5 ms·

There's another angle to this. In her previous role, Theresa May presided over record police cuts with utmost arrogance. It turns out that even if we had everyt

by dpwm 9y ago

There's another angle to this. In her previous role, Theresa May presided over record police cuts with utmost arrogance. It turns out that even if we had everything in plaintext, that there almost certainly isn't the manpower to follow up leads generated from a mass surveillance programme. If we assume that May is competent and not exploiting a tragic attack to engage in jingoistic gesture politics for the election on Thursday, then this can only be about making sure that law-abiding dissidents cannot communicate with each other in secret to hold the powerful to account.

cmurf 9y ago
I think the competency of most politicians right now is seriously suspect; but then the general population is, to me, sounding increasingly tired of democracy and just wants an autocrat to make all their life choices for them. (Not necessarily a majority of society, but perhaps a significant minority). The rational response is, more people die from falling off ladders than domestic terrorism. Can we look at this problem seriously in a way that includes the economics, without insisting that people be scared little bunny rabbits? Apparently we're not so inclined toward Vulcan logic, this silly primate species.
- Proof 9y ago
  The problem is not that more people die from ladders or cars for that matter, it's that in a polictical landscape: "no tragedy shall go to waste." We saw similar pushes for strengthening Canada's Surveillance State when they had two terrorist acts. Canada's PM didn't even hesitate. When an attack or an event happens that puts people in a state of shock and fear, politicians know their nefarious ideas have a higher probability of slipping through the public's filter. UK's PM is doing what has now become an automatic response to any kind of act. Expand government's power at all cost.
- dpwm 9y ago
  Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. Likewise, there are some who believe terrorism to be an externality of our operations abroad, in which case there is positive feedback. We are told by our leaders as the justification for war that it will cause negative feedback, though the recurrence of terrorism would suggest this is not the case. Even without any feedback, to look at this economically you would have to take into account the news, the journalists, the wars, the arms sales, the rebuilding, the cable-laying that comes from war and the attempt at peace. Consider two countries at war with the other. Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. So as a combined system, the two warring countries are better off not engaging in war. But if one country can make money from war then it is beneficial for it to be at war. The answer is for those who govern to think in terms of the whole system, i.e. both countries. That is unpopular with patriotic voters who accuse such leaders of being traitors.
  - meric 9y ago
    Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. For example, China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea, which no longer fight.
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
    >Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. It seems to me more and more that people are living in some kind of lala land today. They seem to believe that military action against some group of people will not result in some kind of recoil. Especially when part of the group they are engaging military action against is living among them or has free access to enter the country. I think that this is pretty disconnected thinking. Asking intelligence agency to do better job feels is kind of ridiculous. They just have to follow too many people to be 100% effective.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
      We're literally at war. In a war, it's not just "their" guys that get killed. It's a two-way thing. It's amazing how many people don't seem to get this.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        I blame the media. They've conditioned two generations of voters that war is something that you see on TV or read about online, not something that involves you or your neighborhood, you 'go to war', it never comes to you. This kind of verbal white-washing causes all kinds of problems when the inevitable adjustment happens which shows that we can play word games all we want but it won't make an actual difference.
        cmurf 9y ago
        The media is reporting what it is, which is a war that happens elsewhere. It's verbal white washing because it is socio-economically and politically white washed. A draft would change this. But the military is a product like anything else. It's not civil service. It's not something that every family suffers from. The U.S. professional military is overwhelmingly middle and lower class. There's no meaningful representation of aristocratic families in the military. They have nothing to lose by supporting politicians who in turn support interventionist policies abroad.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  The rational response is ...falling on deaf ears. I have been saying for years that hacker culture needs to develop greater emotional intelligence and meet people where they are instead of lecturing them with arguments that make their eyes glaze over. Politics is not a function of logic. Your best option, if you live in the UK, is to roll your eyes eyes and vote for the beardy communist despite his obvious faults. Logical arguments are not compelling to people in the grip of an emotional rush. The inability to assess and adjust to peoples' emotional states is a kind of social stupidity.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    People have stopped rolling their eyes at the "beardy communist". At least one favourability poll now shows Corbyn being seen more favourable than May, and he's closing the gap rapidly in every one of them. At the same time Labour is closing the gap as well (with one poll showing Labour down to 1% behind). Whether it will close it enough by polling day is the big question, but what seems clear is that the Tories relentless personal attacks on Corbyn no longer work very well.
    - roryisok 9y ago
      Those same polls predicted brexit would not happen and Clinton would win. I fear May will get the majority yet again. For a lot of people, her calls to essentially end cryptography will be seen as "doing something", and they will blindly vote for her.
      - sangnoir 9y ago
        > Those same polls predicted brexit would not happen and Clinton would win You say it like it's a major indictment - people just don't understand probability and low probability events occur all the damn time. On the flip-side people also play the lottery. A lot of factors contribute to poll errors: sample group is never perfectly representative of actual voters, people lying on their voting intention if they feel it's not socially accepted, &tc. That does not make polls worthless.
      - 9y ago

by dpwm 9y ago

cmurf 9y ago

I think the competency of most politicians right now is seriously suspect; but then the general population is, to me, sounding increasingly tired of democracy and just wants an autocrat to make all their life choices for them. (Not necessarily a majority of society, but perhaps a significant minority). The rational response is, more people die from falling off ladders than domestic terrorism. Can we look at this problem seriously in a way that includes the economics, without insisting that people be scared little bunny rabbits? Apparently we're not so inclined toward Vulcan logic, this silly primate species.

Proof 9y ago
The problem is not that more people die from ladders or cars for that matter, it's that in a polictical landscape: "no tragedy shall go to waste." We saw similar pushes for strengthening Canada's Surveillance State when they had two terrorist acts. Canada's PM didn't even hesitate. When an attack or an event happens that puts people in a state of shock and fear, politicians know their nefarious ideas have a higher probability of slipping through the public's filter. UK's PM is doing what has now become an automatic response to any kind of act. Expand government's power at all cost.
dpwm 9y ago
Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. Likewise, there are some who believe terrorism to be an externality of our operations abroad, in which case there is positive feedback. We are told by our leaders as the justification for war that it will cause negative feedback, though the recurrence of terrorism would suggest this is not the case. Even without any feedback, to look at this economically you would have to take into account the news, the journalists, the wars, the arms sales, the rebuilding, the cable-laying that comes from war and the attempt at peace. Consider two countries at war with the other. Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. So as a combined system, the two warring countries are better off not engaging in war. But if one country can make money from war then it is beneficial for it to be at war. The answer is for those who govern to think in terms of the whole system, i.e. both countries. That is unpopular with patriotic voters who accuse such leaders of being traitors.
- meric 9y ago
  Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. For example, China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea, which no longer fight.
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  >Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. It seems to me more and more that people are living in some kind of lala land today. They seem to believe that military action against some group of people will not result in some kind of recoil. Especially when part of the group they are engaging military action against is living among them or has free access to enter the country. I think that this is pretty disconnected thinking. Asking intelligence agency to do better job feels is kind of ridiculous. They just have to follow too many people to be 100% effective.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
    We're literally at war. In a war, it's not just "their" guys that get killed. It's a two-way thing. It's amazing how many people don't seem to get this.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      I blame the media. They've conditioned two generations of voters that war is something that you see on TV or read about online, not something that involves you or your neighborhood, you 'go to war', it never comes to you. This kind of verbal white-washing causes all kinds of problems when the inevitable adjustment happens which shows that we can play word games all we want but it won't make an actual difference.
      - cmurf 9y ago
        The media is reporting what it is, which is a war that happens elsewhere. It's verbal white washing because it is socio-economically and politically white washed. A draft would change this. But the military is a product like anything else. It's not civil service. It's not something that every family suffers from. The U.S. professional military is overwhelmingly middle and lower class. There's no meaningful representation of aristocratic families in the military. They have nothing to lose by supporting politicians who in turn support interventionist policies abroad.
anigbrowl 9y ago
The rational response is ...falling on deaf ears. I have been saying for years that hacker culture needs to develop greater emotional intelligence and meet people where they are instead of lecturing them with arguments that make their eyes glaze over. Politics is not a function of logic. Your best option, if you live in the UK, is to roll your eyes eyes and vote for the beardy communist despite his obvious faults. Logical arguments are not compelling to people in the grip of an emotional rush. The inability to assess and adjust to peoples' emotional states is a kind of social stupidity.
- vidarh 9y ago
  People have stopped rolling their eyes at the "beardy communist". At least one favourability poll now shows Corbyn being seen more favourable than May, and he's closing the gap rapidly in every one of them. At the same time Labour is closing the gap as well (with one poll showing Labour down to 1% behind). Whether it will close it enough by polling day is the big question, but what seems clear is that the Tories relentless personal attacks on Corbyn no longer work very well.
  - roryisok 9y ago
    Those same polls predicted brexit would not happen and Clinton would win. I fear May will get the majority yet again. For a lot of people, her calls to essentially end cryptography will be seen as "doing something", and they will blindly vote for her.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      > Those same polls predicted brexit would not happen and Clinton would win You say it like it's a major indictment - people just don't understand probability and low probability events occur all the damn time. On the flip-side people also play the lottery. A lot of factors contribute to poll errors: sample group is never perfectly representative of actual voters, people lying on their voting intention if they feel it's not socially accepted, &tc. That does not make polls worthless.
    - 9y ago