←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
torginus ◴[] No.45011561[source]
I genuinely do not understand where how the idea of building a total surveillance police state, where all speech is monitored, can even as much as seriously be considered by an allegedly pro-democracy, pro-human rights government, much less make it into law.

Also:

Step 1: Build mass surveillance to prevent the 'bad guys' from coming into political power (its ok, we're the good guys).

Step 2: Your political opponents capitalize on your genuinely horrific overreach, and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the public as fighting against tyranny (unfortunately for you they do have a point). They promise to dismantle the system if coming to power.

Step 3: They get elected.

Step 4: They don't dismantle the system, now the people you planned to use the system against are using it against you.

Sounds brilliant, lets do this.

replies(17): >>45011763 #>>45011799 #>>45011932 #>>45012205 #>>45012358 #>>45012512 #>>45012976 #>>45013249 #>>45013303 #>>45013857 #>>45014035 #>>45014477 #>>45014527 #>>45014559 #>>45016358 #>>45020627 #>>45021408 #
luke727 ◴[] No.45011932[source]
The thing you have to understand is that the average Brit wants and possibly needs the government to tell them how to live their lives. It's a completely foreign paradigm to the average American, though alarming "progress" has been made on the American front as of late.
replies(8): >>45011972 #>>45012013 #>>45012249 #>>45012258 #>>45012369 #>>45012965 #>>45013164 #>>45014618 #
choult[dead post] ◴[] No.45012258[source]
[flagged]
1. luke727 ◴[] No.45012356[source]
I'm speaking like someone who has to live with the consequences of horrible legislation like this because I live here.