UK Mass Surveillance Law has just passed the Parliament's Approval

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, Jovidah said:

I agree it's a mess and some paranoia is justified. That being said... it's not an easy black and white topic. Most people working in those jobs genuinely try to protect the public, and feel like they're hamstrung by the privacy laws. All these 'big brother'  programs have shown promise in the past. So the problem is that privacy and security are conflicting values, and mutually exclusive in practise.

 

Whichever is more important is up to society to realize, but one has to realize it does come at a cost. Right now it just seems like most people don't feel privacy is 'worth it'. I know these kind of meta-data programs aren't popular, but they have saved lives.

That's also why 'the people at the top'  tend to keep on the side of the intel agencies here. When they're confronted by the rundown of what these programs have achieved, it makes it very hard to strike them down, knowing it'll likely increase casualties that you will wear political responsibility for.

 

Now I'm not saying it should go one way or the other, I'm just trying to clarify it isn't as black and white as people consider. It's one of those very grey areas.

 

And my point was mostly to underline that people have a misplaced trust in VPNs. If you use a VPN because you don't 'trust' the government you're really only relocating the problem, as you're pretty much taking a blind gamble at the trustworthiness of the VPN provider.

In most police states it's actually rather unwise to use a VPN or encryption on your home connection as it simply identifies you as a target of interest.

I think you're probably talking largely from a US perspective, and not so much with regards to the UK. I was going to contest the effectiveness of the bulk data collection over traditional targeted surveillance, but it's almost impossible to take that stance while not being privy to all the information.

 

But I'll point out the major problems I have with this bill. They're opening up the bulk data collection beyond just the intelligence agencies, they are making the "meta-data" (they need a warrant for the contents) available to the normal police without the need for warrants (local councils will even have "some" access to investigate things like benefit fraud). This means there will be a population-wide police database which will include phone records, mobile phone location data and Internet connection records (ICRs). This is important because they're also broadening the scope of what is collected to include those "Internet Connection Records", which is sold to the public as just what websites you've visit, but in reality it's so vague that it's effectively anything they want that is connected to the net. And ofc all this will be stored for 12 months, so it can be searched retroactively, I'm sure you're aware of the implications of this, I don't need to tell you how much personal data anybody with a smartphone is handing over. And to do so, they're rolling out deep packet inspection boxes to all ISPs in the UK. And obviously, they're insisting that any encryption used by UK companies can be easily removed at the governments request, oh and they're legalising state hacking. Oh but yeah at least there is some oversight, it'll be an offence for a Communications service provider (CSP) or someone who works for a CSP to reveal that data has been requested, so nobody will know when their data is being requested.

 

So tell me if you think this bill is about oversight for the intelligence agencies, and combating terrorism, or will it be used for other means?

 

Oh but the best part, the press have obviously been told to keep silent about this passing the House of Lords, because one of the most draconian pieces of legislation to pass in the UK hasn't even gotten a mention in the MSM. Almost nobody knows this is becoming law imminently.

 

[Jovidah]

24 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

I think you're probably talking largely from a US perspective, and not so much with regards to the UK. I was going to contest the effectiveness of the bulk data collection over traditional targeted surveillance, but it's almost impossible to take that stance while not being privy to all the information.

Actually I'm not American... I was mostly talking about 'in general', mostly in response to people asking what these things could be used for. There are legit uses for these things and a lot of this kind of metadata has already been gathered for years. 

Gathering bulk data certainly has it's uses, though mostly after the fact. It helps to connect the dots after an attack has taken place to take a group down fast. The other case is it can help connect to data gathered 'abroad'. So for example when a bunch of laptops are captured somewhere in dirka dirkastan, they can try and figure out if he's been talking to anyone, and if so who that person was talking to. 

 

There already is a lot of international cooperation in this regard, although they're not exactly screaming it off the roofs. Interestingly enough, what an agency can and cannot do to their own citizens isn't necessarily very limiting. You just get a foreign agency to do it for you, while you keep tabs on their citizens for them. It's a pretty simple quid pro quo cooperation scheme that works pretty well. Most people in Europe cried foul when they heard about US eavesdropping, but didn't realize that a lot of it was probably with consent of the host nation intelligence agencies.

24 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

But I'll point out the major problems I have with this bill. They're opening up the bulk data collection beyond just the intelligence agencies, they are making them available to the normal police without the need for warrants (local councils will even have "some" access to investigate things like benefit fraud). This means there will be a population-wide police database which will include phone records, mobile phone location data and Internet connection records (ICRs). This is important because they're also broadening the scope of what is collected to include those "Internet Connection Records", which is sold to the public as just what websites you've visit, but in reality is so vague that it's effectively anything they want that is connected to the net. And ofc all this will be stored for 12 months, so it can be searched retroactively, I'm sure you're aware of the implications of this, I don't need to tell you how much personal data anybody with a smartphone is handing over. And to do so, they're rolling out deep packet inspection boxes to all ISPs in the UK. And obviously, they're insisting that any encryption used by UK companies can be easily removed at the governments request, oh and they're legalising state hacking. Oh but yeah at least there is some oversight, it'll be an offence for a Communications service provider (CSP) or someone who works for a CSP to reveal that data has been requested, so nobody will know when their data is being requested.

 

So tell me if you think this bill is about oversight for the intelligence agencies, and combating terrorism, or will it be used for other means?

 

Honestly, I don't know. As I said I was mostly pointing out how it's not a clear black and white thing. I can certainly understand how it's very tempting for the police to want these bigger powers. It very likely will help them catch more criminals. Whether it's worth the sacrifices in privacy? I honestly don't know or have an opinion on it.  Yes it's shit that they can get their eyes in everything and it's vulnerable to abuse. But likewise it's problematic if traditional tools like phone taps become next to useless with nothing to replace it. 

 

I don't really have a strong opinion either way as I can understand both sides of the issue. This is simply weighing the right to privacy versus the ability to fight crime. 

 

And on a sobering note: if push comes to shove, if a government really wants to mess with you, they can. They don't necessarily even need this law for it. There's always an escape clause in most laws. There's always the option to just ignore the laws if you claim it's for a higher good. As long as they don't get caught, no one will be the wiser. Luckily though, in most democracies there is some reluctance to do this. Fades rather quickly though after a few people die.

[Murdoch]

4 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

Actually I'm not American... I was mostly talking about 'in general', mostly in response to people asking what these things could be used for. There are legit uses for these things and a lot of this kind of metadata has already been gathered for years. 

Gathering bulk data certainly has it's uses, though mostly after the fact. It helps to connect the dots after an attack has taken place to take a group down fast. The other case is it can help connect to data gathered 'abroad'. So for example when a bunch of laptops are captured somewhere in dirka dirkastan, they can try and figure out if he's been talking to anyone, and if so who that person was talking to. 

 

There already is a lot of international cooperation in this regard, although they're not exactly screaming it off the roofs. Interestingly enough, what an agency can and cannot do to their own citizens isn't necessarily very limiting. You just get a foreign agency to do it for you, while you keep tabs on their citizens for them. It's a pretty simple quid pro quo cooperation scheme that works pretty well. Most people in Europe cried foul when they heard about US eavesdropping, but didn't realize that a lot of it was probably with consent of the host nation intelligence agencies.

Honestly, I don't know. As I said I was mostly pointing out how it's not a clear black and white thing. I can certainly understand how it's very tempting for the police to want these bigger powers. It very likely will help them catch more criminals. Whether it's worth the sacrifices in privacy? I honestly don't know or have an opinion on it.  Yes it's shit that they can get their eyes in everything and it's vulnerable to abuse. But likewise it's problematic if traditional tools like phone taps become next to useless with nothing to replace it. 

 

I don't really have a strong opinion either way as I can understand both sides of the issue. This is simply weighing the right to privacy versus the ability to fight crime. 

 

And on a sobering note: if push comes to shove, if a government really wants to mess with you, they can. They don't necessarily even need this law for it. There's always an escape clause in most laws. There's always the option to just ignore the laws if you claim it's for a higher good. As long as they don't get caught, no one will be the wiser. Luckily though, in most democracies there is some reluctance to do this. Fades rather quickly though after a few people die.

I guess it comes down to how much of a threat you perceive terrorism to be, personally I judge it to be almost a non-existent threat on a personal level. Beyond that, I'd say it's a miniscule threat to a functioning Western Democracy. And there's far better ways of dealing with the threat, than to start spying on your own citizens. It's a tired point (and many people have made it better than I can), but fixing Western Foreign policy would be the starting point. It amazes me, genuinely, how many people miss that blindingly obvious point, and would rather walk naked through airports than even consider "bombing countries back to the stoneage" installing a token democracy then fucking off, or arming rebels to incite regime change, dropping some bombs then leaving them to it, might come back to haunt us.

 

So, it's an easy question for me, giving up our rights for the "cause" of improved safety from the "terrorists" is a significantly greater threat to Western Democracy. And I seriously question the motives of those in charge that continue to use the overplayed threat of terrorism, to diminish those rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jovidah]

1 hour ago, Murdoch said:

I guess it comes down to how much of a threat you perceive terrorism to be, personally I judge it to be almost a non-existent threat on a personal level. Beyond that, I'd say it's a miniscule threat to a functioning Western Democracy. And there's far better ways of dealing with the threat, than to start spying on your own citizens. It's a tired point (and many people have made it better than I can), but fixing Western Foreign policy would be the starting point. It amazes me, genuinely, how many people miss that blindingly obvious point, and would rather walk naked through airports than even consider "bombing countries back to the stoneage" installing a token democracy then fucking off, or arming rebels to incite regime change, dropping some bombs then leaving them to it, might come back to haunt us.

Actually we're largely in agreement here. I don't see terrorism as a threat to me on a personal level either. Statistically the odds of being a victim are incredibly low. 

That being said; it still has a disproportionate impact on the unlucky few that do get hit, and a lot of people are scared by it. So as a government you cannot simply ignore the problem. Especially when for example 3000 of your citizens have just been killed; you can't just go and say ' well that's just too bad... now move along'. Our society doesn't accept that. Too many people want the government to do something, and no politician wants to get the blame when an inquiry tries to figure out what caused the intelligence failure that allowed a deadly attack to happen.

 

Also take in mind that one of the reasons we have been rather safe is that intelligence services have been fairly effective in preventing attacks. Even if a cell got lucky, they were usually taken down extremely fast. So we haven't seen the kind of sustained terror campaigns by a single cell that were seen for example back in the 70's and 80's. Things could have been a lot worse.

 

I do agree that the threat of overreaction is probably larger than the threat of the actual attacks. Ironically, the type of attacks we have seen recently, however gruesome, have a fairly limited impact. It's surprising this lesson isn't learned. Terror bombings aimed at civilian targets, just like strategic bombardment of cities, actually has a fairly limited effect. It's far more effective to target economic resources. So all the IRA actions in Northern Ireland really didn't achieve diddely squat until they started getting some hits in the economic heart of London. That really changed the calculation. Likewise, bombing German cities in WW2 never broke their morale, and would have been far less effective in focusing everything on specific targets such as all the power production facilities. Killing civilians only strengthens resolve and limits defection. It really only works when you can go Mongol on a population and have the actual capability - and willingness - to go genocidal on a group.

 

I also agree the whole reason we're in this mess is largely due to crap foreign policy. The main motivation for OBL to hate America was its support for the rather corrupt and oppressive ruling family of the KSA. The invasion of Iraq was a watershed moment for the whole jihadi movement. And that lesson hasn't been learned. Western countries are still backing KSA while it's bombing Yemen to the stone age. Western countries are still turning a blind eye when the regime in Bahrain is beating down protests from its Shiite majority. The West still has Israel's back everytime it decides human rights don't apply to Palestinians. There are a lot of short-sighted decisions being made.

 

And it's not just foreign policy. The reason France has such a big problem is largely due to failed domestic policies for the last few decades. And they keep repeating the same damn mistakes. So now they're just playing whack-a-mole, essentially just mowing the grass without ever adressing any of the root causes.

 

That being said however, adressing root causes is a necessary long term strategy, but it's not enough. Preventive counter-terrorism efforts do nothing to stop those who have already gone over the edge. It's just not possible to get that genie into the bottle again. These things have to go hand in hand if you want to put a dent into the problem.

Quote

 

So, it's an easy question for me, giving up our rights for the "cause" of improved safety from the "terrorists" is a significantly greater threat to Western Democracy. And I seriously question the motives of those in charge that continue to use the overplayed threat of terrorism, to diminish those rights.

 

 

I'm really not sure it's always overplayed. In some ways the threat is often underreported because a group gets taken down before an attack, and you don't hear much about it. In those cases nobody really wants to scare the public so it's all rather hush-hush.

Also take in mind that as the territory of ISIS crumbles, there'll likely be an exodus of foreign fighters. Historically (for example after Afghanistan) that means trouble when these guys come home... 

 

While I do agree it's healthy to always be suspicious when governments claim... just about anything, it's not entirely without merit.

It's a difficult dilemma and honestly I really don't know where to draw the line. But I think the black & white perspective often taken on the internet is a bit too simplistic and doesn't do justice to the problem.

[SSL]

3 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

I'm really not sure it's always overplayed. In some ways the threat is often underreported because a group gets taken down before an attack, and you don't hear much about it. In those cases nobody really wants to scare the public so it's all rather hush-hush.

 

It's overplayed. You're regurgitating the tired, tin-foil hat line "the government hushes it all up" which is basically worth jack shit.

 

The real irony, though, is that somebody absolutely wants to scare the public. That's the whole reason that the terrorism issue is "overplayed". Uncertainty and fear are a great way to control people.

 

Sure, terrorism is a threat that needs attention. But it can be dealt with through normal methods of intelligence and investigation working within the system.

[Jovidah]

4 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

It's overplayed. You're regurgitating the tired, tin-foil hat line "the government hushes it all up" which is basically worth jack shit.

Err... no. The amount of arrests is quite sizable. But usually it doesn't make much more than a tiny headline, and convictions are usually on lesser charges (as they usually haven't actually managed to comit anything big). Now if you look at the amount of volunteers travelling to Syria, those are really sizable numbers. While not everyone in this group is to be considered a threat, a decent amount of them are. 

 

Admittedly, it's not an existential threat to a democracy. I can't really think of a whole lot of terror campaigns that ever brought down a country. But that doesn't mean it's a program that's easily ignored. The US already paid that price once and it caused 3000 deaths, and while I don't think their policies afterwards really made them any safer (only made it worse), at least they weren't ignoring the problem anymore.

4 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

The real irony, though, is that somebody absolutely wants to scare the public. That's the whole reason that the terrorism issue is "overplayed". Uncertainty and fear are a great way to control people.

 

Sure, terrorism is a threat that needs attention. But it can be dealt with through normal methods of intelligence and investigation working within the system.

Actually here in Europe, there are only select few politicians who actually try to scare the public. Usually the ones who have something to gain from it. Most mainstream politicians and institutions actually try to downplay its impact. They are quite aware that giving it too much attention only increases its influence and economic impact.

In France and Belgium sending the soldiers onto the streets wasn't meant to scare the public. It was mostly to assure the public and try to somehow try to get a grasp on problems they really did not have under control.

 

And define 'normal methods of intelligence and investigation'? One of the reasons they want all the high-tech metadata crap is because it works. If you want to know how well the 'traditional methods'  work, just look at older terror campaigns. They all lasted a lot longer and were a lot bloodier.

 

Again, I'm not trying to say this whole law is the best next thing since sliced bread or anything. But how on earth do you expect intelligence services to do their job if everyone keeps bringing up the bloody privacy argument at every turn? I get so bloody sick of it. Everyone always has their mouths full about privacy and how shit the government is, but never considers the other side of the coin. I dare you, next time there's a succesful attack, go call up the family of one of the victims, and tell them how hiding your dodgy porn habits are more important than the life of their son and daughter.

 

I don't like all this crap any better than any of you do, but at least try to realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would like perfect privacy and perfect security to go hand in hand as well. It doesn't. I honestly don't know where to draw the line; that's up for public debate. But you cannot claim a right to total privacy and then deny the negative consequences that come with it.

[Murdoch]

44 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

I also agree the whole reason we're in this mess is largely due to crap foreign policy. The main motivation for OBL to hate America was its support for the rather corrupt and oppressive ruling family of the KSA. The invasion of Iraq was a watershed moment for the whole jihadi movement. And that lesson hasn't been learned. Western countries are still backing KSA while it's bombing Yemen to the stone age. Western countries are still turning a blind eye when the regime in Bahrain is beating down protests from its Shiite majority. The West still has Israel's back everytime it decides human rights don't apply to Palestinians. There are a lot of short-sighted decisions being made.

 

And it's not just foreign policy. The reason France has such a big problem is largely due to failed domestic policies for the last few decades. And they keep repeating the same damn mistakes. So now they're just playing whack-a-mole, essentially just mowing the grass without ever adressing any of the root causes.

 

That being said however, adressing root causes is a necessary long term strategy, but it's not enough. Preventive counter-terrorism efforts do nothing to stop those who have already gone over the edge. It's just not possible to get that genie into the bottle again. These things have to go hand in hand if you want to put a dent into the problem.

I'm really not sure it's always overplayed. In some ways the threat is often underreported because a group gets taken down before an attack, and you don't hear much about it. In those cases nobody really wants to scare the public so it's all rather hush-hush.

Also take in mind that as the territory of ISIS crumbles, there'll likely be an exodus of foreign fighters. Historically (for example after Afghanistan) that means trouble when these guys come home... 

 

While I do agree it's healthy to always be suspicious when governments claim... just about anything, it's not entirely without merit.

It's a difficult dilemma and honestly I really don't know where to draw the line. But I think the black & white perspective often taken on the internet is a bit too simplistic and doesn't do justice to the problem.

 

I'm glad you read between the lines and realised I didn't mean just our crappy interventions or lack of a plan afterwards was the problem with our foreign policy. There are too many issues to get into on a tech forum so I won't get into them, I'll just say we largely agree, regardless I'd just get my self flagged in the UK filter if I spoke more. 

 

Yeah, that's the biggest flaw with my stance, how do we deal with the current threats from the mistakes of the past. I mean if we're talking the current ISIS threat the long term strategy of course comes down to foreign policy again, you'd start by going after the root cause of the ideology, which circles quite nicely back to KSA. Ideally, you'd first stop them from pushing Wahhabism throughout the middle east and beyond.

 

And I'll stop there, because I don't want to get into the religious aspect. So I'll leave on a lighter note, at the current rate selfie deaths are accelerating at per year, it won't be long before they are a bigger threat to humanity than terrorism. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dramatic-rise-selfie-deaths-worldwide-over-half-india-1592143

 

 

[Jovidah]

8 hours ago, Murdoch said:

 

I'm glad you read between the lines and realised I didn't mean just our crappy interventions or lack of a plan afterwards was the problem with our foreign policy. There are too many issues to get into on a tech forum so I won't get into them, I'll just say we largely agree, regardless I'd just get my self flagged in the UK filter if I spoke more. 

 

Yeah, that's the biggest flaw with my stance, how do we deal with the current threats from the mistakes of the past. I mean if we're talking the current ISIS threat the long term strategy of course comes down to foreign policy again, you'd start by going after the root cause of the ideology, which circles quite nicely back to KSA. Ideally, you'd first stop them from pushing Wahhabism throughout the middle east and beyond.

 

And I'll stop there, because I don't want to get into the religious aspect. So I'll leave on a lighter note, at the current rate selfie deaths are accelerating at per year, it won't be long before they are a bigger threat to humanity than terrorism. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dramatic-rise-selfie-deaths-worldwide-over-half-india-1592143

 

 

Ah I wouldn't worry too much about being flagged for government criticism. A lot of the people in the system often have their doubts and misgivings about the decisions being made as well. In a democracy you still have to try pretty hard to get into trouble.

 

Admittedly, the choices aren't always easy. For example, KSA has been a total spoiler for quite a while now. But it's questionable whether things would improve if the regime collapses. It could even get worse. They let that whole Wahhabi genie out of the bottle and not it started to lead a life of its own. It wasn't even about the contents of the religion either; it was just a strategic alliance to keep the religious cadres on their side while they supressed the Shiites - who happened to be living on top of all the oil .

But that Wahhabi export is certainly a problem, and helping to cause problems in places that traditionally never had any with extremism.

 

Ironically, all the populist and raving xenophobes trying to cast blame on all Muslims in general actually make it harder to adress some of the very valid problems that are resulting from the Saudi-sponsored attempts to essentially nudge the moderate majority into a more conservative direction that denies centuries of progress even within the Islamic world itself. Sadly, due to the endless income of oil they have been disproportionally succesful in that regard. Really the best way to adress this problem is to simply alleviate our oil dependence (go sustainable!) so we don't end up feeding the problem with our own money.

 

And about the long-term death rates.... well.. who knows, we might be heading in the right direction. Strategically speaking, when talking ISIS I think they might actually have a beneficial effect. While they managed to attract small groups of fans & fanatical followers, their methods and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and muslims alike discredited jihadi extremism in the eyes of most others. This is something OBL was already acutely aware of this 10 years ago, when AQ in Iraq was going to town under Al-Zawahri; it's simply too damaging to 'the cause'. When even the extremists start considering hearts & minds, that bodes well for the future.  

[unsubscribed]

I have one problem with this - power abuse. Elections can be predicted. So most of other laws being passed. Once you know what the public is up to you can do all sorts of manipulation. And this is a big issue. Regardless how imperfect democracy is this can actually bring us many steps back in terms of freedom. And I doubt there is a way to stop it.

[PlayStation 2]

Good thing I don't live in the UK. I'd just have a bunch of gay porn up JUST to piss them off.

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, Jovidah said:

Ah I wouldn't worry too much about being flagged for government criticism. A lot of the people in the system often have their doubts and misgivings about the decisions being made as well. In a democracy you still have to try pretty hard to get into trouble.

 

Admittedly, the choices aren't always easy. For example, KSA has been a total spoiler for quite a while now. But it's questionable whether things would improve if the regime collapses. It could even get worse. They let that whole Wahhabi genie out of the bottle and not it started to lead a life of its own. It wasn't even about the contents of the religion either; it was just a strategic alliance to keep the religious cadres on their side while they supressed the Shiites - who happened to be living on top of all the oil .

But that Wahhabi export is certainly a problem, and helping to cause problems in places that traditionally never had any with extremism.

 

Ironically, all the populist and raving xenophobes trying to cast blame on all Muslims in general actually make it harder to adress some of the very valid problems that are resulting from the Saudi-sponsored attempts to essentially nudge the moderate majority into a more conservative direction that denies centuries of progress even within the Islamic world itself. Sadly, due to the endless income of oil they have been disproportionally succesful in that regard. Really the best way to adress this problem is to simply alleviate our oil dependence (go sustainable!) so we don't end up feeding the problem with our own money.

 

And about the long-term death rates.... well.. who knows, we might be heading in the right direction. Strategically speaking, when talking ISIS I think they might actually have a beneficial effect. While they managed to attract small groups of fans & fanatical followers, their methods and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and muslims alike discredited jihadi extremism in the eyes of most others. This is something OBL was already acutely aware of this 10 years ago, when AQ in Iraq was going to town under Al-Zawahri; it's simply too damaging to 'the cause'. When even the extremists start considering hearts & minds, that bodes well for the future.  

I was only kidding about the "filter".

 

The populist right-wing politicians pushing xenophobia and blaming all Muslims, are doing exactly the same in my opinion as the leaders in power. They're deliberately misrepresenting the threat to further their cause. The duplicity involved is frustrating and I brought it up because as I see it if you're ever going to tackle the root causes it's the giant elephant in the room. Saudi sponsored influence needs to be addressed, but it goes unmentioned because far from wanting to diminish their influence, we actively turn a blind eye, provided the oil keeps coming and the multi-billion dollar arms deals still get signed.

 

And we continue to use the fall out, to stoke divisions in society, promote fear, and further suppress our freedoms. It's highly effective, if 2016 has shown us anything it's that it's quite easy to get a population to turn on something tangible, like immigrants, or brown people, (or the EU), which then blinds them from looking at the real reasons their lives are shitty, and makes it a hell of a lot easier to slide legislation like this through largely unnoticed.

 

And yeah, I understand that we're not going to tackle the root causes, that I'm portraying these as problems that can / will be fixed, when I know well that they will not be. So pragmatically, if you want to deal with terror cells in Western Democracy, increasing domestic spying and intelligence would potentially be a way to deal with that. Yet, nothing ever gets rolled back, we don't ever regain these freedoms when the threat is dealt with. And there's always another threat on the horizon, so my stance doesn't come from the impacts on our freedoms today, it comes from the threat that "building the biggest tool for control and oppression the world has ever seen" potentially brings.

 

The vast majority of people are apathetic or ignorant about their privacy and the snooping laws being passed. People do not care, they can't see any direct impact on their lives, and they can't seem to foresee any future problems.

 

 

[Jovidah]

1 hour ago, Murdoch said:

I was only kidding about the "filter".

 

The populist right-wing politicians pushing xenophobia and blaming all Muslims, are doing exactly the same in my opinion as the leaders in power. They're deliberately misrepresenting the threat to further their cause. The duplicity involved is frustrating and I brought it up because as I see it if you're ever going to tackle the root causes it's the giant elephant in the room. Saudi sponsored influence needs to be addressed, but it goes unmentioned because far from wanting to diminish their influence, we actively turn a blind eye, provided the oil keeps coming and the multi-billion dollar arms deals still get signed.

Yeah I wonder how much leniency they'd have with them if they weren't such good customers. They go a long way in keeping both the British and the French arms industry afloat. In that sense I feel like arms exports decisions in the west really have a lot to be desired. And it's not just KSA. Some of the other kingdoms play rather dubious roles as well, and so has Turkey over the last few years. For a long time Turkey considered IS the lesser of evils, and figured that as long they were killing Kurds it was fine to supply them...

 

At times I really question our choice of allies. I'm no fan of Iran, but what's the point in trying to counter their activities by teaming up with even worse cats in the neighbourhood. It's so counter-productive in the long run. Sometimes you also wonder who's playing who.

The relationship with Iran could have been fixed over a decade ago, right after 9/11. Instead, the Bush administration decided to just lump them in the axis of evil and poof, we're back to square one. 

 

Quote

And we continue to use the fall out, to stoke divisions in society, promote fear, and further suppress our freedoms. It's highly effective, if 2016 has shown us anything it's that it's quite easy to get a population to turn on something tangible, like immigrants, or brown people, (or the EU), which then blinds them from looking at the real reasons their lives are shitty, and makes it a hell of a lot easier to slide legislation like this through largely unnoticed.

Yeah it's a shame, and admittedly some established parties have played a big role here. It's fascinating how the conservatives have tried to shift the blame for all the economic downturn in some areas to anyone and everyone but themselves, even though leave-it-all-to-the-market economic policies are most to blame. Labour really hasn't tried to fix it either.

 

What's troubling though is that none of the changes, or even new populist parties, will really make life better for those most in need. Most of their policies are counter-productive, would just wreck the the economy and make matters worse. The whole Brexit thing really isn't going to help anyone who voted for it. All it did was propel some jackasses to power and drive down the pound.

It's troubling what it does to the country though. The processes you see at play radicalizing the electorate are really not all that different from those leading to radicalization of terrorists.

[Murdoch]

7 hours ago, Jovidah said:

 

Yeah it's a shame, and admittedly some established parties have played a big role here. It's fascinating how the conservatives have tried to shift the blame for all the economic downturn in some areas to anyone and everyone but themselves, even though their economic policies are most to blame.

What's troubling though is that none of the changes, or even new populist parties, will really make life better for those most in need. Most of their policies are counter-productive, would just wreck the the economy and make matters worse. The whole Brexit thing really isn't going to help anyone who voted for it. All it did was propel some jackasses to power and drive down the pound.

 

Couldn't agree more. I was watching a stand-up comedian the other day, joking about this, essentially shouting "why are you blaming immigrants, why am I the only one that remembers, are you all idiots? it was the BANKS, IT WAS THE BANKS".

 

While I understand, and I'm sympathetic to people that voted Brexit, and there are some genuine positive arguments that have been made for leaving the EU. Some of what I hear from them is so misguided, we're essentially doubling down on the very economic model that got everybody so pissed off in the first place. Perhaps we can link this all together, maybe the system of policing needs to be stepped up and more intrusive, because they know the fallout is coming down the line, controlling an increasingly pissed off populace is only going to get harder when they finally wake up to the fact they've been "sold a pup".

[Bleedingyamato]

On November 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM, spamy666 said:

 

Subtitle: 'MEOW!!"  lol

 

On November 17, 2016 at 7:21 AM, AluminiumTech said:

Well, when I go to the UK for uni, I'll be sure to buy me a tunnel bear Pro subscription.

Ummm.. Maybe you should go somewhere else?

 

Also, why go to another country for college/uni/whatever you call education past high school?

 

Doesn't Hong Kong have good options for that level of education? 

 

On November 17, 2016 at 7:31 AM, atrash said:

WE...ARE...FUCKED... 

 

 

Your profile kitty seems to agree with you.  >_>

lol

[paddy-stone]

To be honest, with all that our governments are doing like harrassing the sick and disabled into early graves, spying on everyone to try and catch the few terrorists supposedly.. I would rather be fucking bombed instead of having my civil liberties taken away and having the fucking toffs laughing from their ivory castles while the poor and hungry, the sick and the lame get poorer, sicker or dead. But meanwhile because it doesn't affect much of the population until it happens to them, they couldn't give a shit... and this is exactly why this bill passed too. It has already been proven that it would pretty much do fuck all to catch terrorists, they were supposedly already being tracked by agencies without the need for this bill. So not only do we get to have our freedoms trampled over, we get to pay for it too because the ISPs have already said that the woefully inadequate 1.25 million per ISP would not cover their need to rent server space and secure it etc etc, so they will have to increase the cost of phone and internet AGAIN. This country is an absoloute disgrace now, I member when Britain used to be called great and deserve the title somewhat too... I am ashamed of this country and it's citizens for letting these elected MPs do this.. and pay them a tidy sum too. Fuckwits.

[AlTech]

6 hours ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Subtitle: 'MEOW!!"  lol

 

Ummm.. Maybe you should go somewhere else?

 

Also, why go to another country for college/uni/whatever you call education past high school?

I've already applied to the UK. And the qualifications I've done in recent memory are all british based and so the UK would be easiest to go to since they would recognize them.

 

If I had chosen the IB then I could have easily gone to other countries.

6 hours ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Doesn't Hong Kong have good options for that level of education? 

 

They do but they are not known for recognizing some qualifications I am doing which are british based.

[Bleedingyamato]

12 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I've already applied to the UK. And the qualifications I've done in recent memory are all british based and so the UK would be easiest to go to since they would recognize them.

 

If I had chosen the IB then I could have easily gone to other countries.

 

They do but they are not known for recognizing some qualifications I am doing which are british based.

You mean applied to colleges in the UK?

 

 

[Energycore]

On 11/17/2016 at 6:31 AM, DatSpeed said:

Yes, the bill has a part that states that every UK citizen will be given a profile based on their sexuality and political views

2016 is the new 1984

[AlTech]

49 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

You mean applied to colleges in the UK?

 

 

universities. Not colleges.

[Bleedingyamato]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

universities. Not colleges.

Those are the same thing in the US.  

[AlTech]

Just now, Bleedingyamato said:

Those are the same thing in the US.  

i know......

[Bleedingyamato]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

i know......

Then why did you correct me?  I'm confused.  

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Then why did you correct me?  I'm confused.  

In the UK they are different things. 

 

College in UK gives a 1-2 year course before Uni. It's a "foundation" course to see if you like your subject or not and to learn some things about it.

[Piku-Chan]

I find it fitting, considering London was at the center of Orwell's 1984. Synchronicity at its finest.

[Kobathor]

On 11/17/2016 at 6:59 AM, Master Disaster said:

Also inb4 they ban the use of VPN to hide your activity.

Funny (or not funny) thing is: the way the UK is going, I would not be surprised at all if that was reality in a few years.