4 ms·

> absurd libel laws and take any and every opportunity to cry "regulate the internet" You do realise there's a very consistent theme here? It's not about terr

by bostik 9y ago

> absurd libel laws and take any and every opportunity to cry "regulate the internet" You do realise there's a very consistent theme here? It's not about terrorism. It's not about the media. It's not even about internet. The underlying narrative is a systematic need to be able to control the messengers. Why impose hard propaganda when you can have unlimited pressure points available to influence what is being relayed to the public at large? For some reason, the UK government (regardless of parties in power) seems to be fundamentally attracted to autocracy.

xaa 9y ago
Yes, I see the connection, but I have difficulty seeing how politicians think that even with such measures, they can actually control discourse (apart from going full China on the matter). I have always found it interesting that the great dystopian fiction is always set in the UK: 1984, V for Vendetta, etc. And yet, UK politicians regularly make statements about surveillance that would immediately invoke those associations in the US, but UK residents, seen from the outside at least, don't bat an eye. In the US, we have a great deal of surveillance as well, but the government at least feels the need to hide it rather than flaunt it. In other words, perhaps those authors also recognized this autocratic tendency (assuming it exists).
- bostik 9y ago
  I don't think there's anything new about it. The concept and legal framework for D-Notice (essentially: "soft" media gag order)[0] is more than 100 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice
  - xaa 9y ago
    I consider the occasional need of the government to tell the media "you can't publish this for national security reasons" to be in a different category. This has legitimate use-cases, and with proper oversight can be done correctly. Surely we would not have wanted the media to publish about the Manhattan Project or Ultra during WWII. The US has NSLs which seem much the same thing. Specific, targeted actions like this are a far cry from dragnet responses like the snooper's charter or calls for banning encryption (at least any kind that can't be decrypted by the government). The danger of dragnets is that they pick up incidental thought-crime. It's why warrants exist. Although certainly a case could be made that the media is in a better position than the government to decide what should be made public.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  > apart from going full China on the matter I think that there is a substantial minority of both politicians and public who would have no problem with that at all. just read the Daily Mail comments on such stories; they are full of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.
Silhouette 9y ago
For some reason, the UK government (regardless of parties in power) seems to be fundamentally attracted to autocracy. Theresa May served as Home Secretary for about six years before becoming Prime Minister. Throughout that time, on most days she probably spent several hours just reviewing cases where the police and security services wanted to do something that required explicit authorisation at that level. It's reasonable to assume that many, even most, of those cases really did relate to the worst in our society. It also seems reasonable to assume that in at least some of those cases someone known to be very bad could not easily be brought to justice through our normal legal processes without undermining some other ongoing investigation. In addition, she was presumably given information and advice primarily by the police and security services, and those same organisations and the officials representing them would be the people either enabled or limited by her decisions. It isn't hard to see how someone exposed to that pressure for such a sustained period of time would become extremely authoritarian. I don't know how anyone's view of society after such an experience could not be so biased that it would be hard to see what normal life looks like any more. Just about everyone who has become Home Secretary in my adult life has moved in that direction during their time in office. The only difference here is that by a quirk of political fate Theresa May then became the most senior politician in the UK, with a majority government that gave her the power to drive through almost any legislation if she wanted it strongly enough. She achieved that position without anyone actually voting for that outcome in the first place. Until very recently, she also had little significant opposition to challenge her. And so here we are, with the Investigatory Powers Act on the books and a government whose most senior representatives don't seem to understand even the basics of modern technologies and their implications yet have little hesitation about proposing regulation or outright bans of some of that same technology if it makes them look strong to enough voters in the week before a general election.
- richlewis42 9y ago
  Thanks for this, really puts a relatable human swing on a politician most see as a cold hearted robot. I just hope the tory majority doesn't widen, and enable her to act even more freely.
  - 9y ago

by bostik 9y ago

xaa 9y ago

Yes, I see the connection, but I have difficulty seeing how politicians think that even with such measures, they can actually control discourse (apart from going full China on the matter). I have always found it interesting that the great dystopian fiction is always set in the UK: 1984, V for Vendetta, etc. And yet, UK politicians regularly make statements about surveillance that would immediately invoke those associations in the US, but UK residents, seen from the outside at least, don't bat an eye. In the US, we have a great deal of surveillance as well, but the government at least feels the need to hide it rather than flaunt it. In other words, perhaps those authors also recognized this autocratic tendency (assuming it exists).

bostik 9y ago
I don't think there's anything new about it. The concept and legal framework for D-Notice (essentially: "soft" media gag order)[0] is more than 100 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice
- xaa 9y ago
  I consider the occasional need of the government to tell the media "you can't publish this for national security reasons" to be in a different category. This has legitimate use-cases, and with proper oversight can be done correctly. Surely we would not have wanted the media to publish about the Manhattan Project or Ultra during WWII. The US has NSLs which seem much the same thing. Specific, targeted actions like this are a far cry from dragnet responses like the snooper's charter or calls for banning encryption (at least any kind that can't be decrypted by the government). The danger of dragnets is that they pick up incidental thought-crime. It's why warrants exist. Although certainly a case could be made that the media is in a better position than the government to decide what should be made public.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
> apart from going full China on the matter I think that there is a substantial minority of both politicians and public who would have no problem with that at all. just read the Daily Mail comments on such stories; they are full of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.

Silhouette 9y ago

For some reason, the UK government (regardless of parties in power) seems to be fundamentally attracted to autocracy. Theresa May served as Home Secretary for about six years before becoming Prime Minister. Throughout that time, on most days she probably spent several hours just reviewing cases where the police and security services wanted to do something that required explicit authorisation at that level. It's reasonable to assume that many, even most, of those cases really did relate to the worst in our society. It also seems reasonable to assume that in at least some of those cases someone known to be very bad could not easily be brought to justice through our normal legal processes without undermining some other ongoing investigation. In addition, she was presumably given information and advice primarily by the police and security services, and those same organisations and the officials representing them would be the people either enabled or limited by her decisions. It isn't hard to see how someone exposed to that pressure for such a sustained period of time would become extremely authoritarian. I don't know how anyone's view of society after such an experience could not be so biased that it would be hard to see what normal life looks like any more. Just about everyone who has become Home Secretary in my adult life has moved in that direction during their time in office. The only difference here is that by a quirk of political fate Theresa May then became the most senior politician in the UK, with a majority government that gave her the power to drive through almost any legislation if she wanted it strongly enough. She achieved that position without anyone actually voting for that outcome in the first place. Until very recently, she also had little significant opposition to challenge her. And so here we are, with the Investigatory Powers Act on the books and a government whose most senior representatives don't seem to understand even the basics of modern technologies and their implications yet have little hesitation about proposing regulation or outright bans of some of that same technology if it makes them look strong to enough voters in the week before a general election.

richlewis42 9y ago
Thanks for this, really puts a relatable human swing on a politician most see as a cold hearted robot. I just hope the tory majority doesn't widen, and enable her to act even more freely.
- 9y ago