151–160 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hijabs do not cover the face. A niqab or burqa would, but the former are very rare in the West, and the latter virtually nonexist.
Maybe in the countryside. Go to any West EU capital and you'll see planty of niqabs and burqas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Telling an officer to "fuck off" or "piss off" is not a crime. It's not an offense to be rude and you certainly shouldn't have to "Wind your neck in" in fear of a public servant. Yes it is: From the Public Order Act 1986 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 ) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words…
There are exceptions for police officers though, who are expected to tolerate some swearing. Relevant cases are listed on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_198...
I personally don't see any issue with this. If you want absolute privacy, than stay at home. If you want absolute freedom, than go live somewhere where nobody else lives. Society runs on compromises: your freedon to swing your fist ends where my nose begins (and viceversa); your privacy ends where my safety is concerned (and viceversa).
What’s your full name, phone number, and street address? If you want privacy, then don’t post online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sorry if that offends you, but pick up a history book and read and you will see that I am correct. It doesn't offend me, it's just trivially wrong, as I know of many privacy-enhancing laws that got passed without a drop of blood being spilled (e.g. the GDPR).
This is part of why I object to the dilution of the term "right" with the modern, European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda. Basic liberties are a very narrow category as laid out in the Bill of Rights. "Owning your data" is not a right in the sense in which your parent comment was speaking, certainly not in the same way as the Right to Bear Arms. In other words, there is a big difference bet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…
This is what I don't understand about the hard-line 2A advocates. They're so concerned with being able to "defend against the government" if needed but guns are no longer the government's biggest source of power over the people. Data and surveillance are far more powerful in 2019 than any weapon. Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner. But I'd swap the second amendment for a data privacy amendment in a heartbeat.
In practice, that would be a bad trade, because you can verify that you still have your 2A rights by being in possession of a gun, whereas with data privacy, all you have are solemn assurances that your rights are being respected, and when you discover you were lied to and you didn't actually have data privacy after all, you've got nothing.
If you mean some sort of impossibly-strong, enforced-by-God-or-aliens data privacy amendment, maybe. But that's not on the table.
(My point here is independent of the question of the 2A itself, but just looking at it as the proposed trade. Trading something concretely verifiable for promises that the promising people have every motivation to break secretly and you have no ability to audit is a bad trade.)
Is there another source for this? I don't even want to visit the Mail's website, let alone read whatever misrepresentation of what actually transpired that they have put down in their article.
Don't want to get stuck in that news bubble though....
Is there another source for this? I don't even want to visit the Mail's website, let alone read whatever misrepresentation of what actually transpired that they have put down in their article.
From the Independent coverage: > The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods. > “The guy told them to p * off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” I live close to Romford, and…
Is "piss off" swearing?
What society needs is genetic engineering to ensure no more micro dick, low IQ, braindead thugs are born into the world to play grown-up wunnabe nazis.
It so weird how much of our freedom and privacy we are giving away. People used to fight for these stuff.
And then you would think how far this can go in near future if this is just the beginning.
After all, all these fear and mixed feelings about security and conflicts are caused by a long chain of reactions and consequences of bad decisions governments are making themselves around the world. And it is sad that normal people end up losing their privacy more than responsible ones do.
It requires a fundamental strategy change that is not going to happen in reality. I wonder what kind of destructive side effects it will have for the future generations specially to the culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…
This is what I don't understand about the hard-line 2A advocates. They're so concerned with being able to "defend against the government" if needed but guns are no longer the government's biggest source of power over the people. Data and surveillance are far more powerful in 2019 than any weapon. Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner. But I'd swap the second amendment for a data privacy amendment in a heartbeat.
They also fail to realize that the 2A already failed, and that it's premise wasn't that gun ownership protected against a tyrannical government. It's that gun ownership was necessary to the militia-based security posture which was the alternative to relying on a powerful standing military and armed police forces for external and internal security, and that preventing the creation and reliance on those large standing forces in the first place was the safeguard against tyranny.