Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
Suppose frowning on Mosques would work. Turn them all against you, then shoot them when it looks like they're the bad guys, relatively PR way to carry out a religious cleansing.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
On June 07 2017 12:52 SK.Testie wrote: and generally don't accept an apocalyptic death cult into your midst.
The U.S. republican party is pretty crazy sure, but I'm not sure we can ban them from coming here.
You can laugh all you want at them, but they don't kill & sexually assault their own countrymen nearly as much as democrat/liberal voters.
really? I would seriously question that.
He's probably right, Democrat voters tend to be poorer than Republican voters. Although poverty doesn't lead to greater criminality it does act as an indicator of the types of crime that are likely to be committed. People in poverty tend to be involved in more violent crime than people with wealth. He's basically saying "poor people are scum"... Although it's possible he did the same analysis but went with "non-white" rather than "poor", so maybe he's saying "non-whites are scum".
You can get to either of these positions fairly easily by looking at how different demographics vote and sexual assault / murder statistics. It's a really innovative and clever sort of stupid idea. It pretends to be saying the unsayable in a rational sort of way by using statistics to arrive at the conclusion you were seeking and then utterly ignoring everything else. It's a great way to pretend to be challenging power and orthodoxy while serving both.
Implying that the poor are poor because they deserve it or that the darkie is a savage are very safe. Actually saying it clearly is less so. Questions like "What causes poverty?" and "Does the criminal justice system serve the poor and the wealthy equally?" -that is, seeking causes- can actually provide dangerous answers.
And just to be clear, my joke was about the republican party, not republican voters. People vote in their millions for all sorts of reasons. The republican party deny science, lie, defraud and start wars because... well maybe it's because they are "an apocalyptic death cult".
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
When Zaghba entered Britain, staff at passport control should automatically have been alerted by the Schengen system, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said."One unconfirmed report suggests that did happen, apparently when Zaghba arrived at Stansted Airport in January - but that border staff still let him in," he said. When asked if this was the case, Work and Pensions Secretary Damien Green, a former Home Office minister, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that if someone's passport comes up on the Schengen system the person should be stopped at the border. "I obviously don't know what happened in this case," he said."It would be wrong to comment on an individual case while there is a very serious continuing police investigation going on."
Pathetic last line. We fucked up but hey, they are investigating now.
What I fear is that there is a network of compliance for these individuals. It just takes a couple of people with the same ideology at the right point in the chain to have a closed eye on passports/luggage being loaded into airplanes/etc.
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
But she's specifically saying that this is about "not having enough evidence to prosecute them in court" - maybe someone from the UK can walk me through what I'm missing here.
ISIS is a terrorist organization and I assume the UK has some law in place that makes supporting them or spreading their propaganda already illegal and people can be prosecuted in court with that evidence. I'm also assuming the UK has some law against planning acts of terrorism.
So what kind of scenario is she talking about when she says "when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court"? People who don't plan to commit an act of terrorism, are not supporting ISIS, are not spreading their propaganda but... are doing what exactly that is not something you can prosecute but where you still want to restrict their freedom?
If it's not enough evidence to prosecute someone and bring them in front of a judge, how can it still be enough to take freedoms away?
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
Then you need to specify what is terrorism and what exactly is the scope of this control. You might end up with a law that takes measures agains terrorists "and everyone else connected or involved in some manner"(which is basically everyone).
This is one really slippery slope... Also, I'm really questioning May's sanity after that statement about human rights. Probably she said that, because of the elections, but still... Pretty insane.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
Ah you mean abused by individuals? Well you will always have that problem anywhere about anything no?
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
Then you need to specify what is terrorism and what exactly is the scope of this control. You might end up with a law that takes measures agains terrorists "and everyone else connected or involved in some manner"(which is basically everyone).
This is one really slippery slope... Also, I'm really questioning May's sanity after that statement about human rights. Probably she said that, because of the elections, but still... Pretty insane.
It's actually a really common desire amongst 'normal' folk that most students on this board never engage with. A significant number of Tories have favoured getting rid of the ECHR and replacing it with a British system for a long time.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
On June 07 2017 19:34 Plansix wrote: If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
If you're willing to give your government unlimited surveillance powers you actually need more than absolute faith that your government, and all future governments are incorruptible , you need absolute faith that the society you are living in is the best possible expression of a human society and that nothing that falls outside the bounds of the publicly acceptable now should be publicly acceptable. And maybe you're right, but it's a claim that's been being made by members of societies for thousands of years. Why were they wrong and you right?
Here's Glenn Greenwald making some good points about privacy:
It's clear that at least a few people in this thread have been "Harrised" and Sam really REALLY hates Glenn, so here are some quotes to give you an idea if -for whatever reason- you can't stand the guy so you stand a chance of engaging the arguments rather than the speaker. But if the subject interests you it's worth watching, he says a good deal more.
"[by taking the position that "good" people have nothing to hide are saying]I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and nonthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I am doing."
"When we're in a state when we can be monitored, when we can be watched, our behaviour changes dramatically, the range of behavioural options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce ... There are dozens of psychological studies that prove that when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behaviour they engage in is vastly more conformist and complaint ... People when they are in state of being watched make decisions not that are the by product of their own agency but that are about the expectations that others have of them or the mandates of societal orthodoxy."
"A society in which people can be monitored at all times, is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, from the most overt to the most subtle craves that system."
On June 07 2017 20:13 bardtown wrote: This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
I guess removing the privacy rights of terrorists and paedophiles is a bit better than removing the privacy rights of everyone. It's an argument that's moved from "My society is perfect" to "My society isn't perfect" which is good. However we're still left with the problems of corruptibility (again for the current government and all future governments) and the ever present problem of writing down new laws in such a way that injustices which do far more harm than the harm prevented don't happen.
-How exactly do we decide how someone becomes this new kind of citizen with an abridged right to privacy? -Is the process public? -Once you've been become a "terrorist-citizen" is it possible to go back to being a normal citizen ever? -Who gets to know that you're a "terrorist-citizen"? The government and the police I guess but what about employers or neighbours? -If we've got this great system of terrorists and paedophiles why not extend it to rapists? (Or to put it like the Sun might: "why do you love rapists so much?")
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
Certainly it's not great. But it's also not half of what the fascists in these topics have been calling for. A lot of it is just election rhetoric too I suspect, although May's record on civil liberties isn't good.
EPT
