UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable • Hacker News Board

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#391

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 12:18 AM UTC

sctb wrote: post #389

brokenmachine wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about "most violent people" or regular domestic violence. We're talking about someone who ran random pedestrians down on purpose on a footpath and stabbed a police officer for no reason. This is an outlier. Even though it doesn't fit your ridiculous PC SJW agenda, I would be willing to bet he's got some kind of mental health issue. I don't think that's a controversial opinion to hold.

Part of having a civil discussion is leaving things like “your ridiculous PC SJW agenda” right out.

Actually, I didn't find it civil to be accused of "causing harm to people with mental illness" by "ignorantly linking violence to mental illness."

I don't think it's ignorant to ask the question if someone who did that is right in the head.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#392

Post by DanBC » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 12:35 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #391

sctb wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of having a civil discussion is leaving things like “your ridiculous PC SJW agenda” right out.

Actually, I didn't find it civil to be accused of "causing harm to people with mental illness" by "ignorantly linking violence to mental illness." I don't think it's ignorant to ask the question if someone who did that is right in the head.

You didn't ask a question. You saw behaviour that you didn't understand and immediately made an assumption: it must be the result of mental illness.

You are saying two things:

1) He is violent because he has a mental illness.

2) People with mental illness are violent because of their illness

The reality is very simple: he was a violent man. He had always been a violent man. He had a long history of violent behaviour. He doesn't have a long history of contact with MH services, and he never had (as far as I know) any contact with secure MH units[1]. Some men are remarkably violent, but most of them know exactly what they're doing and they're not controlled by an illness.

The prevalence of violence, and mental illness, means that obviously there's some overlap between "people who are ill" and "people who are violent", but you need to be really careful not to say "the violent people in that overlap are violent because of their mental illness".

When looking at predictors of violence we see that mental illness doesn't give you much if any predictive power.

Substance misuse does; previous episodes of violence does; and any (especially all) of these combined does.

The reason it's important to avoid incorrectly linking violent behaviour to mental illness is seen in the stats of people shot and killed by US police: about half the people shot and killed each year are people with mental illness. The vast majority of them pose zero risk of harm to other people, maybe some risk to themselves, but they get killed because people like you keep pushing the "mental illness == violent and dangerous" myth.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#393

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 3:34 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #392

brokenmachine wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I didn't find it civil to be accused of "causing harm to people with mental illness" by "ignorantly linking violence to mental illness." I don't think it's ignorant to ask the question if someone who did that is right in the head.

You didn't ask a question. You saw behaviour that you didn't understand and immediately made an assumption: it must be the result of mental illness. You are saying two things: 1) He is violent because he has a mental illness. 2) People with mental illness are violent because of their illness The reality is very simple: he was a violent man. He had always been a violent man. He had a long history of violent behaviour.…

I didn't ask a question because I stated my opinion as to the single mass-murderer's state of mental health. I made no comment about the larger mentally ill community.

Just by virtue of his actions, and also because the news mentioned that he's been in jail, I think he's probably got some kind of mental illness or thought disorder. I could be wrong or I could be right, but for the moment I'm going to stick to that opinion.

I never said all mentally ill people are violent or dangerous, because I don't have some concealed anti-mentally ill agenda.

I do however have a bias in thinking that mass-murderers are generally mentally ill, and a quick google implies I'm factually correct in having that bias.

> He doesn't have a long history of contact with MH services

Hmm. Just the fact that he has had contact with mental health services strengthens my opinion that he's probably mentally ill.

As you've said yourself, some mentally ill people are violent and dangerous, some are not. I am aware of that.

When people are around trigger-happy US cops with guns pointed at them, they get shot, which is no surprise with such a militarised police force. Unfortunately that's the society some people live in.

If cops shoot mentally ill people, that's a problem with the cops and the society that tolerates that behavior, not me for speculating about whether or not a single mass murderer has a mental illness or not.

Don't try to imply that my opinion of a single case is in some way responsible for trigger-happy police in a country I don't even reside in.

I'm neither in the US, a cop, nor mentally ill so none of those are my responsibility.

Once again, I'm talking about this particular mass-murderer, and I think he's probably mentally ill. Nothing you have mentioned has swayed me from that opinion.

I think we're done here.

Re: UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

#394

Post by brokenmachine » Sun, Apr 09, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

Khaine wrote: post #357

brokenmachine wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. The last thing we need is more laws and new powers for the surveillance state. For example, Australia's Lindt Cafe siege - the guy was already under "24 hour surveillance" by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence) - which did nothing to prevent the attack. Despite this, AFAIK there was not much blame placed on ASIO. I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to sol…

Man Monis was not under surveillance by ASIO. He was considered a "serial pest" and "not a threat".

Sorry, yes I was mistaken.

> Dr Barrett placed Monis on anti-psychotic medication after he told her he was under surveillance 24 hours a day from ASIO and Iranian authorities, including in the bathroom of his home. [1]

> Mr Abbott conceded Man Haron Monis was not on a security watchlist, despite his long criminal history and known "infatuation with extremism". [2]

Still, the whole thing demonstrates how useless more surveillance would be.

If they can't even watch someone with a long criminal history and infatuation with extremism, why do they expect us to believe that looking at my dick pics will somehow stop terrorism?

[1] http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-inquest-man-haron...

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-17/sydney-siege3a-could-i...