3 ms·

Conservative party under Sunak has turned deep into far-right corner of the politics. If you studied history, this should ring all possible alarm bells. Unfor

Conservative party under Sunak has turned deep into far-right corner of the politics. If you studied history, this should ring all possible alarm bells. Unfortunately as things stand, other than dismissing this government through elections, there is not much anyone can do. What is more worrying that the opposition party that is poised to win the next elections generally also supports the current government in those matters.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> Unfortunately as things stand, other than dismissing this government through elections, there is not much anyone can do. A general strike would be a good option, but I doubt that people are angry enough for that yet.
- djaychela 3y ago
  I don't think they will do over this. All of my friends are intelligent, but none of them give a monkeys about any of this. Most people just don't care at all. While I'm not fully committed to the "all encryption privacy absolutist" viewpoint, I am convinced we're sleepwalking into dark times for democracy and having a shared reality.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Yeah, this won't be much of a trigger to action, if the various shenanigans around public protests and continuing oil exploration hasn't.
- varispeed 3y ago
  Most people are only one payday from being homeless. They are not going to risk it.
SenAnder 3y ago
> Conservative party under Sunak has turned deep into far-right corner of the politics. Go to a far-right corner of the web, and ask how they feel about mass surveillance and privacy rights. Edit: I did it for you. On https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1388551/ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1388551/ , of the 17 posts in that thread, not one was in favor of surveillance. Not even with a "but it's okay for the blacks" disclaimer. In fact, here's a less-discussed thread specifically on immigrants privacy, and the literal white supremacists at stormfront are still against surveillance: Homeland Security Want to Collect Immigrants’ Social Media Information, But Privacy Groups Are Fighting Back - https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1225961/ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1225961/ One of the replies: "It starts with "immigrants" and then it'll be everyone." Another anti-surveillance article, by another white-nationalist site: https://www.amren.com/blog/2023/01/big-brother-surveillance/ https://www.amren.com/blog/2023/01/big-brother-surveillance/ In fact, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=surveillance+site%3Aamren.com&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=surveillance+site%3Aamren.com&ia=w... does not return a single article supportive of mass surveillance, and several opposed to it.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  It'll depend on if the surveillance is of things like immigrants or teens in poor neighborhoods vs armed militias or white supremacist domestic terrorists.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    This sounds like prejudice about your political opponent. Doesn’t sound at all like the kind of things they would say. Do you have a reference, or is it just your projection of “my political opponent is stupid”? I’m adept of “Walk two moons in your enemy’s shoes” (Tibetan proverb); If you explained your opponent’s logic, would they agree with your articulation of their logic? In a staged debate, would you be skilled enough to defend your political opponent’s point of view? Until you are, is it worth holding your side of the argument? I’m saying that because I have seen people swap sides when they see the horrors that are generated by their own camp. Did you list the negative consequences of your own ideas, or do you endorse your opinion only at the exception of people who rape, kill each other, forget them in caves, fire live bullets in demonstrators, and mug journalists isolated in a dark room in Paris, as it happens today? Would you support your camp if gays were regularly killed on your town’s central square, as the consequence of the criminality you are inviting?
- varispeed 3y ago
  Nazis were in favour of surveillance and they even coined the term "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". But pressure for surveillance, withdrawal from ECHR, scapegoating "illegal" immigrants is just one part. Another is fascist policy when it comes to economy - drive out small and medium business and give preferential treatment to big corporations while reducing workers' rights to zero. I am pretty sure you would also find staunch Nazis in the 30s who were also against surveillance. This is mostly because they actually have something to hide.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    The Nazis were preceded by, and did not coin that term: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear-a-line-used-by-joseph https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you... I don't know much about surveillance in Nazi Germany, but do know that East Germany and the Soviet Union were infamous for it. So if you define present-day political factions based on the actions of their near-century-old relatives (and ignore their present-day preferences), then surveillance is both far-right and far-left. Then look at how moderate parties simply go along with increasing surveillance, or how bipartisan PATRIOT act extensions are, and conclude that surveillance is also a centrist position. Attributing mass surveillance to any section of the 1-D political spectrum is misleading at best, deceptive at worst.
fmajid 3y ago
Sadly the Labour Party is just as bad. Their criticism of the Online Harms Bill (now the Online Safety Bill) was that it did not go far enough. Violating international law is actually a feature for the current Tory government, who has made it a fetish of asserting sovereignty, forgetting other nations are sovereign too and Britain can hardly afford the consequences of retaliation by the US or EU (as the Northern Ireland peace agreement is explicitly conditioned on the UK's continued membership in the ECHR). The only thing that could cause a reconsideration is that UK politicians are very fond of evading accountability by using encrypted messaging services, in total violation of public records law, like Boris Johnson's use of WhatsApp.
- toyg 3y ago
  But the Labour party will never countenance leaving the ECHR, so the worst they can do is a bit of play-acting. The Tories, on the other hand, have demonstrated they can happily double-down on the worst history-making decisions, if they get them one vote more. They also have nothing to lose now; a desperate animal is the most vicious.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> Unfortunately as things stand, other than dismissing this government through elections, there is not much anyone can do. A general strike would be a good option, but I doubt that people are angry enough for that yet.

djaychela 3y ago
I don't think they will do over this. All of my friends are intelligent, but none of them give a monkeys about any of this. Most people just don't care at all. While I'm not fully committed to the "all encryption privacy absolutist" viewpoint, I am convinced we're sleepwalking into dark times for democracy and having a shared reality.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Yeah, this won't be much of a trigger to action, if the various shenanigans around public protests and continuing oil exploration hasn't.
varispeed 3y ago
Most people are only one payday from being homeless. They are not going to risk it.

SenAnder 3y ago

> Conservative party under Sunak has turned deep into far-right corner of the politics. Go to a far-right corner of the web, and ask how they feel about mass surveillance and privacy rights. Edit: I did it for you. On https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1388551/ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1388551/ , of the 17 posts in that thread, not one was in favor of surveillance. Not even with a "but it's okay for the blacks" disclaimer. In fact, here's a less-discussed thread specifically on immigrants privacy, and the literal white supremacists at stormfront are still against surveillance: Homeland Security Want to Collect Immigrants’ Social Media Information, But Privacy Groups Are Fighting Back - https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1225961/ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1225961/ One of the replies: "It starts with "immigrants" and then it'll be everyone." Another anti-surveillance article, by another white-nationalist site: https://www.amren.com/blog/2023/01/big-brother-surveillance/ https://www.amren.com/blog/2023/01/big-brother-surveillance/ In fact, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=surveillance+site%3Aamren.com&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=surveillance+site%3Aamren.com&ia=w... does not return a single article supportive of mass surveillance, and several opposed to it.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
It'll depend on if the surveillance is of things like immigrants or teens in poor neighborhoods vs armed militias or white supremacist domestic terrorists.
- eastbound 3y ago
  This sounds like prejudice about your political opponent. Doesn’t sound at all like the kind of things they would say. Do you have a reference, or is it just your projection of “my political opponent is stupid”? I’m adept of “Walk two moons in your enemy’s shoes” (Tibetan proverb); If you explained your opponent’s logic, would they agree with your articulation of their logic? In a staged debate, would you be skilled enough to defend your political opponent’s point of view? Until you are, is it worth holding your side of the argument? I’m saying that because I have seen people swap sides when they see the horrors that are generated by their own camp. Did you list the negative consequences of your own ideas, or do you endorse your opinion only at the exception of people who rape, kill each other, forget them in caves, fire live bullets in demonstrators, and mug journalists isolated in a dark room in Paris, as it happens today? Would you support your camp if gays were regularly killed on your town’s central square, as the consequence of the criminality you are inviting?
varispeed 3y ago
Nazis were in favour of surveillance and they even coined the term "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". But pressure for surveillance, withdrawal from ECHR, scapegoating "illegal" immigrants is just one part. Another is fascist policy when it comes to economy - drive out small and medium business and give preferential treatment to big corporations while reducing workers' rights to zero. I am pretty sure you would also find staunch Nazis in the 30s who were also against surveillance. This is mostly because they actually have something to hide.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  The Nazis were preceded by, and did not coin that term: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear-a-line-used-by-joseph https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you... I don't know much about surveillance in Nazi Germany, but do know that East Germany and the Soviet Union were infamous for it. So if you define present-day political factions based on the actions of their near-century-old relatives (and ignore their present-day preferences), then surveillance is both far-right and far-left. Then look at how moderate parties simply go along with increasing surveillance, or how bipartisan PATRIOT act extensions are, and conclude that surveillance is also a centrist position. Attributing mass surveillance to any section of the 1-D political spectrum is misleading at best, deceptive at worst.

fmajid 3y ago

Sadly the Labour Party is just as bad. Their criticism of the Online Harms Bill (now the Online Safety Bill) was that it did not go far enough. Violating international law is actually a feature for the current Tory government, who has made it a fetish of asserting sovereignty, forgetting other nations are sovereign too and Britain can hardly afford the consequences of retaliation by the US or EU (as the Northern Ireland peace agreement is explicitly conditioned on the UK's continued membership in the ECHR). The only thing that could cause a reconsideration is that UK politicians are very fond of evading accountability by using encrypted messaging services, in total violation of public records law, like Boris Johnson's use of WhatsApp.

toyg 3y ago
But the Labour party will never countenance leaving the ECHR, so the worst they can do is a bit of play-acting. The Tories, on the other hand, have demonstrated they can happily double-down on the worst history-making decisions, if they get them one vote more. They also have nothing to lose now; a desperate animal is the most vicious.