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

David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#21

Post by jamessb »

fit2rule wrote: post #17
gazrogers wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) British!=English. 2) David Cameron is in no way representative of the British or the English. Please stop painting us all with the same brush.

>David Cameron is in no way representative of the British or the English. Right, because you don't have a representative government. At all.

David Cameron is leader of the Conservative party, which received 36.1% percent of the popular vote at the last general election. In order to form a government, he had to enter a coalition with the third party, the Liberal Democrats, who received 23% of the popular vote. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...).

Based on these numbers, it seems difficult to claim that the leader of any political party represents the views of Britain as a whole.

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#22

Post by Ygg2 »

gb wrote: post #4
Ygg2 wrote: post #3

Wat. Wat. blinks Wat. This must be stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life. It's like saying that we should all affix a gun to our hand because it works so well in FPS. Or that hiding in a corner makes you recover from cancer. I don't care if he didn't say it really. I blame either him for saying or the journalist for writing so illogical.

The exact quote from the linked BBC article is: "In the most serious crimes [such as] child abduction communications data... is absolutely vital. I love watching, as I probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. There's hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device."

Ok, then the writter is just a moron.

It's a weak position, but he is using an analogy, so that makes (slightly) more sense.

I wonder how much of such data can be used in a police investigation? I'm actually Ok that they use it to prevent a crime, but charging you for it, if they don't have any legal evidence is also fine by me.

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#23

Post by lewispollard »

coldtea wrote: post #20
lewispollard wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot fathom how an entire nation of people can allow themselves to be duped so well, by so few. The same reason as in every western democracy, including the US: massive marketing budgets & the media. > It is my belief that the English zeitgeist is so riddled with guilt over what IT did to its colonies and foreign possessions, that it is currently in the death throws of a society crippled by its own crimes again…

> What absolute nonsense. So many countries have committed atrocities on a similar level, and many more recently than the British empire. Should the Norwegians be crippled by guilt for the actions of the vikings? Should the Americans be crippled by guilt for crimes against the native people? Should the Japanese and Germans be crippled by guilt for atrocities committed in WW2? People don't live in the past. Yes, they…

> Yes, they should be crippled by guilt. Guilt is good -- it prevents you doing the same bad things again and gives you a perspective of what you did. > People might not live in the past, but countries carry their past with them.

I would argue that it's the leaders and governments who should be crippled by guilt. It's useless for me to carry the guilt of the British empire when my ancestors were working class and had no influence over those decisions (and, in fact, were Irish when you go back more than a few generations - should I be angry at Britain in that case?)

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#24

Post by DanBC »

Shitty source means people are not commenting on what he actually said. The actual law any how right / wrong it is is ignored; what happens if that law is broken is ignored.

This is a type of article that Hacker News fucking sucks at - ignorant flamebait attracts indignant comments which get many upvotes. Ignorance is spread and people don't bother finding out the reality.

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#25

Post by DanBC »

fit2rule wrote: post #8

This is so typical of the British attitude - its on TV, so it must be true, or have weight, or .. something. I cannot fathom how an entire nation of people can allow themselves to be duped so well, by so few. The entire 'keeping people safe' position is a button that gets pushed and pushed - do the English really fear for their lives so much that they are willing to give up so much freedom, and to allow a powerful el…

You spun all of that out of a misquote?

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#27

Post by cafard »

fit2rule wrote: post #18
lewispollard wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot fathom how an entire nation of people can allow themselves to be duped so well, by so few. The same reason as in every western democracy, including the US: massive marketing budgets & the media. > It is my belief that the English zeitgeist is so riddled with guilt over what IT did to its colonies and foreign possessions, that it is currently in the death throws of a society crippled by its own crimes again…

Nobody should be crippled by guilt - but todays generations ought to damned well be held responsible for the wealth they enjoy as a result of the slaves their parents owned. It wasn't that long ago, and we still have people in modern society who are responsible for atrocities, yet are nevertheless getting away with it - because, as you say, 'people dont live in the past' ..

The slaves their parents owned? My parents were born considerably after the Emancipation Proclamation. As for my more distant ancestors, I have no idea whether any of them owned slaves. I do know that a bunch were serfs. Let me know where to send the bill.

Re: David Cameron: TV crime dramas prove we need warrantless electronic surveillance

#28

Post by fit2rule »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #14
fit2rule wrote: post #8

This is so typical of the British attitude - its on TV, so it must be true, or have weight, or .. something. I cannot fathom how an entire nation of people can allow themselves to be duped so well, by so few. The entire 'keeping people safe' position is a button that gets pushed and pushed - do the English really fear for their lives so much that they are willing to give up so much freedom, and to allow a powerful el…

I'm not buying whatever you're selling. Most English people today don't know anything about what's supposedly been done to Ireland in their name. Neither are they duped by the rhetoric, but democracy is sufficiently weak that they don't have a voice. I don't think most people around the world have an issue with colonial Britain either.

>I don't think most people around the world have an issue with colonial Britain either.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but many outside the western world consider the UK to be one of the chief evil influences in the world.

Post reply on HN