Slashdot Mirror
David Cameron Says Fictional Crime Proves Why Snooper's Charter Is Necessary
An anonymous reader sends this story from TechDirt:
"You may recall the stories from the past couple years about the so-called 'snooper's charter' in the UK — a system to further legalize the government's ability to spy on pretty much all communications. It was setting up basically a total surveillance system, even beyond what we've since learned is already being done today. Thankfully, that plan was killed off by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is back to pushing for the snooper's charter — and his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable. Apparently, he thinks it's necessary because the fictional crime dramas he watches on TV show why it's necessary. Cameron said, 'I love watching, as I probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. There's hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. What we have to explain to people is that... if we don't modernise the practice and the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe.'"
Its the same reason that we should be increasing our ability to hunt down hobbits. If they get control of that ring again it could be the end for us all!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
By that logic, the best way to prevent 9/11 would have been to cover up the small thermal exhaust port on the World Trade Center that led directly to the main reactor.
Warp drive. Lawyers with a conscience. Guns which never need reloading. And magic infinite photo enhancement. When do we get those, huh?
We already know that things which happen in soap operas come to pass, in real life - as programmes like those set the agenda for what "ordinary people" assume is socially acceptable: both for their own behaviour and that of others. Those programmes (and cop shows, too) also tell people what is an acceptable reaction to given situations.
Some (non-viewers) might say that these are fictional drama and therefore should be treated as non-real and non-realistic, but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life: just as Google IS the internet as far asa they're concerned.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
We won't be able to catch the suicide bombers either if we can't analyse their mobile communications after the bomb goes off!
And we really need to catch them and lock them up to make sure they'll never do it again!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your TV prviledges are revoked, go to your room!
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Techdirt is honest reporting at its finest, rivaling even Slashdot's journalistic integrity. They're both very upfront and clear about their biases.
...his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable.
Sometimes that isn't bias, as much as an accurate and objective assessment. It is a bad idea to seriously consider every ridiculous statement instead of dismissing it outright.
That's why politicians start from ridiculous propositions -- so that any "compromise" is well in their favor.
It seems to me, from the British TV I watch, that the UK is clearly in need of a Time Lord's Charter, authorizing the use of the Tardis and associated technology in solving existential threats to the Earth.
When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government? Oh, that's right, George Bush and John Ashcroft used that as an excuse to make us live in a police state right after 9/11. Now it has spread to the whole democratic West. Good thing the terrorists didn't win.
Not to defend him by any means, but in this instance his statement is no more stupid than invoking 1984 or other dystopian works of fiction as the reason the Snooper's Charter is to be avoided. Fiction they may be, but these works portray possibilities that inform how things might turn out in reality given a course of action, even if the actual outcome resembles the fictional scenario only in kind, not in actual detail. The ability to gain insight into ourselves is one of the many reasons we find works of art valuable in the first place. The key is not to confuse fiction with reality which admittedly many do.
Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying.
just like the patriot act. we have the author of the bill running around now stating that he never intended for it to be used in the way its being used. Well if you didnt intend for it to be used in this way, why did you write it in a way that it COULD be used in this way???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Let's face it, 90% of people are fucking stupid, and believe everything they see on TV, including "crime dramas" where unbelievable feats of forensic science are achieved in every episode. People eat this shit up, and most of this stupid underclass believes it is necessary to prevent or solve crimes.
This is why the revelations that these ubiquitous, omniscient surveillance systems exists generated nothing more than enthusiastic yawns among the populace.
People... just... don't... care...
Honestly, the people who do care, even being as vocal as they can be, make an almost imperceptible noise against the drums of big tyrannical government - like an annoying mosquito in the ear of the underinformed, low-information majority who just wants to know when the next episode of the Kardashians or Property Brothers or CSI or other mindless drivel will be on.
good point, but on that note the laws are generally not written by the politicians, they are salesmen, they get handed the laws that are written by their handlers or companies or lawyers. So in reality I would argue that the laws were written with the loopholes, and in a way that gives himi the excuse of saying it was never intended to be used that way, even though it is
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Indeed, he's merely providing a context to which people might be familiar, if he had chosen to give real examples of policework, it would amount to the same dialogue.
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies. Just yesterday someone pointed to Bones as an example of a STEM educated woman.
It seems like every story has some posting from a juvenile living in his mom's basement referencing some TV show or movie. It happens every day in every thread.
Cameron was just playing to the audience most likely to buy his drivel.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
He's a politician. You can tell he's lying if you see his lips move.
P.S.: I don't follow British politics. If that's an overstatement in British politics, I appologize. I'm assuming that in it's broad aspects it resembles US politics.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.
The Feds really did have to raid Steve Jackson Games, because otherwise dangerous computer hackers might use their site to learn dangerous hacking techniques, like "Roll 3d6. If you get better than 15, your probe breaks through the firewall undetected!".
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks