4 ms·

At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it

At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
Corbyn has already spoken up: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1] Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578
- Silhouette 10y ago
  I suspect that will prove to be Corbyn's "tuition fees" moment. If he's still there by the next general election, the Lib Dems will surely attack him for being all talk and no action.
  - sergior 10y ago
    Lib Dems are experts at all talk and no action. Oh irony.
    - sctb 10y ago
      Unsubstantive partisan comments are a kind we really need fewer of, so please don't post them here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  That's how it's always been. Northern Irish terrorism was used to justify many restrictions of civil liberties in the UK, and while opposition figures made disapproving noises nothing actually changed and their opposition was limited to expressing their opinions while sitting in comfy chairs. It's one reason I left the UK in the first place; not because of facing personal discrimination for being Irish (I did face some but most British people are pragmatic and fair-minded), but because of the whole securitized atmosphere with security cameras everywhere - it was like being in prison. However, I have little hope of this changing. As far as I can tell the vast majority of people value security over privacy or autonomy, and of course they never think Bad Things are going to happen to them because they're Good People - like the woman in the news the other day who voted for Trump and is now surprised that her husband is being deported even though he's not a 'bad hombre.' It's unlikely that there will ever be a mass movement for privacy and autonomy, because the genius and failure o democracy is that it's harder to blame your problems on some antipathetic Other - foreign invaders, aristocrats, an elite social class or whatever. Democracy really depends on people thinking about issues, and most people want to be firmly embedded in a social context, perhaps because were a eusocial species. It's hard for them to conceptualize an oppressive state in the same way that it's hard for most people to imagine hating their parents or the people int heir community. Happily, as far as digital technology is concerned there is not a whole lot the UK government can actually do about the issue, and May's speechifying is more directed at appeasing the drooling tabloid-reading class than it is reflective of any serious policy initiative. the likely effect sit aht operating systems on computing devices sold in the UK won't be allowed to have built-in encryption and the smart set will be using mods of some sort. Pretty much how it was with PGP 25 years ago.
emmab 10y ago
> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person. Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.
- simonbarker87 10y ago
  There is also a wide spectrum of mental illnesses that aren't schizophrenia that may make people act in these ways. While OP was being flippant I don't think the essence of what they were saying is out of line, doing something extreme and causing a lot of harm and damage could justifiably be called crazy even if not medically accurate with out being a slur on those with diagnosed a mental illness.
- tomc1985 10y ago
  'Crazy' refers to more than schizophrenia... nobody uses that word to refer to an exclusive group anymore
- seanhandley 10y ago
  Terrorists are politically motivated murderers. So are soldiers in any army. The only difference is in who they answer to.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    You just called a lot of really honorable people murderers. Murder is unjust killing. Killing civilians to make a point or to cause chaos is, by definition, murder. Let's not equate that with all the legitimate things armed forces are for.
    - megous 10y ago
      Sorry, many soldiers are murderers. There's clear intention to kill. And justification does not happen simply because some idiot in power tells someone to go kill other people for political reasons. And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to give power over Mosul back to Iraqi government, and gave it a go.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

Corbyn has already spoken up: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1] Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578

Silhouette 10y ago
I suspect that will prove to be Corbyn's "tuition fees" moment. If he's still there by the next general election, the Lib Dems will surely attack him for being all talk and no action.
- sergior 10y ago
  Lib Dems are experts at all talk and no action. Oh irony.
  - sctb 10y ago
    Unsubstantive partisan comments are a kind we really need fewer of, so please don't post them here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
anigbrowl 10y ago
That's how it's always been. Northern Irish terrorism was used to justify many restrictions of civil liberties in the UK, and while opposition figures made disapproving noises nothing actually changed and their opposition was limited to expressing their opinions while sitting in comfy chairs. It's one reason I left the UK in the first place; not because of facing personal discrimination for being Irish (I did face some but most British people are pragmatic and fair-minded), but because of the whole securitized atmosphere with security cameras everywhere - it was like being in prison. However, I have little hope of this changing. As far as I can tell the vast majority of people value security over privacy or autonomy, and of course they never think Bad Things are going to happen to them because they're Good People - like the woman in the news the other day who voted for Trump and is now surprised that her husband is being deported even though he's not a 'bad hombre.' It's unlikely that there will ever be a mass movement for privacy and autonomy, because the genius and failure o democracy is that it's harder to blame your problems on some antipathetic Other - foreign invaders, aristocrats, an elite social class or whatever. Democracy really depends on people thinking about issues, and most people want to be firmly embedded in a social context, perhaps because were a eusocial species. It's hard for them to conceptualize an oppressive state in the same way that it's hard for most people to imagine hating their parents or the people int heir community. Happily, as far as digital technology is concerned there is not a whole lot the UK government can actually do about the issue, and May's speechifying is more directed at appeasing the drooling tabloid-reading class than it is reflective of any serious policy initiative. the likely effect sit aht operating systems on computing devices sold in the UK won't be allowed to have built-in encryption and the smart set will be using mods of some sort. Pretty much how it was with PGP 25 years ago.

emmab 10y ago

> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person. Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.

simonbarker87 10y ago
There is also a wide spectrum of mental illnesses that aren't schizophrenia that may make people act in these ways. While OP was being flippant I don't think the essence of what they were saying is out of line, doing something extreme and causing a lot of harm and damage could justifiably be called crazy even if not medically accurate with out being a slur on those with diagnosed a mental illness.
tomc1985 10y ago
'Crazy' refers to more than schizophrenia... nobody uses that word to refer to an exclusive group anymore
seanhandley 10y ago
Terrorists are politically motivated murderers. So are soldiers in any army. The only difference is in who they answer to.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  You just called a lot of really honorable people murderers. Murder is unjust killing. Killing civilians to make a point or to cause chaos is, by definition, murder. Let's not equate that with all the legitimate things armed forces are for.
  - megous 10y ago
    Sorry, many soldiers are murderers. There's clear intention to kill. And justification does not happen simply because some idiot in power tells someone to go kill other people for political reasons. And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to give power over Mosul back to Iraqi government, and gave it a go.