461–470 of 521 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the capabilities and resources that the police have to track us 24/7 are an order of magnitude less than Google or Meta has. This will be a good argument when Google or Meta are able to arrest you.
Google can block access to your Google account, which is enormously disruptive for many people whose online lives are built around it. In some ways it could be more disruptive in the long term than an arrest.
It’s a moot point. I’m saddened at the invasion of privacy and the intrusion on an individual’s civil liberties, but anonymous travel on the London Underground died when they made bank cards and contactless the primary way to get through the barriers. I’m not saying that “this doesn’t matter because it’s slightly worse than before”. I’m saying the frog has been boiling for a long time. I don’t want people being surpr…
There's been badly thought out legislation, but drawing the conclusion that
"Robust restrictions on the state’s ability to monitor, interfere with and restrict the daily lives of its citizens aren’t a luxury; they’re essential to protecting a free and just society."
Is wrong.
Historically when it comes to sh*tty regimes there is no such thing as "robust restrictions". At best whatever exists before is a minor inconvenience that can be worked around by ignoring, packing the judiciary, intimidation, or changing the law.
At worst the "robust restrictions" hobble the ability of previous reasonable regimes to operate effectively, thereby increasing their chances of being accused of being soft on crime/immigration and ending up with sh*tty regimes led by so called "strongmen".
Ultimately, no amount of rights or technical restrictions is protection from overreach. The only protection is far harder, and it is to work at developing political systems that bring people together and avoid giving the extremists the opportunity to take power in the first place.
(edited to fix italics)
It’s a moot point. I’m saddened at the invasion of privacy and the intrusion on an individual’s civil liberties, but anonymous travel on the London Underground died when they made bank cards and contactless the primary way to get through the barriers. I’m not saying that “this doesn’t matter because it’s slightly worse than before”. I’m saying the frog has been boiling for a long time. I don’t want people being surpr…
You can buy an Oyster card with cash and top it up with cash from machines at almost every station.
It's still possible to travel somewhat anonymously this way.
You can still use paper tickets if you're worried about your Oyster card being de-anonymised. But as you say, that is not the primary way of travel anymore.
Edit: Points already stated by windowliker: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49256399
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the country that can´t stop dingy boats...this despite journalists always being able to be there on time to take pictures for the Daily Mail...
All right, mate, let's hear your plan for securing the UK's south-eastern coastline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's even worse than that. If at some remote possibility that a criminal does get caught and charged with a crime, the prisons are full (37% foreign criminals [0]) so they won't do any prison time, and therefore no justice is served. In fact our prisons are so full, violent criminals are being let out after serving only their half term [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_populati... […
> 37% foreign criminals Why is this statistic relevant?
More people, low wages, no taxes, no infrastructure for said people.
So very relevant, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to tell you I am not that bothered. Twice I nearly lost my father to terrorism in London. (Sliding Doors commuter moments both times — by sheer chance not being in the very usual place at the very usual time). I remain pretty relaxed about the idea that people who wish to bomb trains and tubes and buses can't get across London without the awareness that they could be tracked. You cannot live your life paranoid…
> You cannot live your life paranoid Agree! Life is so much better. > Twice I nearly lost my father to terrorism in London. Oh. You just don’t know the definition of the word “paranoia”.
I do, however, accept that some brown men with backpacks have blown up tube trains, that the direct causes of that are things I may not even know about, that the risk has not gone away at all, and that indeed at some points the risk may be severe. I can't know which.
But the security services can.
I can decide not to be paranoid about being watched, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to tell you I am not that bothered. Twice I nearly lost my father to terrorism in London. (Sliding Doors commuter moments both times — by sheer chance not being in the very usual place at the very usual time). I remain pretty relaxed about the idea that people who wish to bomb trains and tubes and buses can't get across London without the awareness that they could be tracked. You cannot live your life paranoid…
Where are you getting the perception that Americans generally fear London? I don't know a single American that has ever expressed any sentiment that London is unsafe. I know a few that have some stupid notions about immigrants in the UK, but that isn't exclusive to people on this side of the pond. Genuinely, though. Americans just don't worry about safety in London outside of scams and petty crime inherent to any big…
Given how constant it is, and how it comes from the freedom-fries-nitwit end of the spectrum, and has gone on for a couple of decades now, I tend to assume it has a receptive audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google can block access to your Google account, which is enormously disruptive for many people whose online lives are built around it. In some ways it could be more disruptive in the long term than an arrest.
At least I can choose to not do business with Google. I can't do the same with my government. Even emigrating effectively requires their permission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two largely different concepts/epochs separated by more than 40 years. The negotiations and partition of Ireland and the establishment of Northern Ireland as a self-governing province (rather than being governed from Britain): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland And then the Troubles, which were a sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants within Northern Ireland itself, that stemme…
This does not answer my original question: why doesn't Britain give the north of Ireland back to the Irish? Why does it cling to it? Didn't Britain cause enough suffering for the Irish already?