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

111–120 of 292 posts

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

#111

Post by goalieca »

Nursie wrote: post #69
legacynl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're being revisionist. It's not about the people in power, it was about the media. They controlled the narrative, and they were the ones that convinced everyone of illegal bendy bananas. > The very pro-EU faction at the head of the Tory government. When has any tory ever been pro-eu? i think you're misremembering how things went down.

> I think you're being revisionist Do you believe that either Leave.EU or Farage’s circus had the power to make a binding exit plan? How? What powers do you believe they had to do so? > It's not about the people in power, it was about the media. They controlled the narrative, and they were the ones that convinced everyone of illegal bendy bananas Errr, so the media should have made a plan? Not sure what you’re on abo…

I always hear the media drives narrative but no one complains about this when it’s going their way.

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

#112

Post by PaulKeeble »

alt227 wrote: post #81
hackersnooze1 wrote: post #62

I am not convinced they do, they keep voting to give away their privacy every year.

Every political party in the UK supports things like the Digital Rights Act. So what is a person to do?

At least 3 parties don't that stand members almost everywhere in the country.

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

#113

Post by roenxi »

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.

Did they even have a referendum on joining the EU? Just skimming through, it looks like [0] they only had a referendum on EEC membership which sounds like it would predate the EU. It is a bit of an unfair ratchet where people can sidle in to the EU but require strong consensuses to leave. It should be symmetrical.

Particularly when the scope of the EU seems to be a bit vague and regularly expanding to micromanage various aspects of life. It looks like they might be trying to rebuild the US federal government.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_membership_of_t...

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

#114

Post by Nursie »

ipaddr wrote: post #107
Nursie wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit, I certainly think it’s a problem, because as you say, you can end up with a government with a large majority of seats based on a small proportion of electoral support. I much prefer the ranked choice system here in Australia. I’m sure there are flaws, but you tend to end up with candidates who are more representative of the wishes of the electorate, and you eliminate that “I’d better vote for A in case B g…

Then you push the coalitions forming outside of the party process to parliament where voters have no say compared to forming coalitions to within the party where party members have a say.

Err .. Maybe?

The big coalition in Australian politics, the LNP, has been integrated enough (in most states) to share a platform and field single candidates, giving people that choice ahead of time. We haven’t had a post-election coalition formed in some time.

But I think you might be thinking more of PR systems rather than preferential votes. In Preferential systems you still have a single winner of a given constituency, but the method of choosing that winner is more focused on a wide basis of support rather than on just who has the most votes.

I.E. if you have three parties for a seat, Centre-right gets 40% of the vote, Centre-left gets 35, “Legalise Everything Dudes!” get 25.

Under FPTP Centre-right takes it.

In a preference vote, we discard LED and count its voters’ second preference. Let’s say the split is 4:1 left/right. This leads us to Centre Right getting 45%, Centre left on 55% and the seat goes left. In this case we end up with a candidate acceptable to a larger part of the electorate. And the existence of LED didn’t split any votes, you can’t say a vote for a smaller party is wasted in this system, or blame smaller-party voters for Right getting in rather than left.

Under PR you’d split the seats in the parliament by national vote share (as in the Australian Senate)

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

#115

Post by atmavatar »

devsda wrote: post #80
hackersnooze1 wrote: post #62

I am not convinced they do, they keep voting to give away their privacy every year.

Is there really a good party with only the "right" things in their manifesto? Democracy usually does not come with À la carte options.

It gets easier with an electoral system other than FPTP (e.g., ranked choice, instant runoff), whereby more than 2 parties appear. You can then mix and match multiple parties that support policies you want in a way that you're aiming for particular policies to become the majority rather than any party.

For example, for issues taxing the rich (TR), taxing the poor (TP), spending on military (SM), spending on infrastructure (SI), privacy protection (PP), and privacy intrusion (PI) and parties A, C, and D, which support TR/SM/PP, TP/SI/PP, and TR/SI/PI, the coalitions the three parties must form to pass individual bills may get you what you really wanted: TR/SI/PP, even though none of the three parties individually support all three.

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

#116

Post by softwaredoug »

trollbridge wrote: post #100
softwaredoug wrote: post #70

In the US we have tech companies complying with sketchy DHS subpoenas that don’t require warrants. We have DoJ targeting political enemies. We have FISA mass surveillance. It’s naive to think politically motivated surveillance can’t happen in the UK and elsewhere. Or to assume that only the “right people” will be the ones able to break encryption.

In the US we also have tech companies going out of their way to make their devices have strong encryption and be unbreakable.

Yes hashtag “Not all tech companies”

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

#118

Post by whackernews »

jen20 wrote: post #87
nannal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that's an argument that shines good light on brexit voters.

It’s not supposed to. There is no light that can present anybody who voted for Brexit as anything other than a fuckwit.

Haha, so dogmatic. You reckon calling half of the UK fuckwits is a smart position? Maybe you’re the fuckwit.

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

#119

Post by sph »

alt227 wrote: post #81
hackersnooze1 wrote: post #62

I am not convinced they do, they keep voting to give away their privacy every year.

Every political party in the UK supports things like the Digital Rights Act. So what is a person to do?

[redacted for anti-state sentiment]

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

#120

Post by ajsnigrutin »

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%

But that's the point of democracy, whoever was interested in the isue, went out to vote, kids are too young to vote, and more than half of people interested enough to go out, voted to leave.

You personally might have wanted to remain and wanted to raise the bar, but that's undemocratic, you can't just change the rules when you don't get the outcome you wanted.

I'm not from Britain, honestly I don't care what you guys do, but a majority of voters decided in a way they did, and you have to respect that.

Post reply on HN