9 ms·

It never ceases to amaze me how comfortable people here in the UK are with state-funded busy-bodies filming and monitoring them 24/7. It's gotten so bad that i

by kypro 4y ago

It never ceases to amaze me how comfortable people here in the UK are with state-funded busy-bodies filming and monitoring them 24/7. It's gotten so bad that if I were to write some offensive rap lyrics here I could be visited by the police to "check my thinking", or worse I could prosecuted. This applies regardless of whether I've actually offended anyone, if the state feel what I said could hypothetical be considered offensive then it's illegal. Similarly, if you are actually trying to be offensive, but your offense is directed to groups or individuals the state doesn't like, you'll be fine. I'm sure a similar approach to enforcement will be applied here. If the state decides they don't like you, perhaps because your protesting the wrong things, they'll likely use this technology to keep you in line. Literally no one here cares though. Brits tends to hold the opinion that if you just don't say or do the wrong things you'll be fine.

LAC-Tech 4y ago
The UK is much authoritarian than people give it credit for. Official state media, convicting comedians for offensive jokes, laws restricting speech... But most Brits will say all of the above is fine, even necessary. It's eerie how similar these conversations are to ones I've had with people from countries generally considered authoritarian in the west. The general conclusion I draw is that people will justify and put up with a fair amount of authoritarianism if they feel it targets the right people, or maintains the kind of society they want to live in. If you're a "good citizen" and it doesn't effect you it's hard to be principled if it's mainly targeting people you consider dregs. EDIT: changed "State run media" to "Official state media" per conversation below..
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  I am moving from Hong Kong to UK and I’d say most of these are not fine. Sadly it is probably the only route to escape Hong Kong that is accessible to most people here.
- schrodinger 4y ago
  As a US citizen I am completely on the side of freedom of press but I wish there was SOME means of holding Fox News accountable especially since they're an unregulated propaganda machine of the extremist republicans…
  - cowtools 4y ago
    accountable for what specifically? or do you just want more rigorous reporting in general? TV is a dying medium, is it not? I'd say this problem of sensationalist TV news solves itself within a decade.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      TV is being replaced by even more sensationalist and less accountable youtubers.
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      > accountable for what specifically? For mis-selling entertainment, opinion and a poorly written soap opera as the "facts" or even "news".
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    And still, when I think 'low-quality and probably life-destroying yellow press', I do not think United States, I think United Kingdom. Fox News feels almost liberal compared to the likes of the Daily Mail or (shudder) the Express.
    - smcl 4y ago
      I dislike all of these organizations, but they're all peas in the same awful pod. Debating whether one is more liberal than another is like trying to figure out which of Himmler, Goering or Hitler was the least fascist. You might be able to get an answer but it doesn't mean anything given how terrible they all were.
- jen20 4y ago
  To be clear, despite efforts of BBC News since 2016 to demonstrate otherwise, the BBC is funded by the license fee, with the exception of the world service. It is not controlled by the state.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is more correct
    - mellosouls 4y ago
      "Public service broadcaster" is even more correct. Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.
      - LAC-Tech 4y ago
        What's the difference? Your term sounds like mine but dressed in less neutral, more positive language.
        mellosouls 4y ago
        I don't think it's less neutral - your (non-standard) definition conveys the idea of government mouthpiece which supports your original comment but doesn't reflect the BBC's history or mission.
        LAC-Tech 4y ago
        Didn't intend to convey it was a mouth piece for the government. But it's definitely official, and definitely a state institution, even the tail wags the dog a lot more than say XinHua. "Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).
- jahnu 4y ago
  Even as official state media it doesn’t quite capture the complicated relationship between the BBC, it’s reporters, management, and the government. Take for example how it covered the Northern Ireland Troubles https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how-the-bbcs-journalists-fought-to-cover-the-northern-ireland-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how... I grew up watching BBC Northern Ireland and also the Irish equivalent of the BBC, RTE and witnessed at least two different versions of reality every evening. Many competing interests were involved and many on all sides were genuinely acting in good faith within their respective systems. As a point of contrast, I feel like US mainstream news is even more beholden to special interests, including that of the government, than either the BBC or RTE ever were. So being nominally free of state control doesn’t mean a whole lot in reality it seems to me.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Part of that is that the private media are actually more authoritarian than the state one. Remember the "enemies of the people" headline? For a while as a minister Boris Johnson was paid more by the Times than his ministerial salary. Johnson gave Lebedev a peerage for using his papers, the Evening Standard and the Independent, to promote him. One of the few papers still defending him in his half-resigned state is the Daily Mail. The press have very much been calling the shots until now.
- flir 4y ago
  > convicting comedians for offensive jokes If that's referring to the case I think it's referring to, I'm very ok with that. There's no such thing as ironic racism.
- Lio 4y ago
  I can remember foreign owned private media (The Sun) trying to frame a football match as an extension of World War II. I also remember when that same foreign owned newspaper boasted about manipulating the results of our elections. I mention "foreign owned" twice because I don't think those that don't have a stake in our country should have so much influence on how it is run and definitely shouldn't be trying to stir up non-existent trouble with our allies. Personally I'm OK with a public service broadcaster that's charged with being politically neutral.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
I think they want it actually. They are very subservient to their government -- perhaps not the prime minister of the day if thy sit on the wrong side, but the bureaucrats and the whole government machine -- they see it as a benevolent protector and provider. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 They want to be protected from people such as this, because they don't feel they can protect themselves from him. Not sure where Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi falls on the spectrum, but I assume the ruling class is above the laws of the commoners either way. I think all western countries including USA are going down the same road though. It's not a choice I would personally make, but I suppose I can understand why people think this way.
nerdawson 4y ago
Careful, this comment might be deemed a “non-crime hate incident”.
Zenst 4y ago
> Literally no one here cares though. Brits tends to hold the opinion that if you just don't say or do the wrong things you'll be fine. I after ten years of police incompetence, failure, sheer ineptitude and negligence of the police to deal with abusive heroin/crack addicts did my own survaliance and with all the evidence, they still failed to do a thing. Even predicted drug dealer activities and events before they even happened and then with fair and sound warning, they still failed. Even with evedence they failed to even offer any up against the offenders in crown court and they walked. I could write a novel at the failures they have done, from passing witness satments onto drug dealers to bending over backwards for them. Even predicted and warned about danger of life to others and they were allowed to just die. So yes, you can say and do what you like without being held to account as long as your a criminal who can play the system and get away with it. Which is why I'm in the process of making it all public and shame all those failures in the open. Already have the Met Police on special measures. Already flagged and raised two major security flaws in their systems to entities higher and dare say I'm not even scratching the surface here. Hence your comment about "litterally no one here cares" rings true too me of the police themselves who have for all effect enabled crime and victimhooded the real criminals at the expense of innocent lives and with that. I dare say they will find a way to charge and arrest me once I do it but damit, this can not carry on and the levels of failure are so deep and wide, it is the right thing to do. Any suggestions about releasing such whistleblowing level of data to augment what I have inplay would be welcome though.
- landemva 4y ago
  To get started, simply buy a domain and host it via blogger. Create a new blog entry every week.
  - Zenst 4y ago
    Well, duristiction of domains (also hosting) can be a factor as well and looking at ways to curtail it being easily removed and with that - out of reach of parties involved.
- techdragon 4y ago
  I would avoid sharing information like that without solid effort to prevent you being identified as the source. I’d start with anonymous drop-box for a newspaper, from a throwaway laptop, using tor, etc…. and see if they publish enough. Just don’t put yourself in harms way, and you probably know how wide that is since you’re investigating their incompetence and negligence.
mhh__ 4y ago
British people want to say God save the Queen, hang nonces, and watch the football, we have almost no spirit of liberalism anymore
iratewizard 4y ago
If your right to it isn't guaranteed by law, your lack of right to it will be weaponized against you. Even if it is guaranteed to you by law, it still might.
geodel 4y ago
> Literally no one here cares though. Brits tends to hold the opinion that if you just don't say or do the wrong things you'll be fine. Well, not just Brits, roughly whole world holds the same opinion. The difference I see is one group tries with using laws to ban wrong things other group uses hectoring and shaming social media companies to do "right thing" by banning wrong speech. And then partisan hacks jump in, claiming how one of this is obviously right thing to do.
- cowtools 4y ago
  Sounds like whataboutism to me. Boycotting speech you disagree with is better than banning speech you disagree with.
rajman187 4y ago
But on the other hand, you have the ability to launder money to your heart’s delight, or resign from work by staying and building a new cabinet. Win some lose some!
mateo1 4y ago
The thing about the UK is that the state doesn't use the technology to harass people "they" dislike. And the thing about the US is that the same (and worse) is done by completely unaccountable corporations. What's worse? And moreover, what's the alternative?
- randomsearch 4y ago
  Doesn’t use the technology against opponents much, yet. Alternative is not to use the technology.
- bennysomething 4y ago
  You say worse is done by corporations, do you have any examples?
- lrem 4y ago
  The problem with this thinking: and what if in 20 years you get a government that does abuse the powers?
InCityDreams 4y ago
Surely, being the party of law and order, the tories have had time enough to sort all this out? Or they will do.
- pjc50 4y ago
  They're adding internet censorship to the mix: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/04/new-law-would-allow-nadine-dorries-censor-internet-mps-warn/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/04/new-law-woul... "Nadine Dorries ‘will have power to censor the internet’" ("Party of law and order" always means more surveillance and authoritarianism, whichever country you're in)
kaanski 4y ago
One of the problems is that it isn't just Brits. Face tracking is being implemented throughout Europe: https://www.wired.com/story/europe-police-facial-recognition-prum/ https://www.wired.com/story/europe-police-facial-recognition... The rest of Europe has the same laws as the UK when it comes to 'offensive rap lyrics'. This is a general issue, framing it as "Brits don't care" does nothing but make people believe it couldn't happen to them if they are outside the UK. Some examples of people in the UK who do care: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/ https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/ Edit: Forgot to mention originally but lets not forget the general attitude towards E2E encryption in the UK and throughout Europe: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-tells-eu-commission-dont-break-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-tells-eu-commissio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 There is a general movement against privacy, this isn't a localised issue.
gambiting 4y ago
So I've lived in the UK for 12 years now and yes, to an extent you are right - it's shocking how little people care about surveilence. I've met more "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear" people here than anywhere else in the world. Every time I mention to someone that the Snoopers Chapter makes all ISPs record your browsing history and a huge number of agencies can just look through this data without a warrant(including the department of agriculture for some crazy reason), people just go "so?". It's a losing fight, really. Even my friends who are very technically minded don't seem to care at all. However - for all of this nonsense, I feel like some people(your post included) have an exaggerated sense of how bad it really is here. No, "thought crime" isn't being prosecuted. The rare police intervention that happens because someone got offended is usually resolved without any criminal charges. Yes it still shouldn't happen at all, but it's more of an anomaly than a rule. I say all of the above because where I'm from(Poland), ostensibly there is not as much surveilence as in the UK, yet the government and the police are far happier to prosecute the things you are worried about. Insulted the wrong politician online? Jail. Insulted the church? Jail. Went to the wrong protest? Jail. Made a comment online that could be seen as offensive to the church? Jail. I think my point is - yes, there is a lot of unnecessary surveilance in the UK, and a lot of people don't care about it......but you guys still don't know how good you have it. Of course two wrongs don't make a right.....but you need to have perspective on this.
- mackrevinack 4y ago
  > people just go "so?" its fascinating how most people would be at least annoyed if they found someone looking in their windows every day. even if that person was someone official looking who didn't look like they were going to rob or murder them. even if they were standing across the street from their house taking notes on them and not causing any harm, people would still want to know what they were doing. but when it comes to the same thing happening to them online the reaction is mostly just "so what?". it probably didn't help that everything online and in 'the cloud' is so much more abstract and harder to understand
- zeroth32 4y ago
  I think you are misrepresenting a bit. Would you have a source that people in Poland got jailed for "insulting" the church or politician? Or peaceful protest? Prosecutions I know are for something else; spraying on centuries old statues, throwing stones and so on. "Thought crime" in UK is not criminal offense, so there are no criminal charges. You get knock on door, invitation to police station and a fine. "Hate crime" is another level. Some guy did stunt with pig fat. He died in prison, authorities put him into maximum security prison with radical islamists. "Insulting religion" in UK is serious offense punishable by death!
dreen 4y ago
Brits also pride themselves on not having to carry any Id with them. It actually seems to come from some sense of civil liberty. This was all good in XX century but things have changed and I wish that civil lerby focused people understood the tech a little better, I think they would then oppose it
creativenolo 4y ago
I'm not surveillance but ... > here I could be visited by the police to "check my thinking", or worse I could prosecuted. Good luck getting the police to do or investigate anything in the UK, nevermind turning up proactively. The reason the state is so keen on surveillance is belief it helps the chronically underfunded police service.
pjc50 4y ago
It's always interesting how you can tell people's political alignment by which examples they cherry pick to call "authoritarianism", and who they find a sympathetic victim. The UK does have a really nasty tradition of anti-democratic violence and literal political prisoners, but that's all in Northern Ireland and supposedly in the past. There's also a very long list of police abuses by the Met aimed at the black community as well as violent public order policing in general. And the infiltration of environmentalist groups (the "spycops" scandal). I don't see too many other HN commentators picking up those examples for some reason.
yur3i__ 4y ago
> It's gotten so bad that if I were to write some offensive rap lyrics here I could be visited by the police to "check my thinking", or worse I could prosecuted. If you ever listen to drill music from the UK you'll see how bad it is, all the censored parts are not for radio suitability as they don't censor swear words they're from police orders..

by kypro 4y ago

LAC-Tech 4y ago

The UK is much authoritarian than people give it credit for. Official state media, convicting comedians for offensive jokes, laws restricting speech... But most Brits will say all of the above is fine, even necessary. It's eerie how similar these conversations are to ones I've had with people from countries generally considered authoritarian in the west. The general conclusion I draw is that people will justify and put up with a fair amount of authoritarianism if they feel it targets the right people, or maintains the kind of society they want to live in. If you're a "good citizen" and it doesn't effect you it's hard to be principled if it's mainly targeting people you consider dregs. EDIT: changed "State run media" to "Official state media" per conversation below..

charlieyu1 4y ago
I am moving from Hong Kong to UK and I’d say most of these are not fine. Sadly it is probably the only route to escape Hong Kong that is accessible to most people here.
schrodinger 4y ago
As a US citizen I am completely on the side of freedom of press but I wish there was SOME means of holding Fox News accountable especially since they're an unregulated propaganda machine of the extremist republicans…
- cowtools 4y ago
  accountable for what specifically? or do you just want more rigorous reporting in general? TV is a dying medium, is it not? I'd say this problem of sensationalist TV news solves itself within a decade.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    TV is being replaced by even more sensationalist and less accountable youtubers.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    > accountable for what specifically? For mis-selling entertainment, opinion and a poorly written soap opera as the "facts" or even "news".
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  And still, when I think 'low-quality and probably life-destroying yellow press', I do not think United States, I think United Kingdom. Fox News feels almost liberal compared to the likes of the Daily Mail or (shudder) the Express.
  - smcl 4y ago
    I dislike all of these organizations, but they're all peas in the same awful pod. Debating whether one is more liberal than another is like trying to figure out which of Himmler, Goering or Hitler was the least fascist. You might be able to get an answer but it doesn't mean anything given how terrible they all were.
jen20 4y ago
To be clear, despite efforts of BBC News since 2016 to demonstrate otherwise, the BBC is funded by the license fee, with the exception of the world service. It is not controlled by the state.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is more correct
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    "Public service broadcaster" is even more correct. Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      What's the difference? Your term sounds like mine but dressed in less neutral, more positive language.
      - mellosouls 4y ago
        I don't think it's less neutral - your (non-standard) definition conveys the idea of government mouthpiece which supports your original comment but doesn't reflect the BBC's history or mission.
        LAC-Tech 4y ago
        Didn't intend to convey it was a mouth piece for the government. But it's definitely official, and definitely a state institution, even the tail wags the dog a lot more than say XinHua. "Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).
jahnu 4y ago
Even as official state media it doesn’t quite capture the complicated relationship between the BBC, it’s reporters, management, and the government. Take for example how it covered the Northern Ireland Troubles https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how-the-bbcs-journalists-fought-to-cover-the-northern-ireland-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/22/how... I grew up watching BBC Northern Ireland and also the Irish equivalent of the BBC, RTE and witnessed at least two different versions of reality every evening. Many competing interests were involved and many on all sides were genuinely acting in good faith within their respective systems. As a point of contrast, I feel like US mainstream news is even more beholden to special interests, including that of the government, than either the BBC or RTE ever were. So being nominally free of state control doesn’t mean a whole lot in reality it seems to me.
pjc50 4y ago
Part of that is that the private media are actually more authoritarian than the state one. Remember the "enemies of the people" headline? For a while as a minister Boris Johnson was paid more by the Times than his ministerial salary. Johnson gave Lebedev a peerage for using his papers, the Evening Standard and the Independent, to promote him. One of the few papers still defending him in his half-resigned state is the Daily Mail. The press have very much been calling the shots until now.
flir 4y ago
> convicting comedians for offensive jokes If that's referring to the case I think it's referring to, I'm very ok with that. There's no such thing as ironic racism.
Lio 4y ago
I can remember foreign owned private media (The Sun) trying to frame a football match as an extension of World War II. I also remember when that same foreign owned newspaper boasted about manipulating the results of our elections. I mention "foreign owned" twice because I don't think those that don't have a stake in our country should have so much influence on how it is run and definitely shouldn't be trying to stir up non-existent trouble with our allies. Personally I'm OK with a public service broadcaster that's charged with being politically neutral.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

I think they want it actually. They are very subservient to their government -- perhaps not the prime minister of the day if thy sit on the wrong side, but the bureaucrats and the whole government machine -- they see it as a benevolent protector and provider. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 They want to be protected from people such as this, because they don't feel they can protect themselves from him. Not sure where Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi falls on the spectrum, but I assume the ruling class is above the laws of the commoners either way. I think all western countries including USA are going down the same road though. It's not a choice I would personally make, but I suppose I can understand why people think this way.

nerdawson 4y ago

Careful, this comment might be deemed a “non-crime hate incident”.

Zenst 4y ago

> Literally no one here cares though. Brits tends to hold the opinion that if you just don't say or do the wrong things you'll be fine. I after ten years of police incompetence, failure, sheer ineptitude and negligence of the police to deal with abusive heroin/crack addicts did my own survaliance and with all the evidence, they still failed to do a thing. Even predicted drug dealer activities and events before they even happened and then with fair and sound warning, they still failed. Even with evedence they failed to even offer any up against the offenders in crown court and they walked. I could write a novel at the failures they have done, from passing witness satments onto drug dealers to bending over backwards for them. Even predicted and warned about danger of life to others and they were allowed to just die. So yes, you can say and do what you like without being held to account as long as your a criminal who can play the system and get away with it. Which is why I'm in the process of making it all public and shame all those failures in the open. Already have the Met Police on special measures. Already flagged and raised two major security flaws in their systems to entities higher and dare say I'm not even scratching the surface here. Hence your comment about "litterally no one here cares" rings true too me of the police themselves who have for all effect enabled crime and victimhooded the real criminals at the expense of innocent lives and with that. I dare say they will find a way to charge and arrest me once I do it but damit, this can not carry on and the levels of failure are so deep and wide, it is the right thing to do. Any suggestions about releasing such whistleblowing level of data to augment what I have inplay would be welcome though.

landemva 4y ago
To get started, simply buy a domain and host it via blogger. Create a new blog entry every week.
- Zenst 4y ago
  Well, duristiction of domains (also hosting) can be a factor as well and looking at ways to curtail it being easily removed and with that - out of reach of parties involved.
techdragon 4y ago
I would avoid sharing information like that without solid effort to prevent you being identified as the source. I’d start with anonymous drop-box for a newspaper, from a throwaway laptop, using tor, etc…. and see if they publish enough. Just don’t put yourself in harms way, and you probably know how wide that is since you’re investigating their incompetence and negligence.

mhh__ 4y ago

British people want to say God save the Queen, hang nonces, and watch the football, we have almost no spirit of liberalism anymore

iratewizard 4y ago

If your right to it isn't guaranteed by law, your lack of right to it will be weaponized against you. Even if it is guaranteed to you by law, it still might.

geodel 4y ago

> Literally no one here cares though. Brits tends to hold the opinion that if you just don't say or do the wrong things you'll be fine. Well, not just Brits, roughly whole world holds the same opinion. The difference I see is one group tries with using laws to ban wrong things other group uses hectoring and shaming social media companies to do "right thing" by banning wrong speech. And then partisan hacks jump in, claiming how one of this is obviously right thing to do.

cowtools 4y ago
Sounds like whataboutism to me. Boycotting speech you disagree with is better than banning speech you disagree with.

rajman187 4y ago

But on the other hand, you have the ability to launder money to your heart’s delight, or resign from work by staying and building a new cabinet. Win some lose some!

mateo1 4y ago

The thing about the UK is that the state doesn't use the technology to harass people "they" dislike. And the thing about the US is that the same (and worse) is done by completely unaccountable corporations. What's worse? And moreover, what's the alternative?

randomsearch 4y ago
Doesn’t use the technology against opponents much, yet. Alternative is not to use the technology.
bennysomething 4y ago
You say worse is done by corporations, do you have any examples?
lrem 4y ago
The problem with this thinking: and what if in 20 years you get a government that does abuse the powers?

InCityDreams 4y ago

Surely, being the party of law and order, the tories have had time enough to sort all this out? Or they will do.

pjc50 4y ago
They're adding internet censorship to the mix: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/04/new-law-would-allow-nadine-dorries-censor-internet-mps-warn/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/04/new-law-woul... "Nadine Dorries ‘will have power to censor the internet’" ("Party of law and order" always means more surveillance and authoritarianism, whichever country you're in)

kaanski 4y ago

One of the problems is that it isn't just Brits. Face tracking is being implemented throughout Europe: https://www.wired.com/story/europe-police-facial-recognition-prum/ https://www.wired.com/story/europe-police-facial-recognition... The rest of Europe has the same laws as the UK when it comes to 'offensive rap lyrics'. This is a general issue, framing it as "Brits don't care" does nothing but make people believe it couldn't happen to them if they are outside the UK. Some examples of people in the UK who do care: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/ https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/ Edit: Forgot to mention originally but lets not forget the general attitude towards E2E encryption in the UK and throughout Europe: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-tells-eu-commission-dont-break-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-tells-eu-commissio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 There is a general movement against privacy, this isn't a localised issue.

gambiting 4y ago

So I've lived in the UK for 12 years now and yes, to an extent you are right - it's shocking how little people care about surveilence. I've met more "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear" people here than anywhere else in the world. Every time I mention to someone that the Snoopers Chapter makes all ISPs record your browsing history and a huge number of agencies can just look through this data without a warrant(including the department of agriculture for some crazy reason), people just go "so?". It's a losing fight, really. Even my friends who are very technically minded don't seem to care at all. However - for all of this nonsense, I feel like some people(your post included) have an exaggerated sense of how bad it really is here. No, "thought crime" isn't being prosecuted. The rare police intervention that happens because someone got offended is usually resolved without any criminal charges. Yes it still shouldn't happen at all, but it's more of an anomaly than a rule. I say all of the above because where I'm from(Poland), ostensibly there is not as much surveilence as in the UK, yet the government and the police are far happier to prosecute the things you are worried about. Insulted the wrong politician online? Jail. Insulted the church? Jail. Went to the wrong protest? Jail. Made a comment online that could be seen as offensive to the church? Jail. I think my point is - yes, there is a lot of unnecessary surveilance in the UK, and a lot of people don't care about it......but you guys still don't know how good you have it. Of course two wrongs don't make a right.....but you need to have perspective on this.

mackrevinack 4y ago
> people just go "so?" its fascinating how most people would be at least annoyed if they found someone looking in their windows every day. even if that person was someone official looking who didn't look like they were going to rob or murder them. even if they were standing across the street from their house taking notes on them and not causing any harm, people would still want to know what they were doing. but when it comes to the same thing happening to them online the reaction is mostly just "so what?". it probably didn't help that everything online and in 'the cloud' is so much more abstract and harder to understand
zeroth32 4y ago
I think you are misrepresenting a bit. Would you have a source that people in Poland got jailed for "insulting" the church or politician? Or peaceful protest? Prosecutions I know are for something else; spraying on centuries old statues, throwing stones and so on. "Thought crime" in UK is not criminal offense, so there are no criminal charges. You get knock on door, invitation to police station and a fine. "Hate crime" is another level. Some guy did stunt with pig fat. He died in prison, authorities put him into maximum security prison with radical islamists. "Insulting religion" in UK is serious offense punishable by death!

dreen 4y ago

Brits also pride themselves on not having to carry any Id with them. It actually seems to come from some sense of civil liberty. This was all good in XX century but things have changed and I wish that civil lerby focused people understood the tech a little better, I think they would then oppose it

creativenolo 4y ago

I'm not surveillance but ... > here I could be visited by the police to "check my thinking", or worse I could prosecuted. Good luck getting the police to do or investigate anything in the UK, nevermind turning up proactively. The reason the state is so keen on surveillance is belief it helps the chronically underfunded police service.

pjc50 4y ago

It's always interesting how you can tell people's political alignment by which examples they cherry pick to call "authoritarianism", and who they find a sympathetic victim. The UK does have a really nasty tradition of anti-democratic violence and literal political prisoners, but that's all in Northern Ireland and supposedly in the past. There's also a very long list of police abuses by the Met aimed at the black community as well as violent public order policing in general. And the infiltration of environmentalist groups (the "spycops" scandal). I don't see too many other HN commentators picking up those examples for some reason.

yur3i__ 4y ago

> It's gotten so bad that if I were to write some offensive rap lyrics here I could be visited by the police to "check my thinking", or worse I could prosecuted. If you ever listen to drill music from the UK you'll see how bad it is, all the censored parts are not for radio suitability as they don't censor swear words they're from police orders..