Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Pettytyrant101]

I think its a mix of things Eldo- the Uk is in part able to create laws like this easily- in the US for example attempts to curb what people can see or say would run into challenges regards the Constitution.
Here there is no such thing- we dont have any right to free speech as far as the law is really concerned, we arent even citizens- we are Subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and historically Subjects didnt get to exercise frees speech in case they said 'lets get rid of the monarchy'.
So all a government need do is get the vote won in the Commons- get enough MP's on side at its law (there is the Lords but even if they say no they can only do so twice- on the third try it becomes law anyway as the Commons has precedent as its elected- although these days not very Common and debatable how eleceted- it'd be better renamed the Upper House of  Eton and Cambridge too).

On top of that is the long shadow of the Victorians- whose attitude to sex- one of horror mainly it seems- has meant unlike our European neighbours we still as a people tend to lean towards censorship of anything sexually explicit or in fact sex in any form. And there is still a very strong Victorian hangover of the idea of the 'moral fabric of society' being damaged if the ordinary folk can see, read or say anything sexual or too poltiical.
And to get in a right old moral knot over it all.

I dont think the UK govt is doing anything others wouldnt very much like to -the internet is the greatest threat to traditional government ever, government is about control and control is only maintained through power and power is only achieved through dominance and subjugation and information - its just because of various anomalies of history in the UK its easier to do here in this instance.

[Kafria]

I think the worry over moral fabric is still a fairly strong motivator, and another useful electioneering tool.

In an unrelated but relevant story it was in the news yesterday that coop, the supermarket side of the business has given lads mags six weeks to put their mags in 'modesty covers' or be removed from the shelves. As a stop gap the store has but black opaque covers in front of them for the time being to stop kids seeing them when they go shopping with their parents. There are laws that state these mags must not be at kiddie level and this is a debate that happened a few years ago with WHSmiths. (Did make me smile that The 'sport' as a paper was also included).

This brought a lot of the vocal feminist groups to the fore, but it is interesting to note that we still have page 3 girls in print, (and no restriction on kids buying papers) but it will now be blocked on the Internet, and if the coop gets its way, covers on lads mags.

It's also worth noting this is also part of a pattern of this government looking at things and saying 'this isn't good enough' there are a whole load of other things from immigration to benefits etc that the government seems to be hinting is out of control and needs sorting. It is pandering to fears of particular groups and appearing to do something while missing the real issues.

And twitter has raised it's head again this week. I don't know if you ever have, but if you want to see the kind of reactionary responses these issues get a peak at the have your say forums on the beeb is always depressing, even aftert these have been moderated.

[leelee]

KAFRIA! I was looking at the members list and feeling sad at the number missing. it is SO wonderful to hear from you. I realize I am not on much, but it is lovely to know you are well and here.   

[Kafria]

It is nice to be here too, even if less frequently than before.  

[Pettytyrant101]

I thought this was a very good piece looking at the general situation in Egypt right now-

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013728122856571495.html

[Pettytyrant101]

Not be paranoid, but to be paranoid for a minute.
Does it strike any one else as useful timing that the US is closing embassies and recommending likewise to other countries in light of a terrorist plot, uncovered through just the sort of intrusive taping in on everyone the US government is trying to justify?

[David H]

I don't think that's at all paranoid. I think it's safe to say that the timing is not a coincidence, at least to the extent that the decision to address the plot publicly rather than clandestinely was calculated to send a clear message of some sort to somebody.

Whether that message was intended for Al Qaeda or the American public, or both, is anybody's guess though.

[Mrs Figg]

if they close all the Embassies in the Muslim world its going to be big news, there is no way they could have kept that one quiet. they had no choice but to be open about it.
I am very glad they have surveilance and have foiled any plot, if it saves lives, I am all for spying on the 'enemy'.

[azriel]

The trouble with spying is, who IS the enemy ? Youve really got to clarify this & be careful what you imply. Im all for nipping terrorism in the bud, of course ! saving lives is prime. It just dont comfy to me that anything you do, say or even think, could be misconstrued as an act of terrorism ! I find THAT to be scarey.

[David H]

The strange thing about this is that in the entire history of the United States we have never done such a thing on this scale before. Through both World Wars and the Cold War the State Department made every effort to keep the embassies open, recognizing that a lot of Americans and friends of Americans depend on them for their safety.

To close specific embassies because of a specific threat of course makes sense, especially after the political backlash from Benghazi. But why so many and why such a major press release? I don't quite get it. If you were withdrawing military or taking the police off the streets for their safety, would you publicly announce it beforehand?

The trouble with spying is, who IS the enemy ? Youve really got to clarify this & be careful what you imply.

That's the scariest thing to me by far. The risk from terrorism to an average person is 1 in tens of millions. That's something like 1000 times smaller than the risk of talking on a mobile phone, or riding a bicycle.

If they can spy on all of us in the name of protecting us from the miniscule risk of terrorists, then there's really no limit to what they may do to protect us from ourselves in the future. I'm not sure that's a world I have any interest in living in.

[Pettytyrant101]

I agree David.
Its like saying we have to spy on everyone in case someone gets hit by a meteorite or struck by lighting.
There is a world of difference between targeted intelligence and generally sweeping the whole population to see if anyones up to something you dont like- and for a government to have that power- well its even beyond the Party of Orwell's 1984's greatest dreams.

"I am very glad they have surveilance and have foiled any plot"- Mrs Figg

How do we know there is a plot beyond the CIA saying there is?- or if there is a plot how do we know it hasnt been instigated by the CIA to help justify their surveillance programs- particularly to foreign countries they have upset over their spying?

And if that seems far fetched then I refer you to a browse through the CIA's history of arms dealing, drug smuggling and assassinating legitimate democratic leaders and replacing them with violent tyrants because it suited US interests to do so among many heinous and dubious crimes they have committed in he name f US Freedom.

[David H]

Its like saying we have to spy on everyone in case someone gets hit by a meteorite or struck by lighting.

Being struck by lighting is actually pretty common. I've known several. (Even dated one!  )

From Wikipedia:

An estimated 24,000 people are killed by lightning strikes around the world each year and about 240,000 are injured. According to the NOAA, over the last 20 years, the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities, placing it in the second position, just behind floods for weather killers.[5][6] In the US, between 9% and 10% of those struck die,[7] for an average of 40 to 50 deaths per year (28 in 2008).[8] The odds of an average person living in the US being struck by lightning in a given year is between 1/750,000 and 1/500,000, while the odds of being struck by lightning in a lifetime is 1/6250 (estimated lifespan of 80 years)

[Pettytyrant101]

Exactly my point -much more likely than dying to due a terrorist attack- but they dont insist they need to watch everyone all the time to safe guard us against being struck.

Although just to keep with how preposterous all this spying on everyone is you could justify it- if they know whee everyone is and keep tabs on them then if you do get struck the emergency services can be immediately alerted thus saving lives.
In just the same way you could justify putting cameras in everyones houses to watch them because it would prevent child and domestic abuse in the home (where it most commonly takes place).

[Mrs Figg]

I really dont think we are all being watched and spied on. It would take billions of man hours to sift and interpret. The technology can absorb the intel but only humans can interpret the threat. They obviously use this stuff on other countires and hotspots, they can decide whether to intervene or not. I imagine its only a tiny percentage of citizens who are under surveilance, everyday people just arent that important. Its easy to get paranoid. As every so called enemy state is just doing the same thing anyway. The Russians spy on the US the US spies on the Arabs, the Arabs spy on the Europeans its everyone spying on each other. They can use satelites to pinpoint a postage stamp from 3 miles up. the gig is up, whether we want it or not. I am expecting Minority Report style policing soon.

[Pettytyrant101]

The US programes sweep everyone- email, phone calls, messaging services- then use computer algorithms to look for patterns and key words or phrases then they close in on targets- all well and good (although technically as far as I can tell illegal in the US and here as there is no requirement to show just cause for the spying in the first place)- but what if your government decides to class political opponents as dissidents?
My point is that even if its all being used in a the best interests of everyone (and I doubt that myself) all the tools are there and in place to make another Stalin weep with joy.

[azriel]

You know what, Figgums, thats not such a daft idea that you cracked up on ;)People have laughed at all the old Sci-Fi films & yet SOME of that technology is in the secret labs now. Every country has its own defence mechanism in place, There's more scientists labouring away than we are made aware of. Im wondering WHY polititions are trying to encourage more kids to take up the sciences in schools & PE is being encouraged also. I dont believe its anything to do with UK wining the fooking Olympic Games either ! I know I sound paranoid ! but, Id rather have daft ideas than be caught with my under crackers well & truly down !

[David H]

I really dont think we are all being watched and spied on. It would take billions of man hours to sift and interpret. The technology can absorb the intel but only humans can interpret the threat.

I think that was certainly true ten or 15 years ago, but technology has come a long way since then.  Just think about the massive interpretive technology that comes to bear on every simple google search you and I make.  Think about a Google image search which compares and interprets a billion people's photos around the world in the blink of an eye. It's sci-fi stuff, but we use it every day!

It's not a secret that our Governments have search methods that are years ahead of Google, and word recognition programs that can understand both written language and spoken language.  Now thanks to the recent information following Snowden's revelations, we know that the NSA has been keeping copies of everybody's phone and internet messages for several years, and can search them at will without a warrant.  

Thanks to technology it's now cheaper, easier and faster to let technology spy on everybody who uses electronic communication than to  spend the thousands of man hours to have human analysts identify valid targets and get warrants.

[Mrs Figg]

yes but terrorists worth their salt dont go phoning their mates asking for dynamite, they encrypt their messages and even with all the technology Bin Laden was living in a luxury villa for ages without anyone finding out. People are much more cunning than machines no matter how high tech. Its people that interpret someone using the word dynamite on search engines, it could mean Miss Dynamite gets a horrible wakeup call one morning, its people who nterpret threats and they cant check up on billions of people, they just go for known danger areas I suppose.

[Mrs Figg]

I have a theory about Pettys Stalanist paranoia. If they want to control us they wont be trying the IL Duce or Stalin method they are far too sopisticated and understand these days people recognize tyrants and use internet technology to help defeat them as in the Arab Spring. Its very 20th century style. No they will get us with bread and circuses in the 21st century, give us enough cheap booze, recreational drugs, video games to play, fast food to keep us docile and fat, keep us occupied with alternate realities so we live in cookoo land and dont know we are getting controlled until its too late.

[Orwell]

I think the Russians and Chinese should stop spying first - they started it!  

[David H]

That's absolutely right Orwell! You tell 'em. You're closer.  

[David H]

So the scuttlebutt from the diplomatic corps seems to be that they're frustrated not to be able to do their jobs due to the embassy closures for what they see as political games when the actual risk is no greater than normal.  

The favored theory is that the current embassy closures are a political reaction to the Republicans using the storming of the Benghazi embassy as political fuel against the Obama administration in the last election.  Nobody in the Whitehouse, they say, has the stomach for a repeat just as they're gearing up for the midterm elections.

It's a simple, plausible theory that doesn't have to involve Snowden and the NSA to make sense.  That doesn't necessarily make it entirely true, but it's probably not entirely false....

[Pettytyrant101]

That doesn't necessarily make it entirely true, but it's probably not entirely false....- David

That rather neatly sums up most government activity David.  

[Pettytyrant101]

Wages in the UK have seen one of the largest falls in the European Union during the economic downturn, according to official figures.
It is the fourth-worst decline among the 27 EU nations.
But the government says it has tackled the higher cost of living.
"The economy is on the mend, but we've still got a long way to go as we move from rescue to recovery and we appreciate that times are still tough for families," a Treasury spokesperson said.
In 2009, the average public-sector worker earned about £16.60 per hour, which dropped to about £15.80 in 2011.
Meanwhile, hourly pay for private-sector workers in 2009 was just over £15.10 and dropped to about £13.60 in 2011.- BBC

Id love to know where they get those wage figures from- Ive worked in the private sector in health care for 20 years and Ive never had a wage of £13.60 and hour, not even half that.  

Are our toff politicians so deluded they think most people in the country are on those sort of hourly rates? Really?- when the minimum wage is actually £6.19 for an adult, £4.98 for under 18's and a measly £2.65 for an apprentice?

[Ringdrotten]

Minimum wages that low undermine the whole idea with having minimum wages - when it's legal to have an apprentice work for you for £2.65/hour there's something wrong. How much (roughly) does a family of 3-5 spend on food and other necessities (power, rent/loans, clothes etc) monthly?