I saw that quote on FB today too. I wish people wouldn't post stuff like that, it's not really helpful.
1) Privacy and liberty are not the same
2) We all have our liberty curtailed in the name of safety. Seatbelt laws, drink driving laws, laws about violence etc - still a bad thing?
3) Just because Franklin said it doesn't make it correct
4) It was almost quarter of a millenium ago, safe to say the security situation was a little differen then
5) He was caught up in the idealistic fever surrounding the separatist movement, so there was an awful lot of high minded talk flying about.
the real threat from terrorism has been systematically ratcheted up, and grossly exaggerated by western governments. They have done this in order to justify exactly this kind of wholesale surveillance, and the rolling back of civil rights, while increasing their own power
Alright.. but what you said there is slightly different from what you originally said... " and the standard to which they wish to keep" implies that they are using the terrorist threat to keep themselves wealthy.
Well its all about maintaining power and control Molls. And the money doesn't tend to stray too far from there. So while it may not be the primary concern, one tends to go hand-in-hand with the other.
I'd seriously recommend the Power of Nighmares, if you've not seen it. Its really interesting. As is all Adam Curtis's stuff, to be honest
As I and a few others have posted earlier, if you have nothing to hide, then where really is the bother?
[img] 
[/img]
As I have mentioned in this, and other related debates, it is all about who is the property of who. Is the state our common property, or are we the common property of a corporate state? One that seeks to establish itself as a Big Parent, deciding what we are able to do, and punishing behaviour or lifestyles that it disapproves of. When this state is able to know everything about the way we live our lives, and has a database to trawl through at will in search of evidence to confirm its worst suspicions about us, then what it has is in effect an electronic leash on our lives. If you define ownership as the ability to control the actions or disposition of someone, then the Ownership State is arming itself with some powerful weapons. If the line isn't drawn here, then where is it drawn?
Well its all about maintaining power and control Molls.
I'm not watching a movie whilst at work, but whose control exactly? A current govt knows it's only in for 10-12 years at the absolute. So for there to be any kind of long term plan it'd have to be cross-party and a bit of conspiracy.
Unless you mean civil service or shady powers that be.. but civil servants aren't known for being evil wealthy conspirators, are they?
That just leaves the evil mega corporations, visible or otherwise.
Don't confuse the puppets with the puppet masters.
One that seeks to establish itself as a Big Parent, deciding what we are able to do, and punishing behaviour or lifestyles that it disapproves of.
All governments do this, that's why we have laws, courts and a police service. So romanticising about liberty is a bit daft.
The whole point is where the line is drawn. Murder = bad, of course. Terrorism = bad, naturally. Violent protest? Peaceful protests that turn bad?
It's fine to gather intelligence to prevent terrorism - this is great. But how is that intelligence gathered? Devil's advocate: How many people can we sacrifice so that tin foil hatters can feel happy that no-one's looking at them?
The bottom line is WHY is this stuff being done? Do the government really give a crap about where we shop? No, of course not. They do care if we are plotting to blow stuff up though.
Of course in the future that may change, so it's a valid concern, but terror attacks are also a concern. So governments are doing is trying to walk a line between being able to stop crimes and keeping people's privacy. They may make mistakes whilst trying to find a balance (of course, they make mistakes all over the place, especially this lot) but that's a long way from a conspiracy to suppress the people.
I'm not watching a movie whilst at work, but whose control exactly? A current govt knows it's only in for 10-12 years at the absolute. So for there to be any kind of long term plan it'd have to be cross-party and a bit of conspiracy.
Molls - this Tories came in saying it was going to reverse nu labours assault on civil liberties, under the guise of Anti-terrorism laws. They then went into coalition with a party that (ironically I presume) has the word "liberal" in its title. So looking at that, you'd think there would be even more commitment to do so.
But funnily enough, once in power and these increased powers of 'the state' are now in their hands, the stuff the railed against in opposition now looks quite useful.
So, far from repeal any of the legislation they said they would, they're pushing for yet more powers. Again under the paper thin and vague pretext of 'anti-terrorism' powers. So Theresa May cynically uses the [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/theresa-may-keen-to-revive-snoopers-charter-in-wake-of-woolwich-attack-8629990.html ]Woolwich murder to demand yet more surveillance [/url]
Tories came in saying it was going to reverse nu labours assault on civil liberties
Have you not figured it out yet? Everything they say at election time is just guff to get votes. You should know that the reality of running a country bears no relation to the emtpy slogans people will try and get behind.
It's not because there's a giant conspiracy, it's because the electorate is too dim to realise what an ugly, messy and impotent job government is, and that allows campaigning politicians to come out with these slogans knowing full well it's rubbish.
A lot of people are disillusioned with it, and know it's all nonsense, but you don't need EVERYONE to vote for you, or vote at all, just more than the other people.
Electioneering is all rubbish, and governments are crap, and yet here we are, fumbling along as usual, with an economy and pretty much all of our liberties still in place.
Really? Ask the anti G8 protesters who were turned over yesterday to prevent them from protesting.
A current govt knows it's only in for 10-12 years at the absolute. So for there to be any kind of long term plan it'd have to be cross-party and a bit of conspiracy.
d'oh 🙄 Have you learned nothing from Alex Jones? The government are not the real power. It is the New World Order in charge, init?
Mollster - I know all that. And I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, giant or otherwise
Just that successive governments have found it quite useful to greatly exaggerate any threat to increase their own power, and stifle dissent. Not for some grand evil masterplan, but just to make their own lives a bit easier, and to stop them having to answer awkward questions.
For what its worth, no matter how many extra surveillance powers etc the government and security services get, I can't see them being too much of a threat to everyone's liberties. As this would require a level of competence that seems way beyond them. All they'll end up with is being drowned in a sea of meaningless drivel
Really? Ask the anti G8 protesters who were turned over yesterday to prevent them from protesting
Really what? How about bit more explanation of your point?
Just that successive governments have found it quite useful to greatly exaggerate any threat to increase their own power, and stifle dissent. Not for some grand evil masterplan, but just to make their own lives a bit easier, and to stop them having to answer awkward questions.
Hmm.. I believe that governments genuinely do want to prevent things like terror attacks, and they want to be able to catch the people who they strongly suspect are up to no good, because despite being rich politicians they are still human (yes, I know).
It's often discussed that the police known full well who's committing crimes, but they can't catch them because they don't have the evidence. This is widely considered a Bad Thing, including on this forum. The Government is in the same position with regards national security, but unlike the police they can legislate to improve their chances. And a lot of lives are potentially at risk too.
So it's not quite a case of 'making their lives a bit easier', that is trivialising the issue. I suspect it's more a case of 'making the impossible possible'.
After all, how do you know if your neighbour's planning to blow up the Houses of Parliament? You don't, any more than you know if he's hiding a second family in the basement. The problem is, the government and police respectively need to know these things to prevent crimes.
For what its worth, no matter how many extra surveillance powers etc the government and security services get, I can't see them being too much of a threat to everyone's liberties. As this would require a level of competence that seems way beyond them
I agree.
it's because the electorate is too dim to realise what an ugly, messy and impotent job government is, and that allows campaigning politicians to come out with these slogans knowing full well it's rubbish.
I think most of the electorate full well realise what a crap heap the system is, but are given very little choice in elections, and are too trapped into their own lives to really fight the system.
MSP I quite agree. Although binners, who seems otherwise intelligent, seems to think that what they say at election time actually carries some weight and seems surprised when it doesn't 🙂
A couple of very simple changes could transform UK politics.
1) None of the Above on ballot papers, and a default vote of that registered if you don't vote.
2) Over a certain percentage for NOTA and the whole thing gets re-run.
That'd sort the buggers out!
I think to a greater or lesser extent we've all been a bit brainwashed by TV representations of the security forces, Spooks and things like 24 give a gloss to counter terrorism that simply doesn't exist in reality. These are govt agencies, they are just as understaffed and under resourced as the rest of us, I'll bet the UK's defence against cyber crime is Bernard, Colin and Janet ( Brian's off with a sore back) and a couple of PCs one of which runs a dodgy copy of windows 97 .
Remember these are the people that missed 9/11 and managed to shoot an electrician on the tube. Bear in mind that these program's also aid govts in tricking the populace into believing that they are more sophisticated that Bernard and Colin....the truth is out there, but its quite dull, and is on a non descript business park on a roundabout in Basingstoke
I'll bet the UK's defence against cyber crime is Bernard, Colin and Janet
No, it's Alice and Bob.
Remember these are the people that missed 9/11
Ah.. hmm.. I seem to remember reading that a lot of warnings were flagged, but at some point in the command chain (not sure if it was government or not) they chose not to act. Maybe they were worried about people's privacy, I dunno.
The civil servants btw didn't shoot the electrician, that was a policeman.
2) Over a certain percentage for NOTA and the whole thing gets re-run.That'd sort the buggers out!
Surely it'd just mean we had a general election every week? for ever? Actually... if they could keep the costs down, that sounds like a winner. 😀
just suck it up paroles, your privacy is a thing of the past, get used to it.
The most horrifying aspect of all of this is how people are already so conditioned to see this as an inevitable and desirable. Baaaaa, baaaaaaaa!
This runs the risk of being a throwaway ill-reseached comment but, but that never stopped anyone before...
Hmm.. I believe that governments genuinely do want to prevent things like terror attacks, and they want to be able to catch the people who they strongly suspect are up to no good, because despite being rich politicians they are still human (yes, I know).
- How many people have been killed by terrorists in the UK in the last 10 years?
- How many cyclists have been killed by motorists in the UK in the last 10 years?
- How much has been spent on prevention, and how much infringement of civil liberties has taken place on both of the above?
The illusion of the risk vs reality of one is heightened significantly compared to the other.
yeah but all the lefty moaning and griping will never be enough to stop this runaway locomotive, unlike turkey or any of the other "politically unstable" countries tear gassing their populace the UK is far too comfortable, it's citizens the human equivalent of the foie gras goose.
and whats good for the goose, doesn't matter as long as it tastes good to its target market.
all your internets are belong to U.S.
The most horrifying aspect of all of this is how people are already so conditioned to see this as an inevitable and desirable
Your logical fallacy is: Circular Reasoning
The illusion of the risk vs reality of one is heightened significantly compared to the other.
Right, but if we DIDN'T spend so much on terrorism, perhaps we'd have more deaths? Hard to say isn't it? Perhaps we'd have far fewer!
I'm not saying that there isn't a threat, or that attempts to combat it aren't working but I do believe that we're intentionally given the impression that the threat is greater than it is so that we don't mind giving up civil liberties.
Stay scared and keep buying stuff you don't need and everything will be alright...
Hmm, I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy nut now, which isn't my intention so I'll stop 🙂
There's a good article by Seamus Milne in the Guardian today, which sums it up nicely
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/surveilllance-about-power-as-much-as-privacy ] NSA and GCHQ: mass surveillance is about power as much as privacy[/url]
[i]
Western spying agencies are instruments of control, and their record is disastrous. They have to be held to account[/i]
When I was watching William Hague making his very, very, very carefully worded statement (that the government weren't using the American surveillance as a way of circumnavigating legal safeguards to collect data on UK citizens), he had that look on his face that said "why am I spouting this patently untrue nonsense? Nobody with half a brain is going to believe this drivel. It'll be my arse on the line for lying to parliament when this lot (somewhat inevitably) comes out in the wash"
Its all rather reminiscent of Alastair Campbell and Blair, and the supposed 'evidence' that justified invading Iraq. Its so clearly a pack of lies. Though Blair did at least lie-through-his-teeth with a bit more conviction
binners +1 on William Hague,he reminded me of a bad insurance salesman,forced to sell something he doesnt believe in.
Watch out spooks, you're in trouble now...
[img] 
[/img]
Adam Hart Davis is gonna wipe the floor with you punks:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/12/nsa_logo_scandal/
