Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every political party in the UK supports things like the Digital Rights Act. So what is a person to do?
Not the reform party, Vote Reform UK
No thanks - I’ll keep my human rights, thank you.
Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
181–190 of 292 posts
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#182I don't think they do. The revealed preference is online safety this online safety that - although in fairness some of this is out of a desire to avoid deeper issues.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. You also have a president who has just said he will "report" a journalist to the FCC for "rebuke or punishment". I regret to inform people that fear over people cracking your encryption is quite niche, at this point; you have a looming fascist re…
I’ll have you know that due to inflation $5 is no longer a reasonable price even for a very cheap wrench!
Tariffs on imported steel products. Perhaps the most ironic adversary of the $5 wrench strategy.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#184To all of us, British or otherwise, who're posting our rabbit-holing Democracy and Brexit comments, a moment of cutting light relief. Enjoy some "Yes, Prime Minister".
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#185Not what I expected but I'm here for it
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise I think you're right, you see this sometimes where the powers that be are extremely over-confident in themselves and think "sure, let's put this thing up for referendum and show those stupid right-wingers how unpopular they really are." Which works until it doesn't. A US example was Proposition 8 in California (banning same-sex marriage) i…
> (kind of funny those legal arguments never came up BEFORE it could even be put up for a vote, again showing the level of confidence on display) Actually, IMO, it shows one of the weaknesses of our legal system. The courts can't rule on something that someone's talking about doing. They can only rule on actual legislation. It would genuinely be great if there were a formal legal process for writing a bill, submittin…
I think that's a bit of the purpose of the scientific service of the parliament (e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaftliche_Dienste_des_..., not sure how this is called in other countries)
Also you can ask anyone you like about your legislative proposal, including the judges of a court.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#187Not what I expected but I'm here for it
Genuinely curious, why? This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#188All surveillance should start with ministers first. Their private lives streamed 24/7 over internet for the public to watch.
Of course, this is only for national security since humans are corruptible, and these people have vastly most control over a nation's resources, thus, 24/7 monitoring of their private lives, by the public, is super important... for national security ... or else how we can be sure they have not been compromised by a foreign power.. or are not being blackmailed to act against the nation?
All for national security... nothing else.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Maast…
You can flip any argument, but there isn't real symmetry here. If a change would be large and far-reaching and painful to undo, then it should be more difficult to make. Not impossible, of course: sometimes you need to make large far-reaching hard-to-undo changes. But imagine the following situation: about half the population likes X and about half hates it, and every year we hold a referendum on whether to have X or…
Well there is symmetry. Based on the original comment of wanting a clear majority to 'leave', knowing the result now and the polling at the time, that would have ensured the status quo would continue, and I'm guessing there, that the parent commenter voted remain.
A leave voter would argue for exactly the same thing - a clear majority need to vote to remain. If a majority vote isn't a majority vote, what's the point of calling yourself a 'democracy' and virtue signalling to the rest of the planet how great your governance is?
> a well defined outcome with known good and bad points
How so? What was the well-defined defined outcome of the UK joining the EEC in 1973? What's your time horizon? Was that outcome still true in 1980, 1999, 2026? How does being a member of the EU make you immune to probability and chance? Was a 'well defined outcome' in 1973 that, under the Blair government, we would allow East European nationals with freedom of movement to migrate en-masse to the UK, and that, ironically, is claimed to be one of the reasons for the leave vote.
It's actually quite sad to me that in 2026 the whole thing is still so tribal. Everything promised by either side largely never came to pass, and it's now a decade on. I just wish both sides would recognise that it's been over three decades of continuous poor Government that's the root of most of the UK's problems, and spend their energy fixing that instead.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#190Well, they would have loved to stop migration and voted in droves for brexit for that. Cant have that though, democracy or not, can vote for any party, but cant have that result they all promise before the vote closes and never deliver once the vote is in.
FWIW, Brexit was never, ever, ever about stopping migration. It was about right wing elites deciding which migrants they wanted, and at best about regaining control of that policy from the EU. It was sold in a racist and bigoted way. The reason we have less control over illegal migration is exactly Brexit , which, as people were warned at the time, torpedoed our actually cushioned position with respect to "first safe…
no it was %90 about that finance and regulation thing for sharing banking and finance data to EU and related, I even fully forgot what was it. It was well hidden and among years it got lost but this was mainn reason. They will not tell you this unless you really deeply read it and see it.