Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

wsws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#141

Post by ethics_gradient »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #13
harry8 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects rather than running a criminal conspiracy. If the law is inconvenient or wrong, they can lobby to change it, same as everyone else. Break it, and they really ought to be in jail, same as anyone else.

> Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects I'm now 38 years old and have seen little evidence to support your statement, either in the UK or elsewhere. Most people seem _totally_ okay with members of their ruling class being drone-murdering, tax-thieving, law-breaking, crotch-grabbing assholes.

It's not that they don't care, it's that they're conditioned to think it's too hopeless and complicated. The common people have the power, they only need to understand they do.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#142

Post by gjjrfcbugxbhf »

simonh wrote: post #51
alexbeloi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.

You mean, like an election?

Lol that an election in the UK will change the direction of the country in terms of civil liberties. No one with a remote chance of winning will do that. (and the upcoming election send like it will just give Theresa May a free hand to do what she wants)

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#143

Post by candiodari »

simonh wrote: post #51
alexbeloi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.

You mean, like an election?

Yes. That's why, after the "brexit election" a second election needs to be held. You know, to make sure the populace really meant it.

Of course, that's an improvement over the rest of Europe. Last time Europe got voted out of parliament they didn't even bother with redoing the election. They just went directly against the election results, like in Greece.

Why does anyone still pretend at this point ?

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#145

Post by ethics_gradient »

sien wrote: post #21
Darthy wrote: post #7

This is utterly unacceptable. Time for the electorate to put their foot down and set an example by disbanding the entire force and replace it with a new one. But guess what the electorate will say? "They only came for the Socialists. I'm not a Socialist". Sad times.

The intelligence services have been doing this forever in most countries. If you don't know about it you're not paying attention. Here is PJ O'Rourke writing about this in the 1960s in the US. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&... People don't just don't care that much. It is worth worrying about though. With the NSA and computer surviellance we've created a 'turn-key tyranny'. And people ha…

>People don't just don't care that much.

Well, it's not easy to understand. At times they've cared enough to extract meaningful change, so we shouldn't assume that that will never happen again. If you ask them privacy questions phrased in the right ways (I mean for clarity, not trick questions), they will often be pro-privacy.

Also, as Schneier says, we're relatively new to the internet. Who says people won't come to understand it, and the privacy issues that come along with it, better? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XF2EL43S8E

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#146

Post by ethics_gradient »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #91
dovdovdov wrote: post #9

Almost makes you think we only have terrorism just so the countermeasures can be exploited to keep the masses under total control. ;)

I don't know if I believe that, however the spectre of terrorism is WAY overblown (more people die slipping and falling in the shower). So I do find it really unreasonable that it's used as an excuse to monitor our communication...

Exactly this - it exists. It's just overblown, as states have forever recognized that they can use fear for conformity and submission. But we should be careful to not say it's fabricated unless in specific cases where there is good evidence for it.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#147

Post by georgespencer »

vidarh wrote: post #64
ciaranm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's CCTV vans all over the City Of London. They don't tend to venture out much further, but they totally exist. I see them all the time.

City is "special", and City has its own police force, which is why they don't venture further out - City of London Police does not generally have any business venturing out of City unless cooperating with the Metropolitan Police on something or following a suspect. City certainly is it's own little undemocratic (sure, you can vote, but so can nominees of corporations located in City), police-state fiefdom. (for the n…

There are lots of council operated CCTV vehicles outside of the City. I've lived in two boroughs which operate them.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#148

Post by codedokode »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #89
ak4g wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find myself self-censoring on topics like this, not because of what I (don't) fear is being done by authorities, but because I can't help but to note that we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia, and that seemingly the surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society, but not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for those numbers by my username. Meanwhile, there are…

This is the point. Many societies have devolved into autocracies with no freedom of speech, proving that it is a constant possibility for us too. We like to think our Western countries somehow are immune, but without any particular reason. In reality we should worry more due to our technology. If lack of free speech combines with the ability to monitor everyone's speech (through phones, TV, breaking ssl) we will have…

There is no need to break SSL. Top Internet companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, WhatsApp) are under US jurisdiction and they have to do whatever US government tells them.

That seems unfair. I am sure there are many governments that would like to get their share of data too.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#149

Post by georgespencer »

vidarh wrote: post #63
notliketherest wrote: post #2

London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

> This is the city with police cameras on every block No, it is not. It is a city where tiny portions have police cameras. Somewhat larger areas have council-controlled cameras that it's fairly easy for police to gain access to. The vast majority of CCTV in London - and in the UK - is privately controlled, and most of it is not networked. Police can get access to it if/when something has happened, but most of them al…

> [surveillance vans] are a rare sight

I see them often. But equally often I ask myself what the point is. What are the odds of catching a crime? Or do they work in tandem with dispatchers from the police, moving around in areas near reported crimes to try to capture footage?

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#150

Post by DanBC »

ionised wrote: post #127
DanBC wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmental groups had plans to shut down nuclear reactors by blocking water cooling pipes in the sea. Animal rights protestors have firebombed[1] several UK department stores (for selling fur), and abattoirs and milk distribution depots; dug up a corpse from a grave and held the body hostage; rescued animals from labs and caused damage to the labs; Far right groups have rallies that attract considerable violence;…

That is not terrorism, it's criminal damage.

"noun: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Firebombing department stores to stop them selling fur is terrorism by most definitions of the word.

Don't forget that arson is a particular type of criminal damage and carries much heavier sentences because it's so dangerous.

Post reply on HN