US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data • Hacker News Board

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#31

Post by _bfhp » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 3:14 AM UTC

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

taken from a blog I keep up with:

poc: capitalistic systems like the u.s. and many other countries thrive on the labor, execution, detainment, exploitation for profits and even processing of minorities into their institutions and even depend on racial inequalities to keep the status quo, the two are undeniably linked. we are so essential to that system's well being that they're still trying to keep us out of voting decades after martin luther king and malcolm x. to remove a strong leg on this oppressive system would obviously mean raising awareness, action and spreading information about such an oppressive system so that we can do something about it like destroy it and replace it for something more humane and less centered around white supremacy, imperialism, capitalism, racism, sexism, neocolonialism and whiteness.

white media:

russell brand: idk things are really fucked, the environment, politics, voting, y'know? something fishy is going on around here and we gotto get to the bottom of it..

white media: OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG REVOLTION HAS BEGUN LATS NIGHT

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#32

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 4:30 AM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #10

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

Politicians do look at how people vote.

I'm sure that's true. Indeed, in all but the most completely insane dictatorships, politicians carefully consider the behavior of the public.

I would just like to point out that there is quite a gulf between "Politicians do look at how people vote" and "government by the people and for the people". Votes having some effect doesn't make a nation a democracy.

Further, the idea that civic duty can be evoked on the principle that you should vote because it might make a difference is rather dubious. The idealistic energy of the young isn't likely to be mobilized with the slogan, "who know, you might have some effect". On that same principle, I pray to the Fly Spaghetti Monster each night to deliver us from corporate corruption. That too might make a difference.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#33

Post by coldtea » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 7:45 AM UTC

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

>... but really, what's the point? I know there are big differences between the parties, and that voting will make a difference

I'm not even sure of that. How different was life and policy under Major or Blair?

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#34

Post by rett12 » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 7:52 AM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #10

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government. "Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#35

Post by Create » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 8:02 AM UTC

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

Our purpose this time being to consider the political meaning of Mr. Snowden and the future he has brought us, we must begin by discarding for immediate purposes pretty much everything said by the Presidents, the Premieres, the Chancellors, and the Senators. It has been a remarkable display of misdirection and misleading, and outright lying. We’ll come back to it, but it will not serve us at the outset.

What matters most—and what it has been the goal of the Presidents, the Chancellors, the Premieres, and the Senators not to say—is how deeply the whole of the human race has been ensnared in this process of pervasive surveillance that destroys freedom.

The fastening of the procedures of totalitarianism on the human race is the political subject about which Mr. Snowden has summoned us to an urgent inquiry. And it is that inquiry which it has been the goal of pretty much every body responding on behalf of any Government or State not just to ignore but to obscure.

We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world.

This should not actually be a complicated inquiry.

http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#36

Post by w_t_payne » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 8:41 AM UTC

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

Personally, the only alternative that I can think of is suicide. Not a nice thought, but I cannot really think of any other way.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#37

Post by IanCal » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 8:58 AM UTC

summerdown2 wrote: post #8

At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this. I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the surveillance. Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell... ... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had fought for years for the right, and how important…

The national identity register was scrapped after it was started, that wouldn't have happened if Labour had stayed in power. The Lib Dems were the main party opposing it, it's one of the reasons I wanted them in.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#38

Post by w_t_payne » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 9:03 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #25

dantheta wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in. The only benefit (for me) of the two main parties is that their stance on any issue is widely known regardless of who the individual candidate is, so I can avoid them. I like the idea of independent MPs, but it can be hard to tell ahead of time whether the candidate is a wingnut, even with fairly careful research. I might vote, but tend to spoil the paper when I…

> I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in. If the issue is important enough to enough people, why aren't any of them becoming candidates?

So why don't we set up a UK political party with a philosophy that cascades out of these concerns? A party that is built on Libertarian, participatory principles, committed to policy-making that is informed by in-depth technical expertise and empirical analysis, open data, and broad, open participation, where weight is given to contributions by merit, and by the expertise and experience of the participant, rather than political affiliation and deal-making pork-politics.

A party that is empowered by the development of new tools and technologies to enhance and support broad participation and effective decision making. A party that is not encumbered by the past: A party that self-consciously makes a break from historical partisan divides, and uses it's unique position to bridge left and right, and to take the best ideas, where-soever they might originate.

A party that believes that the electorate is far from stupid, and that attention to fundamentals and excellence in policy will, given time, shine through. A party that pays attention to details, and that cares about policy execution as much as short-term media coverage. A party that can effectively fight the inefficiency, corruption, cronyism and restrictive practices that plague big government and big business in equal measure. A party that can more than restore the freedom that our people and our markets have lost; but enhance it.

Freedom. Fairness. Effectiveness.

Achieved through: Transparency. Simplicity. Broad participation.

Supported by: Policy-agnostic decision-support processes & technologies.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#39

Post by rwmj » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 9:46 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #25

dantheta wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in. The only benefit (for me) of the two main parties is that their stance on any issue is widely known regardless of who the individual candidate is, so I can avoid them. I like the idea of independent MPs, but it can be hard to tell ahead of time whether the candidate is a wingnut, even with fairly careful research. I might vote, but tend to spoil the paper when I…

> I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in. If the issue is important enough to enough people, why aren't any of them becoming candidates?

Unfortunately in the UK we have a system where you have to post a "deposit" of quite a large amount of money in order to stand. If you don't get a certain percentage of the vote you lose this deposit. This is designed by the major parties to discourage left-of-field candidates from even appearing on the ballot.

I'll admit that this frustrating bit of ballot rigging does make it harder to vote for the throwaway candidate, but you should still vote for the one closest to your beliefs even if they're not a great match for the reasons summarised by emess in this thread.

Re: US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

#40

Post by DanBC » Thu, Nov 21, 2013, 9:58 AM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #39

dragonwriter wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have trouble finding any candidates I can believe in. If the issue is important enough to enough people, why aren't any of them becoming candidates?

Unfortunately in the UK we have a system where you have to post a "deposit" of quite a large amount of money in order to stand. If you don't get a certain percentage of the vote you lose this deposit. This is designed by the major parties to discourage left-of-field candidates from even appearing on the ballot. I'll admit that this frustrating bit of ballot rigging does make it harder to vote for the throwaway candid…

The deposit is £500. (About $800). Candidates need to get over 5% of the votes cast.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electin...

There might be some seats with very low turnouts where a decent campaign by someone wearing a monkey costume could persuade apathetic voters to turn out to vote, getting 5% of the vote and possibly winning.

The traditional protest vote is for the Monster Raving Loony Party. (Loony here is "lunatic", not the bird.) While seen as a nonsense party some of their policies have found their way into UK law.

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