21–30 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy.
The other way around I'd say, the expense and misbehaviours of the monarchy are tolerated by the ~ 70% of the population who are authoritarian minded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they losing control, or are they becoming control freaks who want more control than they've traditionally had and have any right or business having? Both would manifest as the government thinking it has insufficient control, but the cause is very different.
I think it’s very much this latter. The multiplying force of technology has made it extremely difficult to overthrow a government by force. I do not think it is possible in the West. Governments have never had so much control over money and information. They’re not losing control, they just keep tightening their grip. I don’t know if this Democratic experiment can survive in that environment. I certainly hope it does…
Well - East Germany must've had worse, surely? All money controlled by the state and state-sponsored spying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy.
I don't understand enough about UK to see why anachronistic monarchy would be at the heart. (To lesser extent) we see a lust for surveillance in many other democratic countries too. Isn't an easier explanation that society is getting more complex while politicians double down on managing their reputation, which inevitably results in loosing trust in institutions? (Or something along those lines.)
Not saying the monarchy is at heart, just that the culture won't change until they have some sort of cultural revolution and get rid of it.
The reporting on this is horrific, including by the businesses involved. Absolutely nothing legally was changed. The government put out a press release saying some worthless crap, that's the entire thing that happened. edit: sorry, not a press release, sent a minion to read out a non-binding statement, who then confirmed the the law was not actually changed at all: https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-minister-says-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is it is always technically feasible, even for end to end encryption ( you just do the scanning before encrypting on the device, or upload the plain text copy of all the messages to a government service.) I’m worried that it won’t offer any protection in the end.
"Technically infeasible" is code for "we asked the American tech companies for a backdoor, they told us to fuck off and we dont have the cojones to actually ban whatsapp". The phrase is only intended to imply that they didn't lose a political battle. Actual technical feasibility is beside the point. Whatsapp probably already has backdoors they just don't want to hand the keys over to 10 downing street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens, communities is that the number one problem is that governments are losing control over society. Off course the whole point of democracy is that governments should fear their citizens, rather than vice versa.
> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens It's just their culture. It probably won't change till they get rid of the anachronistic monarchy.
You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? Britain is a parliamentary democracy. I'm pretty confident Charlie doesn't have a hand in enabling sweeping snooping powers. More hacking scandals are the last thing his poor family needs!
It's not. It still has power, and it's still costing tax payers a shitton so one family can live above everyone else. More importantly there are plenty of royalists who support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other way around I'd say, the expense and misbehaviours of the monarchy are tolerated by the ~ 70% of the population who are authoritarian minded.
That's not the other way around, that's perfectly consistent with what I'm saying and I agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s very much this latter. The multiplying force of technology has made it extremely difficult to overthrow a government by force. I do not think it is possible in the West. Governments have never had so much control over money and information. They’re not losing control, they just keep tightening their grip. I don’t know if this Democratic experiment can survive in that environment. I certainly hope it does…
> Governments have never had so much control over money and information. They’re not losing control, they just keep tightening their grip. Well - East Germany must've had worse, surely? All money controlled by the state and state-sponsored spying?
I've read six of these "Oh no we didn't back down" stories this morning. What worries me is the appearance of wishful thinking around the language of "technically feasible". Follow this road far enough and we'll have government ministers with marketing credentials defining what is "technically feasible", instead of scientists. https://cybershow.uk #016 | S2 | Special | UK Online Safety Bill Published on Friday 01st S…
The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens, communities is that the number one problem is that governments are losing control over society. Off course the whole point of democracy is that governments should fear their citizens, rather than vice versa.