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

Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 291 posts

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#31

Post by TulliusCicero »

IndySun wrote: post #24
HPsquared wrote: post #15

Generally speaking the more important an issue is, the less it is allowed to be affected by democratic processes. That's why Brexit was such a big upset, it bucked the trend (the management miscalculated, nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise).

It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

I dunno about 2/3rds, but there should definitely be some kind of supermajority required for things like joining or leaving the EU.

Even a 55% requirement would be a lot better than a simple majority imo.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#33

Post by t1E9mE7JTRjf »

p-e-w wrote: post #16
DrMandalay wrote: post #5

GCHQ has done it's job of obfuscating it's existence pretty well, for most Brits to still think they've had any privacy at all for the last few decades.

That’s tinfoil hat nonsense. Of course there is privacy, otherwise those agencies wouldn’t be constantly lobbying for more invasive surveillance powers. What would be the point of that, if they could already read everything?

those agencies aren't the ones lobbying. take a look at the 'ngos' lobbying for chat control.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#34

Post by 7bit »

janpeuker wrote: post #26

A long time ago I walked into a public library to get a library card, already my ID in hand. Staff looked at me aghast "why would we need an ID for a card, that'd be ridiculous!". I feel Brits take privacy quite seriously.

And yet, they voted for the governments that killed privacy and established surveillance in public, because they love privacy so much.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#35

Post by FartyMcFarter »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #31
IndySun wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

I dunno about 2/3rds, but there should definitely be some kind of supermajority required for things like joining or leaving the EU. Even a 55% requirement would be a lot better than a simple majority imo.

Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy.

This way we get to see their project fail.

I don't know which one is worse.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#36

Post by foldr »

lores wrote: post #22
foldr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works better with an informed electorate. However, one of the reasons that voters don't bother informing themselves is the campaign of cynicism aimed at convincing them that all political parties are the same, that their vote doesn't matter, etc. etc. One might just as well say that an informed population requires democracy: why bother keeping track of national policy if you have no control over it? In the days af…

Yes, you're entirely right. One further, I was at a talk from a law professor at a big uni once, where he had printed the entire text of the Medicare bill on a giant pile of paper. He explained that it had taken him, a professor, several months full-time to understand everything at stake; what chance has a representative to do so, let alone on every bill? What chance has a voter? What does it mean for democracy that…

The UK government usually publishes explanatory notes together with the text of the bill itself. It's quite feasible to read these if you're interested in the details of a particular piece of legislation. E.g. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/pdfs/ukpgaen_20...

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#37

Post by mrkeen »

p-e-w wrote: post #16
DrMandalay wrote: post #5

GCHQ has done it's job of obfuscating it's existence pretty well, for most Brits to still think they've had any privacy at all for the last few decades.

That’s tinfoil hat nonsense. Of course there is privacy, otherwise those agencies wouldn’t be constantly lobbying for more invasive surveillance powers. What would be the point of that, if they could already read everything?

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/how_gchq_trac...

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#39

Post by bingbong4748 »

IndySun wrote: post #24
HPsquared wrote: post #15

Generally speaking the more important an issue is, the less it is allowed to be affected by democratic processes. That's why Brexit was such a big upset, it bucked the trend (the management miscalculated, nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise).

It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

- Nigel Farage, May 2016

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#40

Post by DrBazza »

IndySun wrote: post #24
HPsquared wrote: post #15

Generally speaking the more important an issue is, the less it is allowed to be affected by democratic processes. That's why Brexit was such a big upset, it bucked the trend (the management miscalculated, nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise).

It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

You could flip that argument. The bar set to remain was too low.

As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21.

> Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing

Both sides lied, both sides exaggerated.

The referendum to simply leave or remain would never have happened if UK Parliament went to the public more often with referendums about various treaties such as Maastricht, Amsterdam and Rome. Giving people the illusion of choice would have been enough.

The UK seems to be an outlier for an arrogant Parliament that thinks it knows best, in spite of public sentiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_Eur...

Post reply on HN