Were we in a covert police state before 1997?
If anyone actually thinks a vote for Labour is a good vote, look here
- Thread starter nero120
- Start date
- Status
Were we in a covert police state before 1997?
And that would be a valid point, were it not for the fact that Cameron has shown very little dogmatic adherence to traditional tory values.
I think it's perhaps being a little unfair on the current government to point this out. Given the age, and the availability of surveillance technology.
Would the government of say 1939-45 have employed as much spying technology had it been available? I'd hazard a guess that they would.
That is a very naive attitude and demonstrates why political power should not be given to every individual as they clearly do not understand what it is for. Modern democracy has failed because it's citizens have no idea what their vote means, beyond making them financially better off.
Seems you are the one with the bias now. You cannot argue what has never been, or excuse what the current government have done by saying "but if that government had access..."
How patronising.
That's a cop out. There is no way you can justify assuming everyone would commit the same action given specific circumstances. How ridiculous.
Perhaps, but I am not interested in sparing people's feelings right now.
This tired old bean comes up every time, sure you might have nothing to hide now, but what about in the next few years. What happens if someone decides that it's illegal to, for instance, say bad things about the government, or discuss certain things like alternative political ideals. The tool itself is far too dangerous, it could be too easily abused if the wrong kind of people get into power. (If they aren't already there)
Its not about sparing peoples feelings, but disregarding opposing POV on the basis that you think them to be naive simply because you disagree isnt going to persaude anyone.
It is not ridiculous to assume that a governing body would employ whatever technology it has to hand to supervise it's people. It may be immoral, but to assume otherwise is to be simplistic.
You are incorrect. Makunouchi posted stated that every government would pursue surveillance over it's citizens and a police state is inevitable. This is clearly not true and displays an attitude that goes against why democracy was first implemented. I don't see what I said as unreasonable, it obviously wasn't meant to be taken personally.
Yes it is, different political philosophies will manifest themselves in different ways, as you have already seen with what numerous different governments have done in the "democratic" UK's history. Clearly some are more in favour of surveillance than others.
So let me get this right. You are attempting to argue that a government that has no history of authoritarian control is as bad as one that does?
Indeed, some are clearly more in favour of surveillance then others. That does not mean to say that because we claim to be democratic that we do not 'spy' on our people. America, that great wanton bastion of democracy, is one of the most fascist governments of our era.
May I ask what field are you in?
May I ask what field are you in?
Yes I agree with you here. There is always a limited amount of surveillance. Obviously we are talking in degrees here, not black and white. I am just trying to say that this government has been far too ready to abandon caution and commit the UK to an authoritarian future with no reason whatsoever. I mean, at least in 1984 they had a credible war and desperate situation in order to enforce these measures. What do we have? Apathy.
Not in a field, an office
Of course it would be too difficult. If I own a server in London, only I have access to that server and the mail gets sent from there. Unless of course you're talking about ISPs filtering data, in which case email tracking would be a waste anyway because anyone with a little bit of intelligence would just use a remote connection to send mail from a server outside the UK.
- Status