Slashdot Mirror
It's "1984" in Europe, What About Your Country?
An anonymous reader asks: "A few hours ago, the European parliament accepted a proposal '...on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services...'. Summarized: any data (internet connections, traffic, email, file sharing, SMS, phone calls) of 450 million people of Europe has to be collected by telcos, to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course. In Germany, over-the-sea reports are limited and usually do not include the latest developments in law and order, but since Slashdot has readers all over the world, I would like to ask: how is the status of YOUR country in terms of anti-terrorism-laws, observations and such? Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
True, they are not equivalent, but that does not mean privacy is not a right. In the US its considered covered under the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated More on this here.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
This is a false distinction. A Republic is a kind of democracy in that the power is ultimately in the hands of the people. What you mean is that the U.S. is not a direct democracy because the people who immediately wield power are elected representatives. Direct democracies are very rare and probably are only workable in small societies.
Russia -- where most press and all TV-stations are state-controlled.
Russia -- where courts are in the President's pocket.
Russia -- which uses air-bombers and heavy artillery against the very people, it claims are its citizens (although they disagree).
Russia -- where regional governors are appointed by the President.
Russia -- where the Communist Party is among the strongest.
You complain about random searches in NYC subways? In Russia you are obligated to carry identification with you at all times and present it to any law enforcer upon request.
Unhappy about racial profiling here? If you are dark-skinned (thus looking like a Chechen), you will be harassed and periodically searched on the streets in Russia. And not in some red-neck backwater, but in the shiny newly-rich capital of Moscow.
If you are non-white looking -- don't go to St. Petersburgh (Russia's other capital -- the "sophisticated" one). Russian skin-heads have been attacking non-whites (Asian students primarily) there recently, with police looking the other way.
Stop reading "Pravda".In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Unfortunately, the federalists were wrong.
Here in Australia our constitution was based on the very principle you refer to and includes no individual rights other than freedom of religion and the right to a trial in relation to certain types of offence. To this day a bill of rights is opposed, mainly be conservative politicians, because "we couldn't list all of our freedoms" and "it would be unneccessary" and so on.
Sadly, we have recently seen wave after wave of terrible, terrible legislation encroaching on the lives and freedoms of ordinary, innocent people. Refugees are treated like criminals rather than people who are likely to be seeking shelter and are detained in appalling conditions in the desert or on remote islands, potentially indefinitely. The original inhabitants of this country are marginalised and ignored. More fundamentally, every Australian is now subject to arbitrary and relatively unchecked laws relating to 'terrorism' which allow for extended periods of detention without trial and without a warrant. These laws are enthusiastically promoted by the police and security agencies. Australia has one of the highest rates of phone-tapping in the world, and also retains ridiculous sedition laws essentially making it illegal to criticise the government too strongly.
We have it worse than the US - at least you have SOME protected rights. We have none, and in times like these that means we are gradually losing them all. A bill of rights is essential in protecting basic freedoms, which are not inherent characteristics but human constructions and therefore must be protected by humans.
Read Pynchon.
Here in Denmark (and the other scandinavian countries) it's this way around:
10^06 = million
10^09 = milliard
10^12 = billion
10^15 = billiard
10^18 = trillion
10^21 = trilliard
and so on...
Eat the rich.
Republic (res publica) and democracy (demos kratos) just mean the same thing. The one coming from latin, the other from ancient greek.
.nl (as in many european countries) we have a monarch (queen) and republicans are those who'd rather have her and her family retire to somewhere else.
The inferred difference as if republic means a representative system and democracy a direct system is not something I ever heard before.
In ancient greece they did have direct democracies in some states for some time. At other times they had elected officials and still called it a democracy.
In Europe the difference between a republic and a not-republic is whether you have a president or a monarch. In
These monarchies are still governed by democratically elected officials, and we still call them democracies, as we do republics like france and germany.
Regards,
Tob
Republic and Democracy are strikingly similar, not opposites.
They not strikingly similar, but you are right that they are not eachothers opposites.
They were eachothers opposites one day in the far past, when Athens was fighting Sparta.
The Roman republic already 'married' the 2 and ended up with something that is a republic in the sense of having an 'appointed' leadership, but it also had a form of representive democracy through the senate.
Ever since, a republic is a form of state, and primarily an alternative for a monarchy. Democracy is not a form of state and it can exist in both republic and monarchy (and other alternative forms of state), and a few countries even managed the combination of monarchy and forms of direct democracy (tho that usually doesn't work well, see Italy untill Mussolini came to power)
In short, originally both were a form of state, but for the last 2000+ years, a republic has been a form of state while democracy has been a process that can be used to decide on specific things. Obviously those 2 are not mutually exclusive, and actually make a good combination. To say they are very similar is however not true.
If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.
You are absolutely right there.
With regards to this new EU rule, the slashdot blurb of course doesn't mention this, but what they are going to store is the fact that you chatted to your friend between this and this time, but not the content of this conversation. While this is bad and stupid, it is not by far as bad as the blurb is trying to make it look.
Supposedly this is usefull to get an insight into the conenctions between individuals who might be involved in terrorist or criminal activities.
Of course, about all investigations resulting from attacks in the last half decade point at a lack of cooperation and not of information (usually the information was actually there), but who cares.
The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.
See, judging from what I've heard of their material, what they're wanting is pretty much what most slashdotters seem to be wanting - the US government to get it's nose out of their business. What they want is the US to stop interfering in middle-eastern politics, and letting them get back to killing/getting killed by the Israelis. I'm the first to condemn terrorist methodology, but really, let's not get into demonizing our opponents. It's stupid, irrational, deceitful, and it clouds the real issues.
(Note to any outraged future posters: I am not endorsing terrorism, I am simply asking we look at their motivations analytically rather than emotionally)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I live in The Netherlands, which has an electoral system considered "extremely proportional" by most political scientists. A political party that gets a share as small as about 0.7% of the votes has a fair chance of getting one of the 150 seats in the Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber, the Dutch equivalent of the House of Commons). When it took it's current form, this system was best suited for a country as deeply divided (culturally, religiously and politically) as The Netherlands, with a protestant North and a catholic South, a rapidly growing labour movement, many small business owners and an important liberal minority.
The upside is that the parliament's composition mirrors actual voter preferences quite closely, so all political and religious minorites can be represented in parliament and have their say in national politics. In addition, political parties are extremely unlikely to reach a majority on their own, so they're always forced to form a coalition government - thus assuring that the government is backed by a fairly large proportion of the Dutch voters. OTOH, in countries that have majority systems, governing parties may sometimes have the support of only a very small minority of the electorate.
The downside to the Dutch system is that we have a fairly large number (currently eleven) of parties in parliament, including the far left, the far right, orthodox Christians, ecologists, populists and plain idiots. They all have their say, and their support may from time to time be indispensable, which doesn't always add to clarity and political decisiveness. Also, being forced to form coalition governments, the main parties tend to iron out their differences and resemble each other more and more, which may obviously impair political debate and take away real choice from the voters. As a result, some highly controversial issues are virtually impossible to decide upon (such as the abolishment of the "hypotheekrenteaftrek", the tax deductibility of mortgage interests, is one example. It's been on the political agenda for over twenty years, but no solution is even close).
The merits of majority systems versus proportional representation are a different debate though. Even though I personally prefer PR to any majority system, I'd still consider the UK to be a democratic country. After all, although you may not like the design (or the outcome) of the electoral system, the UK does have free and fair elections, free press, free speech, a democratically controlled government, an independent judiciary, etc.
There is always a plethora of pedantic jackasses on Slashdot. First off- try quoting everything I said and not what you want to cherry pick.
What I said was: "If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Letter to William Duane, 1803.
How can one work to keep the government in check, or overthrow it if necessary if the government can keep complete track of a persons communications?