On Equal Rights

This is probably old news now, but I only saw it this morning, so here we go:

In case that embedded tweet doesn’t show up properly, that’s an editorial in the NT News which says:

Voting papers have started to drop through Territory mailboxes for the marriage equality postal vote and I wanted to share with you a list of why I’ll be voting yes.

1. I’m not an arsehole.

This resulted in predictable comments along the lines of “oh, so if I don’t share your views, I’m an arsehole?”

I suppose it’s unlikely that anyone who actually needs to read and understand what I’m about to say will do so, but just in case, I’ll lay this out as simply as I can:

  • A personal belief that marriage is a thing that can only happen between a man and a woman does not make you an arsehole (it might make you on the wrong side of history, or a lot of other things, but it does not necessarily make you an arsehole).
  • Voting “no” to marriage equality is what makes you an arsehole.

The survey says “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” What this actually means is, “Should same-sex couples have the same rights under law as everyone else?”

If you believe everyone should have the same rights under law, you need to vote yes regardless of what you, personally, believe the word “marriage” actually means – this is to make sure things like “next of kin” work the way the people involved in a relationship want them to.

If you believe that there are minorities that should not have the same rights under law as everyone else, then I’m sorry, but you’re an arsehole.

(Personally I think the Marriage Act should be ditched entirely in favour of a Civil Unions Act – that way the word “marriage” could go back to simply meaning whatever it means to the individuals being married, and to their god(s) if they have any – but this should in no way detract from the above. Also, this vote shouldn’t have happened in the first place; our elected representatives should have done their bloody jobs and fixed the legislation already.)

My Personal Travel Ban

I plan to avoid any and all travel to the USA for the foreseeable future due to the complete mess unfolding there with Trump’s executive orders banning immigration from some Muslim-majority countries, related protests, illegal detainment, etc. etc. (the list goes on, and I expect it to get longer).

It’s not that I’m from one of the blacklist countries, and I’m not a Muslim. I’m even white. But I no longer consider travel to the USA safe (especially bearing in mind my ridiculous beard and long hair), and even if I did, I’d want to stand in solidarity with the people who are currently being screwed. The notion of banning entire groups of people based on a single shared trait (in this case, probable adherence to a particular religion) is abhorrent; it demonizes our fellow humans, divides us and builds walls – whether metaphorical or physical – between our various communities. The fact that this immigration ban will impact refugees and asylum seekers just makes matters worse. I am deeply ashamed by Australia’s record on that front too, and concerned that our government will not do much better.

So I won’t be putting in any talks for Cephalocon – which is a damn shame, as I’m working on Ceph – or for any other US-based tech conference unless and until the situation over there changes.

I realise this post may not make much difference in the grander scheme of things, but one more voice is one more voice.


Since the Senate passed legislation expanding your surveillance powers on Thursday night, you’ve copped an awful lot of flack on Twitter. Part of the problem, I think – aside from the legislation being far too broad – is that we don’t actually know who you are, or what exactly it is you get up to. You could be part of a spy novel, a movie or a decades-long series of cock ups. You could be script kiddies with a budget. Or you could be something else entirely.

At times like this I try to remind myself to assume good faith; to remember that most people are basically decent and are trying to live a good life. Some people are even trying to make the world a better place, whatever that might mean.

For those of you then who are decent people, and who are trying to keep Australia safe from whatever mysterious threats are out there that we don’t know about – all without wishing to impinge on or risk destroying the freedoms that we enjoy here – you have my thanks.

For those of you involved in the formulation of The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (No 1) – you who might be reading this post as I type it, rather than after I publish it – I have tried very, very hard to imagine that you honestly believe you are making the world a better place. And maybe you do actually think that, but for my part I cannot see the powers granted as anything other than a direct assault on our democracy. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, I should be more worried about bathroom accidents, restaurant meals and lightning strikes than terrorism. As a careful bath user with a strong stomach and a sturdy house to hide in, I think I’m fairly safe on that front. Frankly I’m more worried about climate change. Do you have anyone on staff who can investigate that threat to our national security?

Anyway, thanks for reading, and I’ll take it as a kindness if you don’t edit this post without asking first.


Tim Serong

On Individual Responsibility, 3D Printing and the Coming Apocalypse

People, not commercial organizations or chains of command, are what make great civilizations work. Every civilization depends upon the quality of the individuals it produces.
— A letter to CHOAM, attributed to The Preacher
— From Frank Herbert’s Dune series

There was an article on news.com.au a few days ago alleging that “A FULLY operational pistol and assault rifle have been ‘printed’ from plans posted on the Internet.”  Perhaps unsurprisingly, as you get closer to the source material, the reporting becomes steadily less sensational.  The part printed was the lower receiver, which (long story short) doesn’t actually contain the explosion or the projectile.  So the situation isn’t quite what you might be led to believe if you only latched onto the big chunky text in the first article, but it is an interesting development.  It’s especially interesting in the USA, because (as I understand it) the lower receiver of an AR-15 is the heavily regulated bit – you can presumably buy all the other parts online[citation needed], print the receiver yourself and have the dubious honour of being the owner of a mostly anonymous and somewhat riskier-than-usual firearm.  It’s slightly less interesting for Australians because – as I pointed out elsewhere – under Australian law, you need the appropriate type of license to possess any firearm part.  So 3D printing the lower receiver of an AR-15 assault rifle at home doesn’t really help the aspiring lunatic much.  This is exacerbated by the fact that it’s currently almost impossible for any Australian to obtain a license for a functional semiautomatic rifle, or parts thereof.

But, as was pointed out to me, the technology is only going to improve over time.  One day there will actually be a functional, entirely 3D printed, homebrew firearm, and I assume someone will figure out how to 3D print ammunition too.  That’s what I meant by “coming apocalypse” in the title of this post, and this is the point at which I expect some people to start screaming that 3D printers need to be banned, or at least made very difficult to access.

I’d like to try a slightly different approach.  There’s one common thread running through all the technology that’s appeared in recent years: new tech grants power to individuals, and takes power away from “authorities” (be they government, commercial or otherwise).  Here’s a few examples:

  • Online file sharing gives power to music lovers, and takes it away from record companies.  Done right, this results in a direct relationship between the music lover and the artist (the individuals), and the record company (the authority) either becomes irrelevant or seriously rethinks its business model.
  • Mass near-instantaneous communication via the internet (blogs, twitter, etc.) and mobile phones takes power away from large centralised news providers, routes around censorship and gives individuals the ability to decide what sources of information to consider and what to ignore.
  • That same communication tech affords the ability for people to organise in a hurry like never before (flashmobs, the occupy movement, the Arab spring).
  • Everyone has a camera now.  Police brutality is a lot harder to get away with, or at least a lot harder to hide.
  • Large volumes of government data are available for public use (census, climate, budget, geospatial, etc.)
  • Organisations like GetUp and Avaaz now exist to give individuals a voice by running petitions, organising protests, funding advertising campaigns and lobbying governments.
  • Social networks (whatever you may say about the sale of personal data to advertisers), are (at least overtly) about putting individuals in touch with the people they actually want to be in touch with.  If they stop facilitating that, people will leave.

All of these things are what you might call democratising technologies.  3D printing is too, but with one important difference – most of the above technologies, while they have a very real impact on humans, are essentially ephemeral.  They’re mostly about shuffling data around.  3D printing actually causes new objects to physically manifest.  Things that you ordinarily wouldn’t be able to make cheaply (or at all), or that would require a large investment in plant or equipment are, or soon will be, fairly easy to create.  This goes way beyond providing the world with interconnects for lego (although that is admittedly very cool).  Recently the first complete patient-specific lower jawbone replacement was built by a 3D printer.  And if someone can make 3D printed food viable, that’s a big step on the road to a post-scarcity world.  And that changes everything.

That some people will create weapons with this technology is a risk, but I think this risk pales in comparison to the potential benefits to us all.  I also think that in the future, people who print weapons with evil intent are going to be in the minority as much as people who use weapons with evil intent are now.

How can we ensure this?  By remembering that our existing laws cover violence regardless of how any weapon was manufactured.  By recognising that when the balance of power rests with individuals, the most important thing we can do is try to build a loving, respectful, healthy society, populated with responsible individuals.  By putting money into health and education, instead of giving in to fear and expanding surveillance of citizens under the guise of national security.  By encouraging tolerance, respect and forgiveness. By teaching that if you desire rights like “life, liberty and security of person”, then it is your responsibility to respect that everyone else has each and every one of those rights too, and you do not have the right to violate them.