3 ms·

The most interesting thing about this story is that almost no-one is talking about what else Cameron said in his speech [0]: Mr Cameron also said that a Tory G

by spuz 12y ago

The most interesting thing about this story is that almost no-one is talking about what else Cameron said in his speech [0]: Mr Cameron also said that a Tory Government would pass a new law to ensure that the intelligence agencies would be able to track phone calls and internet messages. He said that this power to track “who made which call, to which person, and when” was “absolutely crucial not just in terrorism but finding missing people, murder investigations, almost every single serious crime. “What matters is that we can access this communications data whether people are using fixed phones, mobile phones or more modern ways of communicating via the internet.” I refuse to believe our PM is so technologically ignorant that he believes the 'banning encryption' policy will ever fly. The most plausible explanation to me seems to be that he is trying to rebalance the public's expectations of privacy towards greater surveillance to the extent that slightly less egregious (but still objectionable) laws can be passed in their place. I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric has been used before and probably has a name. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11340621/Spies-should-be-able-to-monitor-all-online-messaging-says-David-Cameron.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/1134...

jahabrewer 12y ago
> I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric ... has a name. Correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
CoreSet 12y ago
It's almost impossible for me to resolve the cognitive dissonance of seeing an educated, by all means literate person completely devalue privacy to the point that it ceases to exist. To say with a straight face, after the events of the 20th century (and the horrors of Russian and German domestic intelligence services, past abuses committed by the FBI, the current human rights clusterfuck in places like China, Iran, and Syria), that all communication should moderated and monitored by the government? Can anyone support that idea in good faith? I agree with you that it's an almost unbelievable level of stupidity and one that betrays an ulterior motive. But normally I'd say something like this played into some industry or private-interest wish, but what bank or corporation (much less any commercial tech venture) is pushing for this? What group could this possibly serve in society other than the most high-ranking (and power-hungry) officials in the intelligence establishment?

by spuz 12y ago

jahabrewer 12y ago

> I have a feeling that this kind of rhetoric ... has a name. Correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

CoreSet 12y ago

It's almost impossible for me to resolve the cognitive dissonance of seeing an educated, by all means literate person completely devalue privacy to the point that it ceases to exist. To say with a straight face, after the events of the 20th century (and the horrors of Russian and German domestic intelligence services, past abuses committed by the FBI, the current human rights clusterfuck in places like China, Iran, and Syria), that all communication should moderated and monitored by the government? Can anyone support that idea in good faith? I agree with you that it's an almost unbelievable level of stupidity and one that betrays an ulterior motive. But normally I'd say something like this played into some industry or private-interest wish, but what bank or corporation (much less any commercial tech venture) is pushing for this? What group could this possibly serve in society other than the most high-ranking (and power-hungry) officials in the intelligence establishment?