The current UK government is attacking the vulnerable and clamping down on protest and free expression, increasing mass surveillance and introducing digital ID.
It's fast becoming an authoritarian hellhole.
Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
281–290 of 299 posts
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#282If a government is legitimately elected, and respects due process, I don't see why people would want to hide from the government. There are very few situations where a journalist would need to hide himself from a legitimate government who respects due process. With the Trump administration, in China, Russia, yes of course. Those apps do matter. Conventional apps are probably giving data to abusive governments if thei…
What is a legitimate government? Just because a group gets most votes doesn't mean it should be able to do what it wants and go back on what it promised.
Starmer's government is the least popular in living memory.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#283What the fuck is the UK's problem? In fact, what the fuck is wrong with Europe in general when it comes to freedom of expression today?
They're all at it. Australia and Canada are going down the same root. Must have been a good laugh at Davos (or wherever) when they laid out the road map.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#284What the fuck is the UK's problem? In fact, what the fuck is wrong with Europe in general when it comes to freedom of expression today?
They're all at it. Australia and Canada are going down the same root. Must have been a good laugh at Davos (or wherever) when they laid out the road map.
[dead]
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#285This government has to be stopped and any other governments that are 'hostile' to it's citizens. Vote them out at the very least.
And replace them with what? Tories who do the exact same and hang out at Davos etc with them?
The Lib Dems who are mostly interested in pavement politics and have no backbones.
The Greens who back more control taken away from the public? Reform who also seem to want more government powers in certain places?
The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parties who can never get enough seats to outvote this?
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re very obviously independent and are not an extension of one another. This is leftist single lens / unidimensional silliness.
You my friend must live in an alternate reality where political leadership isn't obviously enmeshed with corporations to a pathological degree - without a revolving door of people circling between them, without lobbying, without corruption, without special deals to the benefit of the biggest corporations, where private corporations aren't abused to bypass restrictions on government powers, and vice versa.
Lobbying is a tiny industry in the United States and corruption is basically a nonissue. With the exception of the current president I haven’t seen any evidence for widespread corruption in the United States - at most it’s a collection of isolated low impact and rare incidents.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right-wing institutions like the Labour regime.
Labour is a left-wing institution as much as Democratic People's republic of (North) Korea is democratic. People lie and they use doublespeak.
Clearly not from the UK. By US standards Labour would be socialist, and conservative (right) liberal at best.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#288After preserving total surveillance for decades, the UK eventually succeeded: there were no UK citizens left to monitor.
— Britain, 2077
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Something Awful Forums got investigated by the FBI after one or two people posted threats about the current president. So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.
You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.
Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.
Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?
The hill where take a dim view on and investigation are distinct from charging and conviction, because they are.
You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though:
- investigation
- charging
- court process
all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.