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

151–160 of 275 posts

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#151

Post by sametmax »

ue_ wrote: post #138
NumberCruncher wrote: post #134

>> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo. [...] it is not simply the case that the police and security services are just being used by the government. In fact, the police and security services are becoming emboldened to take a more independent role as direct agencies of the ruling elite, ov…

>government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo If anyone needed more evidence that we are living in a bourgeois democracy rather than a people's democracy, look no further than this government policy enforced by their thugs.

Oligarchy is the word you are looking for.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#152

Post by ue_ »

coldtea wrote: post #29
andy_ppp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate. They already won.

> It doesn't work and never has; You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.

Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. A look at how protesting has worked in the past decades, with a few notable exceptions, will show you that protesting does little to alter the status quo.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#153

Post by IanCal »

DanBC wrote: post #102
IanCal wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we not support those who expose wrongdoing ? That's the core of the issue you're ignoring here, whistleblowing is not just releasing whatever things you want. If we as a nation want those activities, then we should make them legal and clearly defined. If not, then stopping those activities from taking place hardly sounds like "treason".

> then we should make them legal and clearly defined We did, in 1998, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act... And we made things a bit better for NHS Whistleblowers with the Freedom to Speak Up Review and and NHS Improvement (was Monitor) Freedom to Speak Up policy which is compulsory for NHS Trusts https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up-…

Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I meant making the activities that people blow the whistle on legal/clearly defined as expected practice, rather than whistleblowing itself. If as a country we're OK with doing X and not with people whistleblowing about the country doing X, then we should make X clearly defined as legal.

I don't think we should make these things legal, personally, but I think they should either be legal so whistleblowing doesn't make sense or illegal and whistleblowing is encouraged.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#154

Post by candiodari »

snovv_crash wrote: post #73
andy_ppp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can suggest one?

Look at the peaceful transition in South Africa. Do you think that would have happened if the old government thought they could keep hanging on?

People have a funny way to look at how violent a transition and especially leaders are or aren't depending on whether they agree with the outcome.

The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words):

"Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)."

Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela.

India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent.

Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others.

And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that.

Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ...

But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate.

[1] https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#155

Post by GordonS »

coldtea wrote: post #29
andy_ppp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate. They already won.

> It doesn't work and never has; You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.

It certainly has worked in the past, but in more recent times in a western 'democracy'?

On February the 15th 2003, millions of people marched against the Iraq war across around 800 cities - with possibly as many as 1 million in London alone. This made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.

What happened? We went to war.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#156

Post by Lagged2Death »

ak4g wrote: post #44
cies wrote: post #38

> police hacking of journalists and protestors Because they are the real terrorists. I seriously think they had dissidents in mind when pushing for all those "anti-terror" surveillance laws.

If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of what's allowed by said anti-terror laws. This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy. Frankly we should wait to see w…

This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed motive is.

Authoritarians (like cops, broadly speaking) have always tried to spy on people who might subvert their own authority and the status quo, like protestors, activists, and the journalists who cover such things and who keep in touch with such people. It has ever been thus.

Social reformers sometimes actually change things - think of the labor movement, the civil rights movement - but foreign terror against random civilians usually only re-enforces the social order and the status of cops. The cops are, and have historically been, more concerned with domestic journalists than with foreign terrorists or even actual criminals.

"Cops caught spying on journalists and activists, won't even apologize" has been a pretty common headline for many decades.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#157

Post by DanBC »

IanCal wrote: post #153
DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then we should make them legal and clearly defined We did, in 1998, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act... And we made things a bit better for NHS Whistleblowers with the Freedom to Speak Up Review and and NHS Improvement (was Monitor) Freedom to Speak Up policy which is compulsory for NHS Trusts https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up-…

Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I meant making the activities that people blow the whistle on legal/clearly defined as expected practice, rather than whistleblowing itself. If as a country we're OK with doing X and not with people whistleblowing about the country doing X, then we should make X clearly defined as legal. I don't think we should make these things legal, personally, but I think they should either be legal…

We have made surveillance legal, and provided a framework of protections, under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Before RIPA we had a bunch of different public bodies using surveillance with little control over what they were doing. After RIPA they can still use surveillance if they follow the correct procedures, and some of the abuses were reigned in.

The police especially have strong powers to use surveillance.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#158

Post by inetknght »

ionised wrote: post #123
andy_ppp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate. They already won.

> Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; The civil rights movements of the last century are proof that it does in fact work when enough people engage.

The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#159

Post by ionised »

inetknght wrote: post #158
ionised wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; The civil rights movements of the last century are proof that it does in fact work when enough people engage.

The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?

> The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?

You say that like the current situation is no better than what came before the civil rights movement.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#160

Post by BearGoesChirp »

ue_ wrote: post #138
NumberCruncher wrote: post #134

>> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo. [...] it is not simply the case that the police and security services are just being used by the government. In fact, the police and security services are becoming emboldened to take a more independent role as direct agencies of the ruling elite, ov…

>government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo If anyone needed more evidence that we are living in a bourgeois democracy rather than a people's democracy, look no further than this government policy enforced by their thugs.

Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.
Post reply on HN