3 ms·
One problem with this kind of debate today is that fewer lawmakers than in the past have direct knowledge of communication systems and how to keep them secure.
by ajb 7y ago
One problem with this kind of debate today is that fewer lawmakers than in the past have direct knowledge of communication systems and how to keep them secure.
For example, in the 80's there was concern about 'bugging' in the UK. But at the time, there was actually informed debate in parliament about the technical details. This could happen because since there was so much labour involved in maintaining the old systems, large numbers of people actually knew how they worked. There were MPs who had formerly been telecom linemen, and followed the trade->union official -> Labour party -> MP route into parliament.
Nowadays I can't think of an MP who would actually have the background to know that this is a bad idea, themselves.
- pjc50 7y agoI'd have thought that Germany would have enough representatives from the DDR to know why this is a bad idea. Which is why they're usually one of the most anti-surveillance countries in Europe and leaders of GDPR campaigning.
- ajb 7y agoYes, that is true. It's not a way of getting informed politicians that we can follow, though. At least, I hope not.
- wongarsu 7y agoEven though we are fairly anti-surveillance as a whole, a lot of fairly radical surveillance laws get proposed all the time. Most die early, some die after push-back from the population, some get voted in and are thrown out by the constitutional court, and a few survive. It's a never ending fight.