Terrorist Incident declared in London after Van & Knife At…

On June 07 2017 21:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:




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."



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 21:45 ahswtini wrote:
if you want an idea of kwark's perception of values, he says that the people of england have about as much in common with the northern irish as they do with syrians.

On June 07 2017 22:00 bardtown wrote:

As per the draft in my head, it works like this: if you are part of a terrorism/child abuse investigation, you can be subject to otherwise illegal investigation. The evidence collected from said investigation can only be used for terrorism/child abuse charges. It's a stupid restriction, because you run the risk of discovering a drug lord, for example, and not being able to use the evidence. It seems to be a necessary restriction, however.

Also, as I understand it the purpose of our security services is essentially to break the law where threats to national security are perceived. That's what they are there for, and people tolerate it because MI5 are not going to waste their time pursuing someone for downloading films illegally or some other bullshit. This is a reality, and individuals should be taking measures to protect their privacy anyway.

On June 08 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't try something like what a_flayer has offered. And I'd especially like to know why we should try giving rights away before we try something like that, cause what a_flayer said is a much lesser change to society.

On June 07 2017 21:37 Reaps wrote:
If you want people to take you seriously its probably best not to use words like "Harrised" suggesting that anyone that agrees with certain points on Sam is "indoctrinated" in some form.

On June 08 2017 01:00 a_flayer wrote:

Oil money. Power through influence.

That's why we're not doing that.

We can't give up the oil - not just yet anyway - and thus we can't give up the influence in the Middle East. The west saw what happened in the 70s, and the current status quo in the Middle East is preventing this from happening again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/03/1970s-oil-price-shock

Not to mention controlling the oil prices is a good way to put pressure on Russia.

On June 08 2017 03:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:


Yea, fair enough, it was pretty cheap.



So our security is intimately connected with our foreign policy is intimately connected to our domestic energy policy.

I only point this out because it's an example of one of a myriad of connections which makes real change such an enormous task. If you're going to change the way a country works (and your country is going to change, radically, whether you like it or not. See: tech and the environment) any change in a single area is bound to fail. "leftist" (formerly centrist) positions are often presented as an incoherent wish list of hippy crap, when in actual fact they are -or should be- a coherent and pragmatic approach to governing in the interests of the many. Unfortunately "We need to invest in renewable energy to reduce terror" is a hard headline to sell when up against "Lock 'em up and throw away the key"... Although that might change with some media reform... and education reform... reducing working hours to give people more free time... etc. etc.