Allan Boyd

You’ve probably seen the actions of Blockade Australia. They’ve been active in traffic disruptions including a shutdown of Sydney’s major roads in reaction to Australia’s failure to respond to the climate and ecological crises.

But governments don’t like it.

In a recent action, NSW police made 23 arrests involving people allegedly engaged in the protests.

Those arrested came from Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland, NSW and the ACT, and were aged from their 20s to their 70s.

And last month a farm north-west of Sydney, was raided by heavily armed police in dramatic fashion, with dogs and helicopters in tow.

Seven protesters were charged, with some facing up to 10 years in jail.

Disruptive protests like those of Blockade Australia certainly make an impact. And protest is an essential form of communication by the people and can influence our democratic representatives.

However, increasingly, state governments are cracking down. Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales have all recently proposed or introduced harsh anti-protest bills which deliberately target environmental and climate activists such as those involved with Blockade Australia.

And here in WA we have the Prevention of Lawful Activity Bill – introduced in 2016 in which there are harsh penalties for certain types of blockade actions including 2 years in jail and a fine of 24,000 dollars.

This rise of anti-protest regulation has been called draconian and undemocratic – an attack on our democratic right to peaceful, non-violent protest.

But do these laws suppress environmental protesters – and does criminalisation actually work?

I’m joined by Dr Robyn Gulliver – Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the The University of Queensland.

Robyn is also an author of a recent publication: Civil Resistance Against Climate Change.

Read Robyn’s article in the Conversation.

The COVID 19 pandemic has mostly disappeared from Australia’s news media over the last few months. We don’t have daily briefings with updates on the numbers of cases and deaths. We don’t wear masks. We don’t check in to venues and shops. And most of us are triple vaccinated. With a potential fourth shot becoming available.

Indeed, many of us – over 8 million Australians – have had COVID and survived.

So, everything is fine right?

Not really. Australia has now surpassed 10-thousand deaths from COVID-19, with most of those fatalities reported in the past six months.

And the daily rate of infections continues in the tens of thousands across the country.

Almost 3,000 Australians died of COVID in the first quarter of 2022, placing it between coronary heart disease and stroke as a major cause of death.

And on average some 50 people a day are dying from COVID. That’s one person every 30 minutes. And epidemiologists predict we will see tens of thousands more suffering from long COVID.

They say our health systems, schools and businesses are already struggling and the situation will get a lot worse.

And on top of COVID, there’s the re-emergence of the Flu. Sometimes debilitating. After virtually vanishing throughout the pandemic, the relaxing of COVID rules has allowed influenza to re-emerge in the community.

But how do they compare? Just how deadly are COVID and influenza?  To discuss this I’m joined by Professor Paul Glasziou from Bond University

A Google software engineer believes an AI has become sentient. If he’s right, how would we know?

Has google created a sentient being?

This week we heard about a google software engineer who claims the company has achieved an AI chatbot with feelings and is able to express them in conversation.

Google has dismissed these claims and suspended the engineer – in what seems like a plot for a Hollywood cyberpunk blockbuster.

Despite this the idea that an artificially intelligent robot machine created by one of the largest companies in the world has feelings is tantalising…

But is this even a thing? Can AI have feelings? What even is AI? What is consciousness and should we be worried about this? And if an AI chat bot has become sentient, how would we even know?

To chat about this I’m joined by Dr Oscar Davis – Lecturer in Philosophy and History, Bond University – who has written an excellent article on this subject in the Conversation.

Dr Emma Lee – Associate Professor, Indigenous Leadership, Swinburne University of Technology. Emma is a trawlwulwuy woman of tebrakunna country, north-east Tasmania, Australia.

Article source: First Nations people shouldn’t have to wait for a referendum to get a Voice to Parliament

—

Many Australians are looking forward to an Indigenous Voice to parliament. But as we wait for a referendum to enshrine this into our Constitution some are asking: why can’t the government do it now?

The recently elected Albanese government has pledged to a full commitment to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The Uluru Statement calls for a First Nations voice to inform parliament to be enshrined in the Australian constitution – so it cannot be removed by any government of the day.

To do that, the constitution must be amended, and that can only be done by referendum. But with of over 40 referendums held since federation, only eight have passed.

So rather than waiting for a referendum to enshrine the Indigenous Voice to parliament, could the majority Labor government do it now?

I’m joined by Dr Emma Lee – Associate Professor in Indigenous Leadership at Swinburne University – and who was part of the National Co-Design Group for Indigenous Voice.

Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys using facial recognition technology in stores: Three major retailers in Australia are using facial recognition technology, often without shoppers realising.

https://www.choice.com.au/consumers-and-data/data-collection-and-use/how-your-data-is-used/articles/kmart-bunnings-and-the-good-guys-using-facial-recognition-technology-in-store

How safe is your face?

A recent report by Australia’s leading consumer advocacy group CHOICE has revealed that Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys are all using facial recognition technology in their stores, mostly without shoppers realising.

But what is Facial Recognition Technology and how does it work?

Many of us use facial recognition everyday to quickly unlock our phone, log in to apps, and make purchases – we know that Government agencies use it to identify terrorists or other criminals and indeed has become a widespread and routine policing tool in America.

However, privacy advocates are concerned about the creeping use of facial recognition tools without widespread public discussion or adequate rules to monitor its rapid progression into the retail sphere.

And the Australian public is mostly oblivious of what’s happening to the capture and use of their personal biometric data. Bunnings say its usage discourages poor behaviour, and as an anti-theft tool. But how?

What happens to the information? Who looks after the data? Who can access it? What are the legal ramifications of capturing and storing our biometric data? Especially when that information is taken without our knowledge or consent… Should we be able to own our own biometric data? What are the associated privacy issues?

Who owns my face?

So many questions…

So, to help us through the quagmire, I’m joined by Kathryn Gledhill-Tucker – who is a Nyungar technologist and digital rights activist currently serving on the board of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

Kat is a Nyungar technologist, writer, digital rights activist currently living on Whadjuk Noongar boodjar. My work explores the intersection of activism, science-fiction, and technology in imagining radical futures and ushering them into existence. https://kgt.dev/

Find out more at the EFA Website.

A recent report by Australia’s leading consumer group CHOICE has revealed that Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys are all using facial recognition technology in their stores, mostly without shoppers realising.

But what is Facial Recognition Technology and how does it work?

Many of us use it to unlock our phone, log in to apps, and make purchases – and we know that Government agencies are using it to identify terrorists or other bad guys – and indeed facial recognition has become a widespread and routine policing tool in the US.

However, privacy advocates are concerned about the creeping use of facial recognition tools without widespread public discussion or sufficient rules to monitor its rapid progression into the retail sphere.

And the Australian public is mostly oblivious of what’s happening to the capture and use of their personal biometric data.

Bunnings say its usage discourages poor behaviour and is an anti-theft tool. But how?

What happens to the information? Who looks after the data? Who can access it? What are the legal ramifications of capturing and storing our biometric data? Especially when that information is taken without our knowledge or consent…

Should we be able to own our own biometric data? What are the associated privacy issues?

To discuss this I’m joined by Amy Pereira – senior Policy Advisor from Choice…

Guns in America.

Since the birth of a nation, in truth and folklore, the gun is deeply embedded in American culture. And most of us, even in Australia are aware of the much cited Second Amendment to the US Constitution – which reads:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Arguably a simple, basic amendment to protect the people from its government…

But this right to bear arms has resulted in a country saturated with guns, where going to primary school, the shops, a gig may result in you being fatally shot by a fellow citizen.

It’s a country where the widespread adoption of “stand your ground” laws explicitly allow people to use guns as a first resort for self-defence in the face of a threat.

It’s a country of carnage, where – according to the Gun Violence Archive – so far in 2022 – there have been over 18,000 gun violence deaths – and over 230 mass shootings.

And on May 24^th in Uvalde, Texas – a teenage gunman shot his grandmother, then armed with an Automatic Rifle and wearing body armour stormed a local primary school, killing 19 children and two teachers.

The shooter had legally purchased two Automatic Rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition at a local gun shop days before the massacre.

The Automatic Rifle is often seen as a metaphor  of core American values — freedom, might, self-reliance – an embodiment of the second amendment right to bear arms.

It is astonishing to research this subject. It is gobsmacking to look at the stats and figures, the charts, graphs and maps across the US showing gun usage and killings – including stats like gun violence is now the leading cause of death for American children; that there are more guns than people; where almost every person lives in a household with a gun; that in 2020 alone, Americans purchased 17 million guns – and US gun manufacturers produced 11 million firearms…

It is just astounding.

It seems that in a society where Americans are in an arms race with themselves, the constitutional right to bear arms is a murderous feedback loop. That to feel safe from each other, you need a firearm because everyone else has the same fear and they also have firearms…

But with most Americans keen for gun control measures – like background checks or a ban on military-grade weapons – their politicians seem reluctant for any change. Why?

What is it about the US that gun-law-reform may never happen?

Can the militia ever be well-regulated?

To discuss this, I’m joined by Dr Emma Shortis – Lecturer in the Social and Global Studies Centre at RMIT University, whose recent article in the Conversation: “American exceptionalism: the poison that cannot protect its children from violent death” – cogently examines US gun culture. It is an excellent read piece on the issue…

Dr Emma Shortis is a Lecturer in the Social and Global Studies Centre at RMIT University.
American exceptionalism: the poison that cannot protect its children from violent death

https://theconversation.com/american-exceptionalism-the-poison-that-cannot-protect-its-children-from-violent-death-184045

INTERVIEW with Dr Shannon Brincat – Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast

Article – The Conversation: The Putin problem: is there ever a case to kill tyrants?

Is it ever Okay to assassinate a head of state? Over the last month, as we witness the atrocities of Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, you may have considered what might happen if Russian President Vladimir Putin were to be killed.

But as millions flee and hundreds die, is it ethical to kill a president?

To discuss this complex ethical conundrum, RTR’s Allan Boyd caught up with Shannon Brincat from University of the Sunshine Coast. He’s an expert in the study of tyrannicide….

As Russia’s aggressive assault into Ukraine continues – millions of ordinary people have fled their homes, hundreds have been killed and thousands injured…

Online headlines, comments and social media feeds all beg the question: who and how should Russian President Vladimir Putin be assassinated?

Indeed, even some US Senators have publicly stated that that someone in Russia needs to a ssassinate President Putin to end the war in Ukraine.

Yet despite Whitehouse denials, the US government do have skin in the tyrant-killing game.

Facebook is now warning its users not to share posts calling for the death of a head of state…

And there are reports that Putin – now being described by world leaders as a murderous war criminal – is “extremely paranoid” about being assassinated.

But is it okay to kill a president? Is there ever an ethical case to kill tyrants?

To discuss this and the concept of tyrannicide I’m joined by Shannon Brincat – Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast…

INTERVIEW with Denis Muller – Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

Conversation Article: Scare-mongering on China is a threat to our democracy, and responsible media must guard against it – Denis Muller

When Prime Minister Scott Morrison accused Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese of being a Mancurian Candidate in Parliament last month, it caused a ruckus across the media.

But just what is a Mancurian Candidate? And how does hyper-partisan, gutter politics undermine the notion of democracy?

RTRFM’s Allan Boyd caught up with Journalism guru Dr Denis Muller to find out more…

During the final sitting days of federal Parliament last month, we witnessed a feverish attack by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Labor party leader Anthony Albanese.

In what has been described by ASIO boss Mike Burgess as the “weaponisation of national security”, Mr Morrison – and defence minister Peter Dutton – unleashed an unprecedented tirade on Albanese – suggesting China had chosen the Labor leader as their preferred candidate – indeed that members of the opposition front bench are “Manchurian candidates”

To discuss the merits of a Manchurian Candidate and the role of the media in all this – and maybe a bit more – I’m joined by media and journalism guru, Dr Denis Muller – from The University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism.

Denis argues in a recent Conversation article that Morrison and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation are attempting to do to Australia’s democracy what Murdoch and Donald Trump did to America’s between 2016 and 2021…

Interview with Daniel Angus – Professor of Digital Communication, Queensland University of Technology.

Conversation Article: Fake viral footage is spreading alongside the real horror in Ukraine. Here are 5 ways to spot it

Amid the disturbing images of Russia’s ongoing invasion into Ukraine, millions of people have consumed fake and even deliberately false information about the conflict on social media feeds and even on credible news outlets. How can we tell what is fake and what it real?

To discuss the concept of fake viral footage, especially in times of crisis, RTR’s Allan Boyd caught up with Professor Daniel Angus from Queensland University of Technology…

Russia’s invasion into Ukraine has exposed us to some shocking footage – but in the fog of war many of us may even have consumed misleading, manipulated or false information on our social media feeds…

And as a recent episode of ABC’s Media Watch has shown, some fake footage has appeared on the nightly news bulletins on Seven news, Ten’s The Project and even ABC’s 730 …

Indeed – due to of their persuasive, attention-grabbing nature – visuals can be a convincingly powerful tool for those seeking to misinform.

Disinformation and propaganda campaigns aim to distract, confuse, manipulate and spread division and doubt in the community.

So – How is this fake content created and spread, what’s being done to debunk it, and how can you ensure you don’t fall for it yourself?

I’m joined by Daniel Angus – Professor of Digital Communication at the Queensland University of Technology – to find out more…