3 ms·

Well, yes, because it is designed to protect UK citizens. As much as GDPR applies "everywhere in the world" when interacting with EU citizens. Just as much as

Well, yes, because it is designed to protect UK citizens. As much as GDPR applies "everywhere in the world" when interacting with EU citizens. Just as much as my communications are scanned when interacting with US citizens with PRISM. I'd argue that is exponentially more dangerous and nefarious given it's apparently illegality and (once) top secrecy.

cheeseomlit 9mo ago
>it is designed to protect UK citizens Is that really what it's designed for? And as far as the PRISM comparison goes, I'd rather mass surveillance not be done at all, but if it's being done no matter what I'd rather it be illegitimate than official policy. At least they have to jump through some hoops for parallel construction that way, and it doesn't normalize the practice as morally/socially acceptable- it's a "secret" because its embarrassing and shameful for it to exist in a "free" society. If its not a secret and nobody is ashamed of it then you dont even have the pretense of a free society anymore
- xethos 9mo ago
  If it's done in the open they can be taken to court. When done in secret, the first challenge is when their defense attorney tells the prosecution to prove it even happens.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
mikkupikku 9mo ago
It's designed to facilitate the enforcement of prohibition of broad classes of criticism against the British government and ruling caste. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599665 "Influence over public discourse."
- flumpcakes 9mo ago
  Can you give one example of that happening that's not coached in some context? These claims always seem pretty far fetched to me, bordering conspiratorial.
  - mikkupikku 9mo ago
    British politicians are weenies who can't handle American banter. They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians. The British government wants to ban this kind of criticism (probably because they're failing to refute it in the public's eye), but are powerless to stop Americans who are well within their legal rights to say things like this. In the past they relied on American corporations cooperating with their censorious requests even though it wasn't legally required, but now that you have people like Elon Musk openly defying the British government and even seeming to side with the aforementioned critics, the British government is all kinds of pissed.
    - flumpcakes 9mo ago
      I don't think you're commenting in good faith at all. > They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians. >but are powerless to stop Americans who are well within their legal rights to say things like this. Weird thing to say when it would be illegal in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officials_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officia...

cheeseomlit 9mo ago

>it is designed to protect UK citizens Is that really what it's designed for? And as far as the PRISM comparison goes, I'd rather mass surveillance not be done at all, but if it's being done no matter what I'd rather it be illegitimate than official policy. At least they have to jump through some hoops for parallel construction that way, and it doesn't normalize the practice as morally/socially acceptable- it's a "secret" because its embarrassing and shameful for it to exist in a "free" society. If its not a secret and nobody is ashamed of it then you dont even have the pretense of a free society anymore

xethos 9mo ago
If it's done in the open they can be taken to court. When done in secret, the first challenge is when their defense attorney tells the prosecution to prove it even happens.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

mikkupikku 9mo ago

It's designed to facilitate the enforcement of prohibition of broad classes of criticism against the British government and ruling caste. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599665 "Influence over public discourse."

flumpcakes 9mo ago
Can you give one example of that happening that's not coached in some context? These claims always seem pretty far fetched to me, bordering conspiratorial.
- mikkupikku 9mo ago
  British politicians are weenies who can't handle American banter. They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians. The British government wants to ban this kind of criticism (probably because they're failing to refute it in the public's eye), but are powerless to stop Americans who are well within their legal rights to say things like this. In the past they relied on American corporations cooperating with their censorious requests even though it wasn't legally required, but now that you have people like Elon Musk openly defying the British government and even seeming to side with the aforementioned critics, the British government is all kinds of pissed.
  - flumpcakes 9mo ago
    I don't think you're commenting in good faith at all. > They get all bent out of shape when Americans tell British people that their government is replacing them with third worlders and they should start killing their politicians. >but are powerless to stop Americans who are well within their legal rights to say things like this. Weird thing to say when it would be illegal in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officials_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_government_officia...