I'm pretty cynical about both the current and previous government, but it feels like there's been a shift since Labour came into power. Historically this overbearing surveillance has been held back. There was chatter but it was met with resistance. Now it feels like the discussion is being squashed and there are invisible forces at work.
If by some miracle the UK and EU agree on a new Youth Mobility Scheme I'm out of here.
> it feels like there's been a shift since Labour came into power. Historically this overbearing surveillance has been held back.
I had hoped Labour would roll back the anti-protest legislation, snooper's charter, internet censorship and voter ID laws.
After all, it was mostly left-wing climate protesters getting arrested, and young (more left-leaning) voters being prevented from voting.
Turns out no, quite the opposite - if anything, Labour thinks these laws didn't go far enough.
With hindsight, it was naive of me to think the former Director of Public Prosecutions would share my scepticism about expanding the powers of the system the Director of Public Prosecutions stands at the head of.
> Turns out no, quite the opposite - if anything, Labour thinks these laws didn't go far enough.
That's basically how the news, including the BBC, tend to report on these laws. "Some think they are good. Others think they don't go far enough. Experts say risk remains." Never ever do they interview the EFF.
Read this around 2007ish, shocked by what the previous labour government did, so I had zero hope this lot would be any different and it's worse than I thought possible.
As Blair got most institutionalised to the world of politics he became more and more authoritarian. Starmer appears to be listening to Blair who is now even worse than he was as PM.
Labour generally has a "paternalistic authoritarianism" to they way they govern, but this is dialed to 11.
My hope was that Labour would seize the opportunity and roll back the unpopular Tory policies too. It would've been easy points to score for the next general election. Instead, as you say, they just continued with and extended them.
There's a difference between filming the public in public-spaces (which is what the mass CCTV surveillance does) and reading everyone's private messages and every image uploaded from their devices. This is a step chance (if it goes ahead) and doesn't feel very different from what the Chinese State is doing to its citizens.
There is a Wikipedia page on surveillance in Austria, and the US. Not sure what your point is, it's not like most of the west isn't under surveillance or that the UK is more monitored than other countries.
Policymaking in general has very little to do with what most people want. It's mostly a function of power structures and influence networks.
You can sometimes infer what's going on from looking at the before and after conditions, much like how particle physicists infer events from what particles flew out, but not seeing the event itself.
I don't know what happened that the UK got to the state it is in. It's not just a war on "general computing" as someone said here. It feels like a war on the "general population".
"The concept was coined in the early 1990s by political theorist Samuel Francis. He described it as a state where the government performs its basic duty of public safety poorly (allowing "anarchy" among criminals) but creates a web of bureaucracy and surveillance to control the innocent (imposing "tyranny" on the law-abiding)."
Let's not insult the good name of anarchism by comparing it to the State, or worse, comparing it to a failing and quasi-totalitarian State, please.
It's not anarcho-tyranny. This is simply the end game of an ever-growing State that has become bloated, greedy and unaccountable to the public it is supposed to serve.
There's a kind of new aristocratic class developing a broad ideology of anti-populism in power in the UK. The majority of politicians are drawn from backgrounds, or familial backgrounds, in the British news media and get careers there for themselves or their spouses after leaving government. The majority of senior news media personnel, in journalism or management, are drawn from the political establishment in the same inverted way. They organised the Tory leadership elections to install Johnson and later Truss on the belief that low-tax austerity would improve the country and then, facing a continued decline of London relative to the UAE by the policies they championed, coordinated to give Starmer the most complimentary media presence possible from mid 2023 to until the day of the election, conditioned on his continuing their policy platform.
One example of this is how the most recent interview Starmer has been given at the time of writing was to the newly-promoted politics correspondent of Sky News, the spouse of one of his most loyal Labour MPs, formerly an assistant editor of The Spectator, a popular politics magazine that promotes the abolition of inheritance tax, reductions in the age of consent, the introduction of qualified immunity from war crimes for the armed forces, the introduction of civil forfeiture, the return of the death penalty and holocaust denial. Unless an outside force compels other factions in UK politics to act, the media faction will likely replace Starmer with some other NEC loyalist who avoids flubbing line delivery on camera sometime this year. After all, the Starmer government has set a record in UK politics for the fastest decline in polling numbers and Starmer has personally put out the message in news briefings that removing him from office in 2026 would be a grave mistake for the party.
I don't presume to know the reasons. I want to believe that "leaders" just have their own misguided view as to what is "good for the country". That is, no malice, just gross incompetence. Maybe I'm naive. I don't know.
What I do know and is more and more apparent to me, is that the current systems of world relating to governance, here in the UK, no longer work. Not fit for purpose. Broken beyond repair. Scary.
Johnson and Starmer are from a "broad ideology of anti-populism"?
Utter nonsense. They are the very definition of populism. Johnson appealing to the hoi polloi with the wishful thinking of Brexit, Starmer running his government on opinion polls rather than pragmatism and a modicum of consistency, to the point of turning Labour into Tory-lite selling its soul just to capture a little more mind share, but effectively becoming hateful for both sides.
> It starts with child abuse material, because who’s going to defend not catching that?
After the recent X CSAM generation arguments and the potential for X to get blocked in the UK, it seems like more people than I expected will defend it.
There were people on HN defending it. Although I'm sure they're 99% defending Musk, and only because they reflexively jump into defense mode any time one of his companies' wrongdoing is discussed. If it were Adobe's or Microsoft's products generating CSAM, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them
I will defend absolute freedom of all speech by Musk and against Musk. By Adobe and against Adobe. My Microsoft and against Microsoft. By you and against you. By me and against me. Unlike many who merely theorize about this from their armchairs, I've lived in a place without free speech and I know what that leads to, how fast, and how hard it is to get out of that hole. There is no such thing as "let's just have a little less freedom of speech". It either exists or very quickly it does not.
X installs went UP the in UK when the gov said "X allows you to generate child porn, lets block it". Thousands of brits go "free child porn on X better check it out"
By lying about their motives, of course. The (other) authoritarians are doing the same things but they do it for self-serving reasons as opposed to "for the children", to "fight disinformation, hate speech, organized crime, terrorism", etc.
That's only a problem for communication between UK and non-UK users. You can still offer communication services for UK users, just disable all encryption, fulfill other Ofcom requirements, and display a large red "UK UNSAFE VERSION" banner on all windows.
They do what they've been doing. Get another law passed, that gives them what they want. Thats the best part of having a parliament, you just pass new laws
Readit News
I'm pretty cynical about both the current and previous government, but it feels like there's been a shift since Labour came into power. Historically this overbearing surveillance has been held back. There was chatter but it was met with resistance. Now it feels like the discussion is being squashed and there are invisible forces at work.
If by some miracle the UK and EU agree on a new Youth Mobility Scheme I'm out of here.
I had hoped Labour would roll back the anti-protest legislation, snooper's charter, internet censorship and voter ID laws.
After all, it was mostly left-wing climate protesters getting arrested, and young (more left-leaning) voters being prevented from voting.
Turns out no, quite the opposite - if anything, Labour thinks these laws didn't go far enough.
With hindsight, it was naive of me to think the former Director of Public Prosecutions would share my scepticism about expanding the powers of the system the Director of Public Prosecutions stands at the head of.
That's basically how the news, including the BBC, tend to report on these laws. "Some think they are good. Others think they don't go far enough. Experts say risk remains." Never ever do they interview the EFF.
Read this around 2007ish, shocked by what the previous labour government did, so I had zero hope this lot would be any different and it's worse than I thought possible.
Labour generally has a "paternalistic authoritarianism" to they way they govern, but this is dialed to 11.
Quite a mistake to think politicians would act to better anyone's lives, including those who helped elect them.
That‘s not my impression at all about the UK. They are known for mass CCTV surveillance since more than a decade. There’s even a wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
There is a Wikipedia page on surveillance in Austria, and the US. Not sure what your point is, it's not like most of the west isn't under surveillance or that the UK is more monitored than other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
Or are you implying that Germany doesn't have any surveillance because it doesn't have a dedicated English Wikipedia page?
There is a lot of rhetoric aimed at the UK, and I'm not saying it's great, but there is a lot of convenient omission on other countries actions.
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asy...
Hanlon's razor applies here. The truth is most people simply don't care because they don't understand, and don't care to understand.
You can sometimes infer what's going on from looking at the before and after conditions, much like how particle physicists infer events from what particles flew out, but not seeing the event itself.
Lol. That's how democracy (doesn't) works. The elected people only care about the wishes of the NGO that pushed them in power.
Better luck next time.
"Anarcho-Tyranny"
From Gemini:
"The concept was coined in the early 1990s by political theorist Samuel Francis. He described it as a state where the government performs its basic duty of public safety poorly (allowing "anarchy" among criminals) but creates a web of bureaucracy and surveillance to control the innocent (imposing "tyranny" on the law-abiding)."
This is exactly I how feel.
It's not anarcho-tyranny. This is simply the end game of an ever-growing State that has become bloated, greedy and unaccountable to the public it is supposed to serve.
One example of this is how the most recent interview Starmer has been given at the time of writing was to the newly-promoted politics correspondent of Sky News, the spouse of one of his most loyal Labour MPs, formerly an assistant editor of The Spectator, a popular politics magazine that promotes the abolition of inheritance tax, reductions in the age of consent, the introduction of qualified immunity from war crimes for the armed forces, the introduction of civil forfeiture, the return of the death penalty and holocaust denial. Unless an outside force compels other factions in UK politics to act, the media faction will likely replace Starmer with some other NEC loyalist who avoids flubbing line delivery on camera sometime this year. After all, the Starmer government has set a record in UK politics for the fastest decline in polling numbers and Starmer has personally put out the message in news briefings that removing him from office in 2026 would be a grave mistake for the party.
What I do know and is more and more apparent to me, is that the current systems of world relating to governance, here in the UK, no longer work. Not fit for purpose. Broken beyond repair. Scary.
Utter nonsense. They are the very definition of populism. Johnson appealing to the hoi polloi with the wishful thinking of Brexit, Starmer running his government on opinion polls rather than pragmatism and a modicum of consistency, to the point of turning Labour into Tory-lite selling its soul just to capture a little more mind share, but effectively becoming hateful for both sides.
After the recent X CSAM generation arguments and the potential for X to get blocked in the UK, it seems like more people than I expected will defend it.
I don't think anyone is defending it. It's all astroturf.
X installs went UP the in UK when the gov said "X allows you to generate child porn, lets block it". Thousands of brits go "free child porn on X better check it out"
We've seen the X/CSAM issue this week and both the government and regulator are clearly unwilling to stand up to American big-tech.
Leave your devices at home and expect zero privacy rights.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority/border-searc...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo.amp