I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
I mean I am not against the investigations at all. Also I believe that in such cases (terrorism) better way of extracting the secret key is sourcing it from the suspect him(or her)self.
I guess I am too dumb to understand. The argument that if you don’t have anything to hide makes more sense to me than nefarious secret spies are going to read your shopping list. I just don’t see what all the paranoia is about. I realise this is an unfashionable opinion to have on HN, and I’m not looking to debate or change anyone’s mind, but to understand with a substantive argument rather than one sentence replies.
To add, think of the common joke “I’m not going to google that, I don’t want to end up on a list”. The fact that it is known that government agencies monitor internet activity and keep “lists” has a pervasive cooling effect on what people are willing to search for. Not all things and not all people but the effect is real.
Many government policies around multiculturalism and immigration have gotten to a stage where criticism against it can be seen as incitement to violence / disturbing the peace. Protected class communities have a hecklers veto whereby responding to even mild criticism with violence they’re able to send those who criticize them to jail, often more so than the jail term for violence. States care more about criticism than the violence.
This has an effect of making criticism of government policy a heavily punished crime. A situation the government has fostered.
Multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech and since multiculturalism is government policy free speech has to be sacrificed.
It’s a slippery slope and it’s been going on for some time so very little can be done about it.
I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".
Can you expand on that? I don’t follow, sorry
When you're frightened and live in a glass house, you stay silent and obedient to prevent any stones from inadvertently hitting your house.
Since it's transparent, you can't do anything which others don't like anyway, and if you even manage, you'll be taken away silently.
IOW, read 1984 and Brave New World and create a synthesis of it.
I mean I am not against the investigations at all. Also I believe that in such cases (terrorism) better way of extracting the secret key is sourcing it from the suspect him(or her)self.
I.e. https://xkcd.com/538/
3 replies →
I guess I am too dumb to understand. The argument that if you don’t have anything to hide makes more sense to me than nefarious secret spies are going to read your shopping list. I just don’t see what all the paranoia is about. I realise this is an unfashionable opinion to have on HN, and I’m not looking to debate or change anyone’s mind, but to understand with a substantive argument rather than one sentence replies.
4 replies →
To add, think of the common joke “I’m not going to google that, I don’t want to end up on a list”. The fact that it is known that government agencies monitor internet activity and keep “lists” has a pervasive cooling effect on what people are willing to search for. Not all things and not all people but the effect is real.
Many government policies around multiculturalism and immigration have gotten to a stage where criticism against it can be seen as incitement to violence / disturbing the peace. Protected class communities have a hecklers veto whereby responding to even mild criticism with violence they’re able to send those who criticize them to jail, often more so than the jail term for violence. States care more about criticism than the violence.
This has an effect of making criticism of government policy a heavily punished crime. A situation the government has fostered.
Multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech and since multiculturalism is government policy free speech has to be sacrificed.
It’s a slippery slope and it’s been going on for some time so very little can be done about it.