songs and comments, citing the Friendly Geordies case where anti-terror police raided a corruption accusation. Ultimately, the discussion questions whether focusing on child pornography via Apple's scanning saves lives more effectively than addressing drunk driving, suggesting the law may prioritize political control over genuine safety. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Catching Traffickers on Dark Web00:10:31
What up, people?
Sheltie here, and you guys are about to listen to a clip from our weekly Patreon episode.
If you want to sign up to our Patreon, support the flagrancy, support what we are doing.
Completely uncensored, flagrant content.
You go to patreon.com/slash flagrant2 with no more interruptions.
Here is the exclusive clip.
Let's talk about what's happening in Australia.
A lot of people have been DMing me.
I'm sure they've been DMing you guys, and they're like, please talk about what's happening here in Australia.
There are crazy wildfires that are spiders too.
There's bad spiders.
There's spiders there, but is it still on fire or it stopped a fire?
No, it stopped a fire.
Yeah, I think Louis Spears put out the fire with his donation.
Remember, he had the special and that was, yeah.
Okay, so Louis Spears put out the fire.
Shout out to you, Lewis.
No, but what's really going on in Australia?
We have a video we're going to watch.
Here is the video.
Go.
Legislation passed in Parliament will give police unprecedented powers to tackle criminals on the dark web, including pedophiles and traffickers.
But critics warn it turns Australia into a surveillance state and intrudes on the privacy of everyday citizens.
Okay, sir.
So, any expansion of government power comes at a direct cost of democracy.
I think that's what that guy said.
Yeah.
And obviously, that's the issue here.
And let's say, let's look at two things.
Best case scenario, these people want to get pedophiles out of there.
We all support that.
They're like, how the fuck do you get pedophiles out?
Wait, there's pedophiles, they're operating on the dark web.
Well, let's create some sort of legislation that allows you to go after pedophiles.
I think everybody supports that.
Worst case scenario, an overbearing State Department is using pedophilia as a way to get more control over the populace.
And I think that's what a lot of people are concerned about.
It's like, hey, we want pedophiles the fuck out of here too.
Do whatever you got to do to get the pedophiles out of here.
If you know what they're doing on the dark web, change their data, hack into their phones, do whatever the fuck you got to do, shoot them in the forehead.
We're all supportive.
The concern is, well, once you're doing for that, do you start doing it for people who are parking illegally?
Here's what got me, and I don't remember the exact words, but they said something about the data law.
And it said, you know, if there's suspicious activity, such as child pornography, such as means we can do whatever we want.
This is just one example of activity we don't have.
It said child pornography and other crimes.
And other crimes.
So what if, okay, so what if, for example, it was isolated to a few crimes.
It was isolated to child pornography, human trafficking, terrorism.
And what if it was only those three things?
And let's have an open discussion about it, right?
Because I understand if it's child pornography and other crimes, they're basically using child pornography as a smoke screen to go into every one of your phones and say, hey, Patriot, are you downloading some illegal videos?
Hey, did you not pay your fucking parking tickets?
Hey, are you selling alcohol out of your bar that you haven't been approved by the state to sell?
They can go after an illegal poker game that you're having with your friends.
They can do anything they want.
But they're using pedophilia as the smoke screen.
It's like, you're not even really trying to help stop pedophilia.
What you're really trying to do is just arrest as many people who are breaking law as possible.
And maybe they start to use it for COVID stuff.
I mean, Australia is shutting down, it feels like every couple of weeks, right?
There's a few cases that pop up and all of a sudden they shut the whole fucking city down.
So are they going to start tracking people who may or may not have COVID, may or may not be in contact with people with COVID, and then just start arresting them and putting them, you know, I don't know, even in jail or in these forced quarantines.
Right.
And those, all those cases are even just like semi-justified, you know, breaking of the law or like moral misconduct or whatever you want to call it.
But like, we've also seen all these other cases where they just take out people that they don't like to be, that are causing issues for the state.
You know what I mean?
So, like, I mean, there's a million documentaries like making a murder or whatever else, like, where people are unjustly prosecuted and put in jail because either one, the state doesn't like them, the local community doesn't like them, or because of some other like outlying factor like race or whatever else.
So this is this is very interesting.
If you don't isolate the crimes to the big three or whatever you are, or whatever you say.
Even if you do, it costs.
Even if you do, but let's say, for example, you isolate, if you don't, if there is some wiggle room for other crimes to go in there, let's say there's a politician you don't like.
They're getting a lot of support.
You pop on their laptop, you find out, oh, he's downloading torrents of these movies.
He's doing some illegal shit.
He has child porn on his computer.
Like you can put it on there under this new bill.
Oh, you're changing their data so you can place it.
You can add and delete evidence that police as well, according to what they just said in the video.
Oh, that's that's fucked up.
I don't want anybody to be able to add some shit to me.
Yeah, that seems highly.
I think that's how we're interpreting it, but I don't think.
They just said they can take control of your social accounts before they had to have access and approval.
You're not saying they're doing it, but they can.
I think they were saying, oh, we can take control of this person's social account if this person's known to like be the middleman for sex trafficking and now use that account to catch other people.
I think best case scenario is, and that's what they're saying about change data, meaning you can start interacting with other people.
Let's say you're running a child sex trafficking ring.
They could take control of your account, use that account to find all these other people that you're doing this child sex trafficking with, and then arrest all of them as well.
That's best case scenario.
Worst case scenario, this power in the wrong hands, and we know that power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts, was it absolute power corrupts, absolutely, whatever it is from Animal Farm.
It's like we know a politician might be like, yo, put some shit on that motherfucker's phone.
It doesn't have to be child porn.
It could be some real like dark, you know, weird, dark web pornography.
It could be like, who knows what the fuck it is, right?
It could be something like legal-esque, you know, like a little bit legal, a little bit illegal, something you wouldn't want a politician to have on their laptop.
And that could be put there.
And there might be no way to prove it.
It isn't there.
And that's why you have to like safeguard from these laws.
I understand the concern people have there.
Yeah, 100%.
Yeah.
And then the issue with the terrorism thing is what happened to this kid, Friendly Geordies.
And this is the thing that I brought up before.
What's that?
So this is, I'm pulling this information.
This is like a news article.
I didn't listen before, so it could seem interesting actually.
Yeah, on purpose.
This is like a bridge from a news article that's on Reddit.
But basically, what happened to this kid, Friendly Geordies, he was a YouTuber in Australia, and he accused a prominent politician of corruption.
So basically, he backed up his claims.
He had substantial evidence, all this other shit, saying that this politician was corrupt and that he lied.
And they had all his like previous times where he lied and like crossed himself and all this other shit and other times that he's corrupt.
The politician then puts the Australian anti-terrorist police squad on Friendly Geordies and his 20-year-old producer, basically saying, like, this guy is making threats against me.
He's encouraging violence against me.
He's spreading misinformation and defamation against me.
You guys got to go investigate him.
So basically, the anti-terrorist squad goes up to his house in plain clothes, goes through the door, injures the mom, almost kills the family dog, tackles him to the ground, takes him off in an unmarked police car, also sees the phone, and they have all legal access to access the phone and all the other data on the phone and the computer.
And so then the case goes before the court.
And in America, we'd be like, no, you can't do that.
You can't go into the phone without access, whatever, whatever, because we have rights and shit.
And then in front of the court, the defense was like, yeah, this is ridiculous.
He, the judge rules that the politician did not lie and thus was not corrupt.
And because he's a politician, he's able to lie in parliament.
And that's what they call parliamentary privilege.
If you're lying in order to like preserve, you know, the state.
And so he was found guilty of defamation.
And so the politician admitted that he called the anti-terrorism squad in his witness statement.
And now people are looking at this and they're like, okay, so they intimidated this kid, made an example of this kid because he was talking shit about the politicians.
And now they have all this additional access that they didn't have before.
They're like, what the fuck's happening?
Never underestimate.
All right, guys, we're going to take a break from this exclusive Patreon clip to tell you how to make money gambling.
And the way you do it is you do it with mybookie.ag.
It's mybookie.ag.
And I'm going to tell you exactly why you're going to do it because they're going to double that initial deposit up to $1,000.
I don't know why you would gamble with anybody else.
You just got to use the promo code Flagrant.
They're going to double the initial deposit bonus up to $1,000.
That's a free $1,000 that you get to gamble with.
Why would you gamble anywhere else?
Very simple.
MyBookie.ag.
You know what we got?
We got football.
We got UFC.
We got absolutely everything you could think of.
Mybookie.ag.
And they're giving you money to make the money.
You're crazy if you don't do it.
Mybookie.ag.
Make sure you use that promo code Flagrant and they are going to double your initial deposit bonus up to $1,000.
You are fucking welcome.
Matter of fact, you should cut me in.
Anyway, let's get back to this exclusive Patreon.
Never underestimate what a man is willing to do to ensure his salvation.
And when it comes to politicians, like you have to understand, the second you become a politician, you are doing shit that's corrupt.
I don't care if it's AOC.
I don't care if it's Biden.
I don't care if it's Trump.
I don't care.
Any politician is involved in some level of corruption, right?
And they might have some protection.
They might give the rights for someone to start building in downtown Miami.
Now they know who they're giving those rights to.
They might know that they're giving the rights to some real mafia guys, but they're like, hey, listen, they support the campaign.
They seem like good guys, but they know what's going on.
And they know where the privilege is bestowed, right?
How did the politicians get there?
They got money from corporations.
And now you're talking hella shit about the corporations.
And the guy goes, yo, can you handle this?
The corporation taps the shoulder of the politicians.
Dude, what the fuck is this guy doing?
He's killing us.
He's putting all this misinformation.
They made blackfish saying that we're killing fucking whales at SeaWorld.
Can you handle this?
Raytheon taps you on the shoulder.
Hey, we're going to need you to do us a favor.
There's a lot of people talking shit about our company.
We understand we make missiles, but we make other shit too.
And we don't want people to stop buying our shit just because we make some missiles for you guys to go to war and everybody makes it.
Someone like Epstein could literally be like, yo, this journalist is kicking around my door trying to interview people.
Like, can you just do an anime characteristic?
They did that already.
So imagine having like political power to do it.
Yeah, I guess.
Exactly.
Like these politicians that helped out Epstein had to take a risk and it ended up hurting their careers.
What's the guy?
Fucking Costco or whatever his name is?
Yeah, Costa.
Costa, yeah.
Like that guy, I mean, it killed his career as it should have.
Crossing the Heinousness Barrier00:08:08
The motherfucker should be in prison.
But the point is, now you can do it with impunity.
That's dangerous.
And we always, and that's why we got to be careful when like people put through legislation that is tied into morality, right?
Like, hey, let's protect the Let's Protect Women and Children Act.
Like, who's going to say no to that?
Yeah.
But what else are you going to protect with that act?
And it's really unfortunate because nobody wants to be the politician or person in journalism or news or even comedy that's going against the Let's Protect the Women and Children Act.
That's going to be the sword that you die on.
The Let's Protect the Women and Children Act.
The one thing with that case where, and for some reason, this brought it to mind was when we had Ack on the pod and he said shit about them.
And then Wheezy says some shit online.
And so then Ack gets on his stream and starts saying shit about Wheezy.
Then all of Axe fans were like copping in her DMs, threatening to rape her, kill her, and all this type of stuff.
So I can see a situation where like, yo, because of what Ax said on his stream, she's now getting death threats, which is a form of terrorism because like you're encouraging violence on this person.
Right.
And I don't know if he's.
Yeah, you have to be able to express an opinion and not be held responsible to people that he said, go to Payton, tell this B-I-T-C-H how dumb she is or something like that.
Right, right.
So it's like, it's almost like the way that Trump did.
Whatever.
That's my good.
You're pulling him.
So it's almost like how Trump was like, oh, let's go and fight for our country.
You know, it's like, yeah, coded messages.
Some people can see it as like he incited vitamins.
Other people can just be like, nah, just go protest or whatever the case is.
So what you're trying to say is like becoming, being a terrorist or what is terrorism is very vague.
Yes.
And now anything can be used in that way.
Like you say something in a song, you're like, fuck this block.
You know, we coming at you, we taking your heads off.
And all of a sudden, someone gets killed on that block.
It's like, well, they might have did it because of the song you just put out, Lil Dirk.
I think we're going to have to arrest you, Lil Dirk.
You saw what happened because of what you said.
You incited violence.
You incited terrorism.
Like when that white comic, she like had Trump's head cut off and shit like that.
And the fucking feds came up, came for her and shit like that.
So it's like, I can see how you can.
So now anything can be terrorism on somebody who's inciting violence.
Yeah.
So like that situation, even though I don't agree with them going through his phone, like if a lot of his people were giving death threats on his family and shit like that, like nah, send the feds to this motherfucking grip.
But we don't have any evidence of that.
And if all you're doing is hypothetically, these are hypotheticals.
If you're calling for action, then things might get hazy, even if it's, hey, just tell her she's stupid.
Then it might be a bit hazy.
If you're saying, hey, go fuck this bitch up, then that's a, yeah, absolutely.
You should be prosecuted.
If you're saying, hey, tell her she's stupid, maybe it's a bit hazy.
Maybe it's a bit blurry.
But if you're just saying, hey, that motherfucker's corrupt and then people are threatening him, you can't be held responsible for presenting what you believe is a fact as a corruption.
I'm just saying, like, we don't know.
You know how like people to get their shit to blow, like they talk like fucking WWE wrestlers and shit like that.
So you never know if the way he was talking could have been.
Also, you can interpret anything said as inciting violence.
And that's where you have to abuse the power.
Stay safe.
And that's where it gets very easy to abuse the police.
Yes.
Stay safe could mean we're going to come kill you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And that's where it's tricky, man.
And then also, how do police operate with that information?
Like, one, so I guess you're talking about a few different things.
Like, one is like internet, like, you know, being anonymous on the internet.
And so, like, that's a different thing than the cops being able to just like go through your phone and see your team.
Yeah, and I'm against going through the phone, but I'm not against the cops showing up to his motherfuckers' house if he incited violence on that dude and his family.
But how do we define inciting violence?
That's what I'm saying.
I'm saying if he said something in, because he's a big YouTuber.
So I'm saying if he said, like, yo, fuck that guy, it's on site for him or some shit like that.
And if they injured the mom and almost killed the family dog, and then through, you could also call, say, police brutality pretty easily.
So like, yeah, you could show up, sure, but then you still handle it.
Yeah, what is the extent of force?
Like, did they have a warrant?
Yeah.
Are they allowed to do it?
I'm a 20-year-old YouTuber.
I'm definitely.
I'm just throwing up different.
They're playing devils after you.
Yeah.
Right.
This is where it's tricky, though, man.
This is where it's tricky.
And then this is where it also gets tricky is it's you're splitting hairs when you say laws such as or child pornography and other crimes.
You had to be very, that's where it becomes an abuse of power to me is we're looking at these other words that are, they're just a few words in a thing, but they mean everything.
Yeah.
And other crimes means everything.
That means anything that's a crime.
We can do whatever we want.
Yeah.
You stole a fucking Jolly Rancher from a store when you were five years old.
We need to look through all your stuff.
So do we allow, I don't want to say abuse of power, but do we allow more access to our lives for more severe crimes currently?
So an example of that, Apple, they release software into their phones.
It's going to come with like the next software update.
Yeah.
Where they have, they already have the ability to look through all your pictures and scan.
And if you have like more than like 30 child pornography pictures or whatever the case is, they can report you to the authorities.
So 29.
29 is all right.
Basically, yeah.
Like they want it besides that number.
I don't know, but they want it to be like a clear-cut situation.
Because like, what if like your boys are just sending you stupid shit or whatever the case is?
Or you just get a picture of your niece from your brother and like, you know, or your, you know, well, their argument, and I looked it up, is that if it's on iCloud, they're able to.
No, no, no.
Even on your phone.
Are you sure?
Yeah.
I made sure to get that one.
So even before being uploaded to iCloud, if you have more than 30 cases, then they'll.
And is it just child porn?
It's strictly child porn.
There's a heinousness barrier.
They're just going after pedophiles.
So I'm in all support of that.
Exactly.
There's a heinousness barrier.
If it's past a certain point of like a heinous crime like child pornography, terrorism, we're like, yeah, man, do what you got to do.
That's a human thing that we all just kind of are like, yeah, I mean, yeah, sure.
But when you start playing with that, then we get uncomfortable.
Okay.
So I'm with you 100%.
Let's say we're all on board with this child pornography thing.
Right.
How many people does child pornography affect?
Let's say like a very small number.
We're assuming a small number.
Let's say way more people die because of like drug dealing, murders that are all planned and plotted using your phone.
And if we had access to that phone, you could probably save so many more lives.
There's so many people that are being destroyed.
So many people getting addicted to fucking opiates.
So many people planning robberies.
So many businesses are destroyed.
Like, when does it stop?
Because if we really want to save lives, as fucked up as it is, what I'm about to say, if we really want to save lives, focusing on child porn pictures on a phone is not the way to save lives.
Like focusing on stopping people from drunk driving.
Like if your phone could tell if you had a few drinks that night, you know, if your phone could tell you're over the limit, like if the goal is to save lives, or if the goal is to do something that like you think will get like garner some sort of a positive support on the internet, oh, look at how noble Apple is going after child porn.
Like, are you doing it for pats on the back or you do it because you really want to stop this thing?
And if you really want to stop people, are you basically going, yeah, we're okay.
People are drunk driving and killing themselves.
That's not really what we're about.
We want to stop people from having child porn on the phone.
It's just weird, right?
It feels like there's some alternative to the pressure.
But also the possession of the photographs is illegal in its own right, whereas like talking about doing a crime isn't necessarily illegal in the same way.
Well, no, that's not true because talking about doing a crime is called conspiracy.
Right, but the rest of the people.
You'd have to prove it, I guess.
But like with an image of child porn, like it is intrinsically illegal.
If you're able to prove that it's on so it's like slightly different.
What about, sorry to interrupt, but like what about they could tell for whatever reason that you've had a few drinks or you've had.
Once that technology is available, they probably.
And that's quite possible, especially in a place like Australia.
But I think here the idea is it's not about how many lives you save.