7 ms·

Britain's got some of Europe's toughest surveillance laws. Now it wants more

102 points by timthorn 3y ago

draugadrotten 3y ago
The most immediate and palpable threat is the erosion of privacy. The notion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a dangerously simplistic view that ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. But the risks extend far beyond privacy. History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. A government, benign today, could transform into a malicious entity tomorrow, wielding these surveillance capabilities to suppress dissent, manipulate public opinion, and maintain power through fear and control. The technological infrastructure for a surveillance state, once established, becomes a formidable tool in the hands of an oppressive regime.
- stormfather 3y ago
  I think one can even say that an authoritarian government is a more stable "state" than a benign one, and that due to entropy, all sufficiently perturbed governments decay to authoritarianism unless sustained by some external inputs. The input, in this case, being the activism of those who don't want to be surveilled.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    You are right; authoritarianism is the default of states throughout history.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > activism of those who don't want to be surveilled. The tricky bit, as with most UK law'n'order politics, and the rightwing playbook in general, is dealing with how people want other people surveilled. Fear of crime and immigration narratives drive a demand for "something to be done" and "more powers". The ECHR is pretty weak against surveillance (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillance_eng https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillan...), but it has been used in some cases to reduce it. But see how unpopular ECHR is in the UK - because it applies to humans, not just citizens, and there's a lot of people who want the state to be lawless against non-citizens.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Throw839 3y ago
  This already happened in UK.
- dghughes 3y ago
  "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a good phrase to throw right back at politicians who have closed door meetings about surveillance, or anything.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    "I've nothing to hide, I lost all my whatsapp messages when I changed phone" seems to be the common response.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    It doesn't work like that, because the justification they respond with is that if they make things public then criminals will know how to better hide their illicit activities. Or something along the lines of "we're having closed door meetings for the safety and security of the people"...
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    It is such a hollow argument. Anybody using "nothing to hide" arguments, go ahead and post your passwords. Philosophy Tube episode on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- Shacklz 3y ago
  > right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. If it was just the state, then I might even be able to live with it, as my trust in my government is rather high, even if I do agree with your second paragraph on principle. The problem though is that lax/non-existent privacy laws also allow Joe in marketing and his friends to do all kinds of creepy privacy-invading things, which I worry about much more. It fosters a mentality and culture around how to get the easiest to those who are most susceptible to whatever it is your peddling, and in today's day and age of social media I think it's fair to say that it's increasingly clear that that kind of culture isn't exactly a net favor for humanity as a whole. It's probably naive from me but I'm honestly much more worried about big tech and their nonchalant approach to privacy than I am about dangers of my government going full surveillance state. The two issues are of course not entirely separate either, they're very much intertwined.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Don't forget the press. I had occasion to look up Chris Huhne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne) as the energy secretary who kicked off the UK new nuclear programme, and right at the top of his wikipedia is .. the phone hacking scandal. Private surveillance by the press, which has been used for a wide variety of malicious gossip purposes rather than any kind of "speaking truth to power".
  - theonlybutlet 3y ago
    A good example is Venezuela, this was a car crash in slow motion. I remember the incremental changes made to law being reported right throughout Hugo Chávez' term in office right from the beginning. He was wildly popular everyone trusted him, many warned of its implications each time a law was proposed and reported. And here we are today, Venezuela is a dictatorship. As the saying goes, it happens slowly and then all at once.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    >as my trust in my government is rather high Then you're very fortunate to live in one of the minority of places in the world where government is even moderately trustworthy. Many, possibly most people, dont and the tools of the surveillance state are increasingly being applied by their governments to further repress possible sources of change from that governing mean.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  >ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. It's impressive how many people make this argument and then turn right around to fully support the full plethora of modern KYC and AML laws with all their dubious justifications and even more dubious applications with absolutely no sense of the double standard. One supposes that a rght to privacy, individual autonomy and a life unscrutinized by an orreaching state also should include these things applied firmly to ones financial life, at least enough that any larish transaction isn't treated as if it's potentially criminal right off the bat.
- belter 3y ago
  > History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. Back in 2008... "UK terror law used for Iceland deposits" - https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b1f8 https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b...
varispeed 3y ago
This is really bad, because we have the most corrupt government since probably forever. Nothing is being done to investigate them. It looks like government is simply bribing security agencies and giving them nice toys in a silent agreement "you don't touch us, we don't touch you". That said, this is not sustainable.
- dijit 3y ago
  I think it's wrong to say that nothing is being done to investigate them. However there's a weird thing that I've witnessed. Large crimes are being ignored and instead non-crimes (or minor-crimes) are blown out of proportion. Then the investigations consume all the oxygen eventually sliding off the ruling party like water off a duck. A rotation of cabinet, a new face to lead and all is forgotten it seems. Faith in the alternative parties is also shockingly low (not that I am a labour supporter under Kier.. but that's also kinda my point). People would rather lurch even further right for answers, many people loudly supporting "Reform UK" which is the political refit of "the brexit party" and even before that was the "UK independence party"- a purely populist party. HOWEVER. The UK has been on the decline since 1992 (or earlier) and managing a nation in decline must be extremely difficult. Nobody is willing accept that they're poorer, financial services need the pound to remain strong so they keep the currency from falling which in turn makes everyone unable to afford to live. It is a sticky situation with no clear answer other than to muck down and face the reality that if we want to be a wealthy nation again we either need to go back to exploiting other countries or produce things of value.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > Large crimes are being ignored and instead non-crimes (or minor-crimes) are blown out of proportion As always: by whom? And the answer: the press. The UK media are pro-Tory and far-right to such an extent that they quietly ignore all this massive corruption in favor of slamming alternatives down at every opportunity. The only exception recently has been the Mirror's dogged "partygate" series.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
[flagged]
- flipbrad 3y ago
  Fortunately, politics are totally sane everywhere else in the world.
  - DyslexicAtheist 3y ago
    I can't think of any other country (bar the US) that has engaged in a similar war on its own population as Britain did in the past decade. That said I'm scared of what's to come in the rest of Europe in the coming decade with right-wing politics and the field day our own goose-stepping chuckle-ducks will have once Trump gets re-elected across the pond. But as for the here and now (today), I find it hard to think of a EU country that went from so much to so little in such a short time, and 100% due to its own doing. Not even Italy I think.
    - dijit 3y ago
      I disagree that no other country wages war on its citizens as much as the UK does. I think if you narrow your scope to the Anglosphere and include Europe that could be true. However there's a lot of countries that are really bad and we must acknowledge their existence. What is interesting in the UK is that it seems largely to be people voting against their own interests a lot of the time. It's like the population is told that "bad people drink water, therefore we should poison the water" and they buy into it completely. The country (as mentioned before) is on the decline for sure, but the standards decline much faster than they should largely I think because people are protectionist in mentality. It's the individualism that causes most problems; there's very little sense of collectivism in the UK. The belief is that everyone is sort of out to get you and that there is a finite number of resources we all compete for. At least this is my experience having grown up in central England (but expatriated 8 years ago)
      - Clubber 3y ago
roenxi 3y ago
The UK's energy use per capita has dropped more than 25% since 2000 (which to be honest is a pretty successful energy policy compared to what a move away from coal could have been). It is interesting to compare them to Japan where the downtrend isn't anywhere near as marked and is potentially related to some change in energy policy related to 2011 [0]. It would be a lot easier to get people focused on stuff higher up on Maslow's hierarchy, like privacy, if they were warm, comfortable and could afford to manufacture stuff locally. Otherwise they'll probably need to buckle down for some internal strife, shrinking real pie could result in all sorts of weirdness. I'm not sure what the precedent is for a 25% drop in energy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fukushima_nuclear_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fu...
- pjc50 3y ago
  Trying to crowbar nuclear in here is ridiculous; the UK has been a surprising renewables success, despite everyone's best efforts, and we're still waiting for Hinkley Point C to be finished. > could afford to manufacture stuff locally "UK manufacturing sector climbs to eighth in world rankings" https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/uk-manufacturing-sector-climbs-to-eighth-in-world-rankings-make-uk-analysis/ https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/uk-manufacturing-se... No, the surveillance stuff is pure elite politics and not driven by freezing pensioners.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    25% is equivalent to going from an ordinary week to not having energy on weekends. Someone is getting squeezed. Change of that magnitude should tinge the interpretation of all social trends. If I was an elite in the UK, I'd want to be going totalitarian too. Someone should be getting hopping furious; these numbers are comparable to unravelling-of-social-fabric events. Although ironically the totalitarians seem to be outperforming the UK economy; China claims to have overtaken them on a per capita energy basis back in 2020.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      Less "heavy industry" and more insulation.
pjmlp 3y ago
I always feel more controlled in Britain than Germany or Switzerland, with the amount of "You should do this, You should not do that" messages all over the place, and thanks to CCTV, in the places I regularly visit I seldom see any car badly parked.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Although it's worth remembering the UK is still a popular place is "disappear" since it's doesn't have an overarching ID system like most Western countries, and the UK doesn't track people anywhere near as much as it's neighbours.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    You'd have to try pretty hard to do that, because you won't be able to work, have a bank account, rent, or purchase a house. We don't have an ID system but we have a lot of ID requirements.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    My experience being controlled as foreigner for various kinds of reasons kind of differs.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    How does the tax authority keep track of who's dodging taxes? The fact you don't have the concept of ID cards is irrelevant if the tax authority still has an incentive to keep tabs on people (which it does in order to detect tax evasion).
    - tim333 3y ago
      You don't have to declare for tax purposes unless you go over certain amounts. If you do without declaring you may get away with if for a few years but they often catch people if someone gets investigated and they see bank payments going to someone undeclared. Then you get a bit of a bill for back taxes. It's quite laid back compared to some countries though. They usually only come after your assets. Very few people go to jail.
echelon_musk 3y ago
If anyone has stories of or suggestions for where to emigrate to from the UK I'd be interested. The news of ever increasing state surveillance, rising inequality, low salaries, privatisation leading to sewage filled waterways and the deliberate destruction of the NHS, revolving door cronyism and the weather contribute to feelings of dissatisfaction. Maybe the grass isn't actually greener elsewhere(?)
- jampekka 3y ago
  Nordic countries are still relatively nice. And very receptive to "skilled labor" immigration due to the population aging fast. We too are circling the neoliberal drain like UK but are perhaps a decade or so behind. And racism is rising rapidly. :( I'm from a Nordic country but have lived in England. To be frank, in many areas it's a real shithole country, and I'd really not want to live there. Not as bad as USA but getting there fast.
  - mp05 3y ago
    >> And racism is rising rapidly >> To be frank, in many areas it's a real shithole country Thanks to Trump, the term "shithole country" has now been termed as a dogwhistle for racists, so I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean when you're calling certain parts of England a shithole?
    - drawfloat 3y ago
      Shocking I know, but what Trump says and American cultural interpretations of it don’t really hold sway over here. Pretty harsh descriptor, but I’m from the North and often have referred to my area as a shithole. It’s not the area’s fault, it’s 40 years of mismanagement and underfunding, but still not a good place.
      - mp05 3y ago
        > Shocking I know Is it? I just asked a question completely in earnest and it seemed to ruffle a few feathers. I thought Trump was the world's problem the last time I checked, oh, every media outlet.
vintermann 3y ago
It doesn't have tough surveillance laws, it's got permissive surveillance laws. Tough surveillance laws would mean laws that were tough on the people doing surveillance.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  'Toughness' of the law is defined by how harsh it is on the people, not the state apparatus.
_fat_santa 3y ago
> Tech companies are most concerned by a change that would allow the Home Office to issue notices preventing them from making technical updates that might impede information-sharing with U.K. intelligence agencies. This is so shockingly shortsighted it's almost funny. Do the people writing these bills not consult with any technical advisors? I mean they somehow took the concept of a backdoor (which in itself is already a very bad idea) and somehow made that concept even worse. At least with a backdoor, a tech company could preserve some semblance of security to a system outside of the parties that have this backdoor access. Keeping exploits in is just egging on bad actors to find the exploits that the spy agencies have already found. I'm honestly speechless.
jwie 3y ago
Destroy the cameras.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Wasn't part of Brexit because they were angry at European governments having too much information. That they didn't like being under their thumb?
- dijit 3y ago
  Hilariously, when I point out the hypocrisy of Brexit to people they never seem to grasp it. "Unelected" -> Literally a monarchy with a sitting house of lords, which still includes some hereditary titles. "Bureaucrats" -> One of the most paper/form heavy countries in the EU (Aside from Germany in some cases).
  - tharmas 3y ago
    Agreed. But it was Eastern European migration that turned the working class against the EU. And it could be that diktats from "one of own" is easier to swallow than coming from "that foreign lot"
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Ironically, Eastern European migration is what ran a lot of the low-wage, labor-intensive industries like restaurants, ridesharing, delivery, etc. These industries have been decimated during the pandemic when the migrants (who mostly could still remain in the UK despite Brexit thanks to (pre?)settled status) decided that it was no longer worth to stay in a place that is not only hostile to them but now offers the same quality of life as their native country. Cue the “nobody wants to work anymore” cries.
    - dijit 3y ago
      After Poland joined the EU, Poles acquired the right to work in some EU countries, while most of the members implemented transition periods. The UK, Ireland, Sweden and Malta allowed Poles to work freely without any limitations from the start. So, solely a UK decision again.
- happymellon 3y ago
  Not that I'm aware of. There was something about sending money to the EU for them to reinvest in cities in the UK which weren't London. And more likely, the new AML laws that would have impacted our politicians and private companies ability to hide taxable income.
alienicecream 3y ago
Why do the British put up with this? Are they just docile and subservient by nature? Did turning the old working class into an underclass eliminate the only political faction with balls?

102 points by timthorn 3y ago

The most immediate and palpable threat is the erosion of privacy. The notion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a dangerously simplistic view that ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. But the risks extend far beyond privacy. History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. A government, benign today, could transform into a malicious entity tomorrow, wielding these surveillance capabilities to suppress dissent, manipulate public opinion, and maintain power through fear and control. The technological infrastructure for a surveillance state, once established, becomes a formidable tool in the hands of an oppressive regime.

stormfather 3y ago
I think one can even say that an authoritarian government is a more stable "state" than a benign one, and that due to entropy, all sufficiently perturbed governments decay to authoritarianism unless sustained by some external inputs. The input, in this case, being the activism of those who don't want to be surveilled.
- Clubber 3y ago
  You are right; authoritarianism is the default of states throughout history.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > activism of those who don't want to be surveilled. The tricky bit, as with most UK law'n'order politics, and the rightwing playbook in general, is dealing with how people want other people surveilled. Fear of crime and immigration narratives drive a demand for "something to be done" and "more powers". The ECHR is pretty weak against surveillance (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillance_eng https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillan...), but it has been used in some cases to reduce it. But see how unpopular ECHR is in the UK - because it applies to humans, not just citizens, and there's a lot of people who want the state to be lawless against non-citizens.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Throw839 3y ago
This already happened in UK.
dghughes 3y ago
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a good phrase to throw right back at politicians who have closed door meetings about surveillance, or anything.
- pjc50 3y ago
  "I've nothing to hide, I lost all my whatsapp messages when I changed phone" seems to be the common response.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  It doesn't work like that, because the justification they respond with is that if they make things public then criminals will know how to better hide their illicit activities. Or something along the lines of "we're having closed door meetings for the safety and security of the people"...
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  It is such a hollow argument. Anybody using "nothing to hide" arguments, go ahead and post your passwords. Philosophy Tube episode on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Shacklz 3y ago
> right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. If it was just the state, then I might even be able to live with it, as my trust in my government is rather high, even if I do agree with your second paragraph on principle. The problem though is that lax/non-existent privacy laws also allow Joe in marketing and his friends to do all kinds of creepy privacy-invading things, which I worry about much more. It fosters a mentality and culture around how to get the easiest to those who are most susceptible to whatever it is your peddling, and in today's day and age of social media I think it's fair to say that it's increasingly clear that that kind of culture isn't exactly a net favor for humanity as a whole. It's probably naive from me but I'm honestly much more worried about big tech and their nonchalant approach to privacy than I am about dangers of my government going full surveillance state. The two issues are of course not entirely separate either, they're very much intertwined.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Don't forget the press. I had occasion to look up Chris Huhne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne) as the energy secretary who kicked off the UK new nuclear programme, and right at the top of his wikipedia is .. the phone hacking scandal. Private surveillance by the press, which has been used for a wide variety of malicious gossip purposes rather than any kind of "speaking truth to power".
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  A good example is Venezuela, this was a car crash in slow motion. I remember the incremental changes made to law being reported right throughout Hugo Chávez' term in office right from the beginning. He was wildly popular everyone trusted him, many warned of its implications each time a law was proposed and reported. And here we are today, Venezuela is a dictatorship. As the saying goes, it happens slowly and then all at once.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  >as my trust in my government is rather high Then you're very fortunate to live in one of the minority of places in the world where government is even moderately trustworthy. Many, possibly most people, dont and the tools of the surveillance state are increasingly being applied by their governments to further repress possible sources of change from that governing mean.
southernplaces7 3y ago
>ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. It's impressive how many people make this argument and then turn right around to fully support the full plethora of modern KYC and AML laws with all their dubious justifications and even more dubious applications with absolutely no sense of the double standard. One supposes that a rght to privacy, individual autonomy and a life unscrutinized by an orreaching state also should include these things applied firmly to ones financial life, at least enough that any larish transaction isn't treated as if it's potentially criminal right off the bat.
belter 3y ago
> History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. Back in 2008... "UK terror law used for Iceland deposits" - https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b1f8 https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b...

varispeed 3y ago

This is really bad, because we have the most corrupt government since probably forever. Nothing is being done to investigate them. It looks like government is simply bribing security agencies and giving them nice toys in a silent agreement "you don't touch us, we don't touch you". That said, this is not sustainable.

dijit 3y ago
I think it's wrong to say that nothing is being done to investigate them. However there's a weird thing that I've witnessed. Large crimes are being ignored and instead non-crimes (or minor-crimes) are blown out of proportion. Then the investigations consume all the oxygen eventually sliding off the ruling party like water off a duck. A rotation of cabinet, a new face to lead and all is forgotten it seems. Faith in the alternative parties is also shockingly low (not that I am a labour supporter under Kier.. but that's also kinda my point). People would rather lurch even further right for answers, many people loudly supporting "Reform UK" which is the political refit of "the brexit party" and even before that was the "UK independence party"- a purely populist party. HOWEVER. The UK has been on the decline since 1992 (or earlier) and managing a nation in decline must be extremely difficult. Nobody is willing accept that they're poorer, financial services need the pound to remain strong so they keep the currency from falling which in turn makes everyone unable to afford to live. It is a sticky situation with no clear answer other than to muck down and face the reality that if we want to be a wealthy nation again we either need to go back to exploiting other countries or produce things of value.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > Large crimes are being ignored and instead non-crimes (or minor-crimes) are blown out of proportion As always: by whom? And the answer: the press. The UK media are pro-Tory and far-right to such an extent that they quietly ignore all this massive corruption in favor of slamming alternatives down at every opportunity. The only exception recently has been the Mirror's dogged "partygate" series.
  - _heimdall 3y ago

sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago

[flagged]

flipbrad 3y ago
Fortunately, politics are totally sane everywhere else in the world.
- DyslexicAtheist 3y ago
  I can't think of any other country (bar the US) that has engaged in a similar war on its own population as Britain did in the past decade. That said I'm scared of what's to come in the rest of Europe in the coming decade with right-wing politics and the field day our own goose-stepping chuckle-ducks will have once Trump gets re-elected across the pond. But as for the here and now (today), I find it hard to think of a EU country that went from so much to so little in such a short time, and 100% due to its own doing. Not even Italy I think.
  - dijit 3y ago
    I disagree that no other country wages war on its citizens as much as the UK does. I think if you narrow your scope to the Anglosphere and include Europe that could be true. However there's a lot of countries that are really bad and we must acknowledge their existence. What is interesting in the UK is that it seems largely to be people voting against their own interests a lot of the time. It's like the population is told that "bad people drink water, therefore we should poison the water" and they buy into it completely. The country (as mentioned before) is on the decline for sure, but the standards decline much faster than they should largely I think because people are protectionist in mentality. It's the individualism that causes most problems; there's very little sense of collectivism in the UK. The belief is that everyone is sort of out to get you and that there is a finite number of resources we all compete for. At least this is my experience having grown up in central England (but expatriated 8 years ago)
    - Clubber 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

The UK's energy use per capita has dropped more than 25% since 2000 (which to be honest is a pretty successful energy policy compared to what a move away from coal could have been). It is interesting to compare them to Japan where the downtrend isn't anywhere near as marked and is potentially related to some change in energy policy related to 2011 [0]. It would be a lot easier to get people focused on stuff higher up on Maslow's hierarchy, like privacy, if they were warm, comfortable and could afford to manufacture stuff locally. Otherwise they'll probably need to buckle down for some internal strife, shrinking real pie could result in all sorts of weirdness. I'm not sure what the precedent is for a 25% drop in energy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fukushima_nuclear_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fu...

pjc50 3y ago
Trying to crowbar nuclear in here is ridiculous; the UK has been a surprising renewables success, despite everyone's best efforts, and we're still waiting for Hinkley Point C to be finished. > could afford to manufacture stuff locally "UK manufacturing sector climbs to eighth in world rankings" https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/uk-manufacturing-sector-climbs-to-eighth-in-world-rankings-make-uk-analysis/ https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/uk-manufacturing-se... No, the surveillance stuff is pure elite politics and not driven by freezing pensioners.
- roenxi 3y ago
  25% is equivalent to going from an ordinary week to not having energy on weekends. Someone is getting squeezed. Change of that magnitude should tinge the interpretation of all social trends. If I was an elite in the UK, I'd want to be going totalitarian too. Someone should be getting hopping furious; these numbers are comparable to unravelling-of-social-fabric events. Although ironically the totalitarians seem to be outperforming the UK economy; China claims to have overtaken them on a per capita energy basis back in 2020.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Less "heavy industry" and more insulation.

pjmlp 3y ago

I always feel more controlled in Britain than Germany or Switzerland, with the amount of "You should do this, You should not do that" messages all over the place, and thanks to CCTV, in the places I regularly visit I seldom see any car badly parked.

dukeyukey 3y ago
Although it's worth remembering the UK is still a popular place is "disappear" since it's doesn't have an overarching ID system like most Western countries, and the UK doesn't track people anywhere near as much as it's neighbours.
- pjc50 3y ago
  You'd have to try pretty hard to do that, because you won't be able to work, have a bank account, rent, or purchase a house. We don't have an ID system but we have a lot of ID requirements.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  My experience being controlled as foreigner for various kinds of reasons kind of differs.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  How does the tax authority keep track of who's dodging taxes? The fact you don't have the concept of ID cards is irrelevant if the tax authority still has an incentive to keep tabs on people (which it does in order to detect tax evasion).
  - tim333 3y ago
    You don't have to declare for tax purposes unless you go over certain amounts. If you do without declaring you may get away with if for a few years but they often catch people if someone gets investigated and they see bank payments going to someone undeclared. Then you get a bit of a bill for back taxes. It's quite laid back compared to some countries though. They usually only come after your assets. Very few people go to jail.

echelon_musk 3y ago

If anyone has stories of or suggestions for where to emigrate to from the UK I'd be interested. The news of ever increasing state surveillance, rising inequality, low salaries, privatisation leading to sewage filled waterways and the deliberate destruction of the NHS, revolving door cronyism and the weather contribute to feelings of dissatisfaction. Maybe the grass isn't actually greener elsewhere(?)

jampekka 3y ago
Nordic countries are still relatively nice. And very receptive to "skilled labor" immigration due to the population aging fast. We too are circling the neoliberal drain like UK but are perhaps a decade or so behind. And racism is rising rapidly. :( I'm from a Nordic country but have lived in England. To be frank, in many areas it's a real shithole country, and I'd really not want to live there. Not as bad as USA but getting there fast.
- mp05 3y ago
  >> And racism is rising rapidly >> To be frank, in many areas it's a real shithole country Thanks to Trump, the term "shithole country" has now been termed as a dogwhistle for racists, so I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean when you're calling certain parts of England a shithole?
  - drawfloat 3y ago
    Shocking I know, but what Trump says and American cultural interpretations of it don’t really hold sway over here. Pretty harsh descriptor, but I’m from the North and often have referred to my area as a shithole. It’s not the area’s fault, it’s 40 years of mismanagement and underfunding, but still not a good place.
    - mp05 3y ago
      > Shocking I know Is it? I just asked a question completely in earnest and it seemed to ruffle a few feathers. I thought Trump was the world's problem the last time I checked, oh, every media outlet.

vintermann 3y ago

It doesn't have tough surveillance laws, it's got permissive surveillance laws. Tough surveillance laws would mean laws that were tough on the people doing surveillance.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
'Toughness' of the law is defined by how harsh it is on the people, not the state apparatus.

_fat_santa 3y ago

> Tech companies are most concerned by a change that would allow the Home Office to issue notices preventing them from making technical updates that might impede information-sharing with U.K. intelligence agencies. This is so shockingly shortsighted it's almost funny. Do the people writing these bills not consult with any technical advisors? I mean they somehow took the concept of a backdoor (which in itself is already a very bad idea) and somehow made that concept even worse. At least with a backdoor, a tech company could preserve some semblance of security to a system outside of the parties that have this backdoor access. Keeping exploits in is just egging on bad actors to find the exploits that the spy agencies have already found. I'm honestly speechless.

jwie 3y ago

Destroy the cameras.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Wasn't part of Brexit because they were angry at European governments having too much information. That they didn't like being under their thumb?

dijit 3y ago
Hilariously, when I point out the hypocrisy of Brexit to people they never seem to grasp it. "Unelected" -> Literally a monarchy with a sitting house of lords, which still includes some hereditary titles. "Bureaucrats" -> One of the most paper/form heavy countries in the EU (Aside from Germany in some cases).
- tharmas 3y ago
  Agreed. But it was Eastern European migration that turned the working class against the EU. And it could be that diktats from "one of own" is easier to swallow than coming from "that foreign lot"
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Ironically, Eastern European migration is what ran a lot of the low-wage, labor-intensive industries like restaurants, ridesharing, delivery, etc. These industries have been decimated during the pandemic when the migrants (who mostly could still remain in the UK despite Brexit thanks to (pre?)settled status) decided that it was no longer worth to stay in a place that is not only hostile to them but now offers the same quality of life as their native country. Cue the “nobody wants to work anymore” cries.
  - dijit 3y ago
    After Poland joined the EU, Poles acquired the right to work in some EU countries, while most of the members implemented transition periods. The UK, Ireland, Sweden and Malta allowed Poles to work freely without any limitations from the start. So, solely a UK decision again.
happymellon 3y ago
Not that I'm aware of. There was something about sending money to the EU for them to reinvest in cities in the UK which weren't London. And more likely, the new AML laws that would have impacted our politicians and private companies ability to hide taxable income.

alienicecream 3y ago

Why do the British put up with this? Are they just docile and subservient by nature? Did turning the old working class into an underclass eliminate the only political faction with balls?