Slashdot Mirror
No Passport For Britons Refusing Mass Surveillance
UpnAtom writes "People who refuse to give up their bank records, tax records & details of any benefits they've claimed, and the records of their car movements for the last year, or refuse to submit to an interrogation on whether they are the same person that this mountain of data belongs to — will be denied passports from March 26th. The Blair government has already admitted that this and other data will be cross-linked so that the Home Office and other officials can spy on the everyday lives of innocent Britons. Britons were already the most spied upon nation in Western Europe — more so even than Sweden. Data-mining through this unprecedented level of mass-surveillance allows any future British government to leapfrog even countries like China and North Korea."
it's V for Vendetta coming true!!!!
they just sit there in that pan of slowly heating water...
How does this benefit the average citizen?
It won't reduce terrorist activities.
It won't reduce crime.
All it will do is make it easier for the government to find SOMETHING on you if they ever want to.
So, does this mean that it's impossible to leave the country unless you first give over all your personal data? Even if you want to leave solely because you don't want to give that data?
I wonder if and when the first people will start running smuggling operations out of Britain.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
From the article: "I think people will recognise that its appropriate once in their lifetime to go through a little bit more inconvenience..."
Are passports issued for life in Britain? I doubt it.
The average citizen receives the pride of knowing that they are playing their preordained part in the ten thousand year old game of social control: Create debt, maintain debt, keep people in debt, work them until they die of debt.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
The Daily Mail?
That's like an american getting views on the democratic party from Fox News.
Daily Mail Watch is a good read, if you've not seen what this 'paper' prints before.
I used to be very proud of being English. I believed Britain to be a light in the darkness and a bastion of freedom. I believed that the U.K., along with the U.S., stood as examples to the rest of the world as to what was possible when freedom won out over fear. But today, I no longer feel that way. I see freedoms being given up for illusory safety, and an unprecedented level of control being given to a government that has never proven itself even remotely worthy or capable of such a responsibility. Mostly, I feel anger and sadness, and a sense of frustration that the proverbial shining city on the hill has become so horribly tarnished with the shit of misinformation, misdirection, fear-mongering, and mediocre talking-heads proclaiming that just a few more liberties need to go to make us all safe.
Many Americans, I suspect, can relate.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
.. and Walmart in the US have one of the largest data mined databases in the world, whereas in the UK we have the data protection act that makes it a criminal offence to sell on your customer data without permission.
You can always pick examples but there really isn't that much difference... the only time I've really felt scared of the authorities was when I visited the US.
I always thought this was a rather curious statement. What is it about train system efficiency that inculcates a preference for or against fascism in the general populace? For all the people that equate Bush and Hitler, one would think that Amtrak would be in better shape. Perhaps Amtrak's worthlessness is a sign that our political system clearly retains its fundamental vibrancy.
I've never seen a political party base its platform on the railroad time schedule, but I wonder how the tradeoff is justified between transportation regularity and political or civil liberties. Ought liberal governments strive first to reform the train systems such that the fascist option is obviated? Is this our first line of defense against the black shirts?
I suppose it's no coincidence that fascism only arose after the advent and spread of railroad transport throughout the Western world. One wonders if subsequent developments in transportation technology--automobiles, airplanes, segways--have opened up new forms of political and social organization, such that the fascist constituency (those that passionately care about rail transport) have been minimized.
Is the ongoing threat of far right political parties in Europe (the BNP, Le Pen, etc) the reason why Europe's socialist governments sink so much money into subsidizing their rail systems, whereas the United States has no need, and therefore couldn't care a whit about poor Amtrak?
Are there any political theorists out there who can resolve this question?
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
If you UKers really cared about it, you'd go into the streets and protest.
You have the power, you elected those people.
"This is news?" you ask?
It is news.
It has to be news, it has to keep being mentioned, and mentioned and mentioned, because the vast majority of people just don't realise how sinister the moves being made by the ruling classes are. People are still slumbering. People still haven't been roused, still haven't put all the pieces of the jigsaw together (I dare say, neither have I) and as a result we are being herded into our pens, stamped and tagged and the fences and barbed wire are being erected around us.
So few of us look up from our grazing and question what's going on.
If we are under the constant surveillance of an all powerful state, we are not free.
When the linch-pin of the surveillance state (the roll-out of the National Identity Registration Number)is finally enacted we will not be free citizens who elect people to serve us, we will be livestock participating in our own containment and monitoring.
We will be a Nation of Suspects, watched.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
In fact please have a look here for how many European nations are run today.
If you don't like Walmart's policies, you can simply not shop there. If you don't like the govornments policies, you still have to deal with them.
What you just presented was not only an example of "well, the US does it too!" but of comparing apples to oranges.
Even though it's a completly worthless counter argument it takes a shot at both the US and Wal*Mart so it get's modded up in the seconds between when the page loaded and when I clicked to see what your reply was.
Heh, yeah, but you should see the other lot. The Tories just had to sack one of their front benchers for being racist (as in, saying it's ok to call soldiers "black bastards" etc)...
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
If you UKers really cared about it, you'd go into the streets and protest.
Of course, remember to ask for permission first.
But the war is still going on, right?
Here in the UK, this stuff is publicized, people do care about it... but the government ignores all the voices of obection.
You should be afraid of our ICE, our police, our enforcement arms.
No innocent person should be afraid of law enforcement personnel. The purpose of the police is "to protect and to serve", and if they are doing that rather than "being enforcers for the criminals and thugs elected to high office" then no one needs to be afraid of them except the guilty.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
If what you say is true, I'd note:
If the Canadian government *believe* they are terrorists - they still have a right to own a passport.
Go Canada, I say.
Really? what kind of human you are is not determined by what side of the camera you are on.
It seems to me that real terrorist would want to find suckers to set up, so to keep the public on the edge of terrorism scare, while hiding behind the guise of supporting anti-terrorism.
I don't think many people believe that Bush or the current British government are facists. The problem is simply that they are moving in that direction, by erasing boundaries such as judicial oversight in order to "git 'er done." The problem with these massive surveilance programs and police powers is that they grease the tracks for an irreparable slide into facism the next time there's a national crisis or an especially power-hungry leader. When it's a crime to report executive overstepping (such as the current national security letters issue), we are all too close.
This is actually the problem I have with people saying "the government should"
And it's all that "government should" nonsense that lets the government get away with all this. If people in the UK started taking more responsibility for both themseleves and the community they live then it wouldn't be such a mess, both literally and figuratively.
Instead, it's always the government that should be doing something. As though the government was somehow omnipotent and could solve every problem with just a snap of Tony Blair's fingers. As the government isn't omnipotent (or even that competent) we end up with our freedoms being taken away and none of our problems being solved.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
"What is it about train system efficiency that inculcates a preference for or against fascism in the general populace?"
This might sound kind of silly, but hear me out. I think it's a question of whether society as a whole prioritizes the lives of individuals, or the regular functioning of societal institutions.
Will the train wait for you if you are running two minutes late? Or will it leave exactly on time? What if you are going to visit your sick mother in the hospital? Will the conductor let you on if you run up at the last minute, after the doors have closed, tears in your eyes?
Are the people in charge sticklers for the rules, or will the allow an except for your particular life story and situation? Are we cogs in the machine, to be cast off in the ditch if we are unable to keep up with the machinations of the city? Are we here to support the institutions, or are the institutions here to make our lives easier?
I grew up in the US and got used to reliable infrastructure. I have done a lot of travelling in South American since I was in college, and it has really changed my perspective. Not that I am saying that one is better (I'll get to fascism later), but just observing at this point.
I just got back from Bolivia. In La Paz, any body with a car can put a sign on their windshield and do their own taxi service. Anybody can set down a blanket on the sidewalk and start selling potatoes or trinkets to tourists. Open air markets have fresh meat rotting in the high-altitude sun, and freshly picked vegetables sitting out in the open, dirt still on them. There are no police who are going to stop you, there are no taxes to pay. There *are* registered, licensed taxis, and regular retail shops like we are used to here in the United States. However, official institutions don't have total control over every aspect of life like they do here. Here in the US, you need permission to do wipe your ass, pardon the expression. But in Bolivia, at least, informal 'institutions' exist alongside the official ones.
In La Paz, there are full-size vans that run regular routes as taxi/buses. After 5 O'clock, when people are getting off of work, they will squeeze in as many people as can fit. Everyone is just trying to get home to their families, and nobody is going to throw you off if you are just sitting one butt-cheek on the edge of a seat. I've ridden several times in crowded, swaying full-size buses over dirt roads on mountains. I'm agnostic, but I prayed an awful lot.
Now, of course, there are a lot more deaths due to safety hazards in Bolivia, in traffic and in homes. A lot of people get food poisoning. I think Bolivians are more accepting of the suffering and death in general.
Here in the US, people seem to have what I call a hysteria of action. If something bad happens to anyone , Sometime Must Be Done, so that nobody ever has to suffer ever again. If a child dies in a shooting, all guns everywhere must be registered and locked up. If somebody gets food poisoning, we must institute totally new rules and procedures about handling food. If somebody dies in a car accident, we have to put air-bags on the roofs of all new cars. If somebody dies of a rare, expensive disease, we must establish a new non-profit so that nobody ever need suffer this disease again. If something bad ever manages to happen again, it was because somebody was lazy, not doing their job, and they must be fired. America is a paradise, and if bad things happen, it's somebody's fault for not doing their job.
Anyway, relating this to Nazi-ism, what kind of person throws people into the oven? I believe the same attitude of the person who makes sure that the trains run on time, regardless of who actually needs to go where. They prioritize the machine above the person. All of the death camp guards were just doing their jobs, following orders, doing what they were told. It didn't matter that this prisoner had a life and a family; he needed to be loaded up on the train or suffocated
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Do I even need to finish the quote?
It would be rather ironic if, 230-some years after the Americans decided they'd had enough of being subjects of Parliament and the King, the people of the United Kingdom were the first to overthrow their modern fascist government. Perhaps it might set an example for the rest of us.
I wonder which government would be easier to tackle, given the severe restrictions of firearms in the UK versus the sheer inertia of the US population? Perhaps it should start with the Republican movement in the UK, by getting rid of the monarchists, the fascists, and the authoritarians, and drawing up a true Constitution. That ought to at least buy you another couple of hundred years of relative freedom.
I think the Revolution may be coming sooner, rather than later. Personally, I'd explore the possibility of moving to the UK, but not as a subject, and not without a guaranteed right to bear arms against a tyrannical government.
This world is becoming a truly scary place.
Ah yes, how's that working out for you?
I've been stopped for "drunk driving" when in fact I was sober as I've ever been. A courteous answer to the police, a quick execution of 2 minutes of tests, and I was on my way. Yes, I only had my running lights on at night (highway 99 around here is REALLY well lit at night, it's not appreciably brighter with your lights on).
And I usually get extra security screening at airports (I travel a lot, many times on one-way tickets because I do not know when I will return, and I've had secret clearance with the US government in the past), but a courteous answer to the TSA guards, obey their commands, and I'm through in a few minutes.
Seriously, at least in the US if you are afraid of the police, stop and ask why? Chances are it's either irrational, or you know you're doing something that you should not. In my experience, the VAST majority (like more than 99%) of enforcement personnel are great people, doing their job with pride. Are there bad ones? You bet. But there's bad PEOPLE out there too, and I don't walk down the supermarket isle in fear that the person looking at the different tortilla chips is actually a serial killer stalking me...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The eternal jerkoff fantasy of gun nuts. People who can barely pay off their credit cards bills or be bothered to vote every 4 years will suddenly overthrow the US Government and the Armed Forces with their hunting rifles.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this was the tower of Cirith Ungol in Lord of the Rings. After Frodo and Sam pass through it, they realize it's purpose is not as much to keep Men and Elves out of Mordor, but to keep Sauron's armies in!
We, the West, needed the Cold War to remind us of what was soulless and wrong with communist surveilance society police states. Now that the USSR has fallen, we have lost our perspective and are becoming what we used to despise.
The real question is how much more of this crap will people accept before there is revolution. (Revolution is a word that means 'turn around.' It doesn't mean war or violence. Just to be clear on that point.) Is the government serving the people or are the people serving the government. That's the issue that should be addressed and corrected where needed. What I find the most interesting is how much people are already accepting. More than 200 years ago, people accepted a lot less before there was rebellion. Why are we, the people, more willing to accept it? Or am I asking the wrong question? Are we, the people, so distracted that we can't really see what's happening?
Notice that the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria all are listed as blue/green countries in the Privacy International map, while the UK and the US, both nations with no national ID system, are in the red/black zone.
Overall, national ID cards by themselves don't threaten privacy, inadequate privacy legislation, tolerance of governmental intrusion into privacy, and tolerance of legal abuse of private information threaten privacy.
Curiously, all the fuss raised over national ID card systems usually come from same governments and political groups that then turn around and commit massive invasions of privacy and civil rights. I think they are actually simply using the national ID "debates" to bamboozle and distract people while they quietly realize their real agendas of a total surveillance state.
And they keep using that strategy elsewhere: they keep talking about less intrusive government, privacy rights, and states rights, but then turn around and create legislation that reaches into people's bedrooms and substance use. They keep talking about reducing the size of government, self-reliance, free markets, and fiscal conservatism, but bankrupt the government with bloating the size of the military, create artificial and unjustified monopolies through ill-conceived modifications to the copyright and patent systems, and waste billions on government handouts to their buddies in industry.
The national ID card debates are political strategy by people who don't have your interests at heart. Cut through the crap, participate in the democratic process, and deal with the real issues.
Why did they bother with WW2, they should have just said to Hitler, we like what you do. Lets unite, no bloodshed, let the industrial complex grow.
j/k
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
That's not the point. The point is that people can't see you so well if your lights are off. Someone could be passing someone else on the highway (if it's 2 lanes), not see you because you're running EMCON, and have a nice head-on.
I see this thoughtless behavior around here lots; some people drive with their lights off when it's raining and the sky's dark, not thinking of other people, not bright enough to get it when I flick my lights at them. The law says they must run their lights, but police have other things to do.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
That statement is not compatible with the ideals that make America something to be proud of.
P.S. Your anecdotal experience is not the basis for an argument that makes broad generalizations.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You have a great point. I took great care to not idealize neither American nor Bolivian life or culture. There are good and bad elements and both.
"I greatly admire The Something Must be Done philosophy."
I agree. I don't want to eat raw meat that's been sitting out in the sun all day. However, pulling spinach from the shelves *all over the nation* because 10 people died of food poisoning is a severe over-reaction, IMHO. I think there needs to be a healthy balance between "Something must be done" and an acceptance of life.
Yes, your mom has a rare form of cancer. The best that the Mayo clinic can do is give her three months, if you want to spend a million dollars. You know what? Your mom is going to die. The best thing you can do for yourself, psychologically, is mourn and accept it. Not that it's easy to do, but no amount of work and and science will save your parents or you from death. As a society, we could take those millions of dollars spent on rare diseases, and immunize young children. We don't have to undertake hysterical, desperate work at all costs when life presents a problem to you.
Here in the US people are overworked and stressed out, taking anti-depressants because their lives aren't perfect. We don't know how to enjoy the simple, everydayness of life. That doesn't mean that we stop doing any science and research. Life is not a paradise, and pretending that science and engineering will make it so will only lead you to disappointment with life.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
is that a truly free country does NOT assume its citizens are criminals, the people are "innocent until proven guilty!" A free and innocent person, not convicted of anything to prevent the acquisition of a passport, should thus be treated with courtesies and safe passage. A government that assumes otherwise of its citizens, as Britain does, is evil.
A social security system depends on the support of the middle (the worker) class. Not the rich and not the poor but that large majority in the middle.
If they think social security benefits them (directly, because they think they might one day need it themselves, or indirectly because they think it makes a better society for them to live in).
Sweden is a country were, so far, the population clearly believes a strong social security system is to the benefit of all AND therefore continue to support it.
The US is clearly a country were the majority doesn't believe it, and so it has a weak social security system
The point here is NOT a debate about who is right but that wichever system is chosen depends on the majority vote, the middle worker class usually, willing to support it.
I think the same is true of 'privacy'. The simple fact is that no matter how hard some people attempt to shout, a lot of people just don't seem to think it is a big deal.
I think that the privacy/bigbrother level of a country is going to depend on what the middle working class believes is right for them. Not that I am saying they are "right" in anyway.
Goverments, especially goverments that like to be elected will therefore follow the vote of that middle class. They are not going to list to fringe nutcases on either side because fringes don't have enough votes.
There is however a problem, the middle class tends to stay silent, they have better things to do then organize protest rallies or post on forums. A good politician must be able to tell apart a mass of voters from a small group that just happens to make a lof of noise.
From daily experience I just don't see all the much concern about bigbrother in the "common" man. If anything I see a great amount of concern about to much freedom. One in the netherlands at the moment is about TBS (It is a sentence given to a criminal who is consdered mentally ill, apart from a regular prison sentence (fixed maximum time according to human rights laws) the prisoner also has to report for treatment. In theory this only ends AFTER the patient is cured. This could lead, and has, to a person being send to 10 years and then spending the rest of their lives in a mental hospital (this is against human rights as you need to be told the length of your sentence, this is a lifesentence without being told).
So are the people upset about this, that the state can just pro-long the sentence of a human for as long as they can find a shrink to call him mentally ill?
No, in fact, the system is under attack because patients who are let out on leave commit serious crimes and people want them to be locked up permanntly.
You also hear loud voices about traffic camera's, yet the major complaint from real people is about people who speed and other traffic assholes.b Could it be the anti-speed camera is just very loud and the real "middle class" thinks they are a good idea? Some polls suggest this.
We will have to see what the brits think about this, england has regular elections so they can send a signal to the goverment every couple of years.
Will they? Does the man on the street, really care? I think not. He might be wrong in this but that is not the issue, the issue is what the majority will vote for. Doesn't help that england effectivly is a one party country.
You have to remember one thing, england is the place of london, I believe the first the place in the world to have congestion charging (you pay for using the road at peak times). It was widely believed to be political suicide. Until one man dared to introduce it, he succeeded, it worked and the plan has been extended and is going to get a whole new level on top AND he has been relected. Despite ALL the extremely loud fringe groups claiming it was going to be a disaster.
I have learned to stop paying attention to what some people shout and instead am trying to hear what a lot of people are NOT saying. Until the majority says NO to bigbrother it will happen, because apparently the majority thinks it is good for them. Right or wrong they might be, but they are not going to be swayed by people shouting loudly, they never have and they never will.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Never had a problem in pretty much anywhere I've been, around the world. Maybe it's just attitude? Maybe it's not freaking out if an officer wants to talk to me? Maybe... to answer your questions: yes, no, attitude gets you nowhere if you're biased against before you speak, see previous answer. and fyi: even overseas, whitey is protected vs. those of brown skin.
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
You seem to forget... guns aren't about changing governments, they're about removing them.
Sure, you can remove a government with enough force-of-arms, but how are you going to go about setting up a new government that is better than the old one?
This is a government that represents a significant percentage of the population (26%, I think someone here said). That means 26% of the population is opposed to a revolution, and you'll have to supress them or kill them. Not generally considered a good way of governing a country, now, is it?
This *beautifully perverse* aspect of democracy is too rarely appreciated: in a revolution, there is no longer a single target. A revolution must target the masses. And violence targetted at the masses is something you'll need some pretty hard and pressing reason to make people resolve to do on their own.
Quite simply put: in a democratic society, you can't have revolutions unless *any* alternative is better than the current situation, and for the majority of the population at that.
Social hygiene or potential future catastrophe just won't cut it. It has to be a problem that has *already* materialized, and is significant enough that people are willing to risk their loved ones waging a bloody civil war over it.
It. Won't. Happen. Ever.
Not in the UK, and certainly not in the USA.
are the new Jews. Give history a little time to repeat itself.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
wytcld -- your response is classic Joseph Goebbels propaganda, and shows clearly how Muslims are indeed the New Jews. "Some have misbehaved, lets kill all of them." Second, what makes you think Muslims in general "tolerate" suicide bombers? Do Americans "tolerate" George Bush's widespread plundering of the middle east? Do Americans "tolerate" Foreign Affairs' call that a civil war in Iraq could be "good"? Do Jews tolerate that 6 year kids are shot in the back and killed after protesting their house being demolished? NO -- I just dont think the majority of people can do anything about these war crimes, just as the majority of Americans and Jews have not done anything about their own ranks committing war crimes. And of course, this puts aside the fact that far more killing, stealing, and plundering is done by non-Muslims (think Vietnam and Iraq war 2003, two of 40 examples that come to mind.)