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

Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#131

Post by vertex-four »

nailer wrote: post #127
vertex-four wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax is for picking up TV signals, not for consuming BBC broadcasts. It does fund the BBC, though. Additionally, Channel 4 gets none of the license fee, and it is not Government-run. (Nor's the BBC for that matter run by the Government - it merely has requirements to be for the public benefit, to represent the UK, and a variety of other things, by law, and in return it gets money from the TV license.)

The post you're responding to did not say anything about broadcasts. But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee. The term government is preferable because the term 'state' is vague to people outside the UK. Being a government run service does not mean the BBC is required to follow the ideology on the current party in power. You're right about chan…

> But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee.

Actually... it's consumption of live TV broadcasts specifically (you can consume news, radio, and BBC iPlayer catchup without paying a penny), and it covers all live TV - even if you only watch, say, Channel Five online, and never access any BBC content, you have to pay the fee.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#132

Post by dingaling »

vertex-four wrote: post #56
nailer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).

The tax is for picking up TV signals, not for consuming BBC broadcasts. It does fund the BBC, though. Additionally, Channel 4 gets none of the license fee, and it is not Government-run. (Nor's the BBC for that matter run by the Government - it merely has requirements to be for the public benefit, to represent the UK, and a variety of other things, by law, and in return it gets money from the TV license.)

> Additionally, Channel 4 gets none of the license fee, and it is not Government-run.

The OP may have been thinking of the Welsh 'equivalent' of Channel 4, S4C, which is funded from the license fee and advertising.

http://www.s4c.co.uk/abouts4c/corporate/e_index.shtml

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#133

Post by dllthomas »

fit2rule wrote: post #126
dllthomas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started to think that the focus on 1984 is harmful. For one, fiction is not evidence. Using it as such is poor reasoning. For another, I've seen a reaction of "that's just fiction, it wouldn't actually happen" distracting from the important points.

Fiction is cultural commentary, and 1984 is designed by its author, specifically, to engage the culture in the discourse regarding the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. To take 1984 literally is to lose the plot entirely; to consider it an analog of the human condition - like so many other works of literature, both fiction and non-fiction - is the point entirely. 1984 has as much relevance now a…

While I don't think I disagree with any of that, I do think my observation stands and that 1984 should be less stressed in these discussions.

Note that I didn't say that I think the book is harmful, but the focus on it.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#134

Post by nailer »

vertex-four wrote: post #131
nailer wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you're responding to did not say anything about broadcasts. But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee. The term government is preferable because the term 'state' is vague to people outside the UK. Being a government run service does not mean the BBC is required to follow the ideology on the current party in power. You're right about chan…

> But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee. Actually... it's consumption of live TV broadcasts specifically (you can consume news, radio, and BBC iPlayer catchup without paying a penny), and it covers all live TV - even if you only watch, say, Channel Five online, and never access any BBC content, you have to pay the fee.

Only if you never use 'watch live' in iPlayer. See http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/tvlicence

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#135

Post by hamoid »

This discussion so far contains: 52 times "terror", 11 times "safe", 5 times "fear". I'm tired of those words. Having no TV and reading no news I don't see any connection between those words and the world that surrounds me.

It's sad to see homeless or drunk people in the street, but that's the worst I see.

I think eating healthy, exercising, having friends and a job does much more for our "safety" than ridiculous laws and surveillance.

I don't understand why people fear so much. Is it not possible to just refuse to fear? Be conscious about the effects it has. Talk about it. Why not just be brave and ignore the nonsense? Living with fear is no good life. We can't choose what happens in the world, but we can choose what we feel about it. We will die if we have to die. So what? It's not the end of the world.

edit: I remember seeing the tv in Finland. They play hours of crime-related series every day. What can you think of the world if you just see murders all day?

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#136

Post by dllthomas »

woodman wrote: post #115
datashovel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

with regard to snuffing out terrorist plots, this (in my mind) needs to be a collective effort. Government is not the only entity that should be responsible for preventing terrorism. The way I see it, it's the only way to keep governments from becoming the omniscient creatures they strive to be. By making it a world-wide collective effort to work to prevent terrorism. The moment you make it entirely the government's…

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is the nature of bureaucracies. I can onl…

From a "consent of the governed" mindset, government is one kind of collective effort. There are collective efforts that are not "a part of government", and certainly there is a difference between individual action and further empowering police or the armed services.

From a pure "the government will expand regardless and pay no heed to anything the populace does or says" standpoint, there's not much point in discussing any action of any sort. But backing off that just a little, if the popular mindset at least helps determine how that bureaucracy expands then privately limiting terrorism might help push the growth along less harmful avenues.

What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion - I think we agree that companies adding backdoors, monitoring and informing is a bad approach and I don't think it's what the parent meant to suggest.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#137

Post by dllthomas »

datashovel wrote: post #98
dllthomas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar for abuse of anonymity, I think.

I think I understand, and agree. Government should strive to be inclusive in their objectives, and not exclusive. It creates an entirely different landscape when government is dependent upon the people and vice-versa.

I think in particular that there is value in spreading memes that 1) the possibility of anonymity is vital to a free society; and that 2) abuse of anonymity undermines that possibility and thereby undermines freedom.

Obviously we don't deal with 2 by breaching anonymity - that is destructive to our ends. But that doesn't stop us spreading the meme.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#138

Post by fit2rule »

dllthomas wrote: post #133
fit2rule wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiction is cultural commentary, and 1984 is designed by its author, specifically, to engage the culture in the discourse regarding the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. To take 1984 literally is to lose the plot entirely; to consider it an analog of the human condition - like so many other works of literature, both fiction and non-fiction - is the point entirely. 1984 has as much relevance now a…

While I don't think I disagree with any of that, I do think my observation stands and that 1984 should be less stressed in these discussions. Note that I didn't say that I think the book is harmful, but the focus on it.

Why do you think the focus itself is harmful? Does 1984 in some way detract from the issue of state control over personal lives, or is it the hubris of the issue that makes it so difficult .. because if you're referring to the hubris, I can understand that. Its a kind of fatigue that sets in when 1984 is brought up, over and over again, and people stop paying attention to the real issue because the pop-culture knee-jerk reaction is to devalue the message due to the fatigue of no solution. There is no solution to 1984; its a dire conundrum with no end, and I think this is a source of definite stress in the issues.. the book itself does not discuss a solution. However, discussing the book is a solution, because it brings the issue to a point where an individual can be aware that they have to always be vigilant against state intrusion.

But this is not always the case - for the younger generations who are not familiar with the issue, 1984 is a very important piece of literature. For those of us who have suffered decades of ignominy over the crimes of our governments, sure: fatigue is the issue. But, we must never be willing to put our freedoms aside, for a little relief from repression. Always be aware, and always fight back!

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#139

Post by woodman »

dllthomas wrote: post #136
woodman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is the nature of bureaucracies. I can onl…

From a "consent of the governed" mindset, government is one kind of collective effort. There are collective efforts that are not "a part of government", and certainly there is a difference between individual action and further empowering police or the armed services. From a pure "the government will expand regardless and pay no heed to anything the populace does or says" standpoint, there's not much point in discussi…

> ...government is one kind of collective effort.

Why duplicate effort? It isn't as if competition in the effort would improve state service, as it is impossible to compete against the state - it really doesn't like it.

> ... privately limiting terrorism might help ...

You do know that terrorism is an incredibly rare event, right? I am confident that any sort of effort, either by the state or by private initiative, would be a tremendous misallocation of resources. That leaves the effort firmly in the state's hands - where operating in the red is the norm. Private individuals can't continuously operate in the red because they'd eventually starve.

> What form that should take is certainly subject to further discussion...

Yeah, I'd love to hear some ideas that aren't insane - but I won't be holding my breath.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#140

Post by vertex-four »

nailer wrote: post #134
vertex-four wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee. Actually... it's consumption of live TV broadcasts specifically (you can consume news, radio, and BBC iPlayer catchup without paying a penny), and it covers all live TV - even if you only watch, say, Channel Five online, and never access any BBC content, you have to pay the fee.

Only if you never use 'watch live' in iPlayer. See http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/tvlicence

That's what I meant by catchup.
Post reply on HN