UK Government To Back Off Plans To Share Private Data 54
Richard Rothwell writes with news that Jack Straw, Britain's Justice Secretary, has made public plans to drop provisions from the Coroners and Justice Bill which would have allowed the government to take information gathered for one purpose and use it for any other purpose. "A spokesman for Mr Straw said the 'strength of feeling' against the plans had persuaded him to rethink. The proposals will be dropped entirely from the Coroners and Justice Bill, and a new attempt will be made to reach a consensus on introducing a scaled-back version at an unspecified stage in the future." After defending the government's intentions, Straw bowed to pressure from a variety of groups and individuals who presented objections to the bill.
Orwell's 1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Orwell's 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, is Orwell's "1984" being used as a policy guide in the UK by her politicians?
No, of course not. It's decades behind the times...
Am I the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
...who finds it slightly depressing to read about a representative government choosing to "bow to pressure from [their constituents]"?
It reminds me of an XKCD punchline: "Strictly speaking, it's better than the alternative—But someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong."
Their Dark Intentions Remain (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK Labour party may have backed off this appaling legislation, but they've made it more than clear from this and other legislation - explicit even - that it is their INTENTION to increase the power of the State over ordinary citizens and to conduct pervasive surveillance upon those citizens wherever and whenever thay are able to.
It is their game plan for the UK.
All the while, they hide themselves from any light that is shone on their own activities, meetings and discussions - crying 'state security' or 'commercial sensitivity' (where their corporate freinds are complicit) as they scurry back into the darkness.
These bills and laws make explicit their aims. The citizenry of the UK seems uninterested, held perhaps in the grip of a belief that the State generally means well.
Re:Orwell's 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but Franz Kafka's The Trial is. :)
The people comparing today's Britain to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four are not taking everything into account. For a start the government isn't trying to insert cameras in everyone's bedrooms, they're not that cynical. They actually believe what they're doing is for the benefit of the people.
Also, many of these awful laws are driven by tabloid newspapers (Rupert Murdoch and The Sun). Part of Tony Blair's success was thanks to his schmoozing with Murdoch's and other tabloids, Brown has continued this trend. Now, despite crime rates decreasing, tabloids have been screeching about youth and 'knife-crime' for a while. Now the government are desperate to be seen to be doing something about it (since their popularity is at an all-time low).
So the source of these laws is public hysteria over knife-crime (generated by The Sun et al), pressuring an unpopular government into doing something, anything so they will be seen to be trying to fix a problem that only exists to sell newspapers.
The reason British tabloids have become so sensationalist is they're losing market share to Internet sites. The government are, as are the tabloids, stuck in a pre-Internet mindset where newspapers have more power than they actually do.
This is not Orwellian. The British government have not set out to control the populace, that will just be a purely unintentional side-effect. What they are doing is creating Kafka-esque bureaucracies -- particularly at local level, see: local authorities using anti-terror laws to check whether kids actually live within the catchment area of their schools, for example -- with the power to decide a persons guilt without giving that person an opportunity to defend themselves. Indeed, without that person even realising they're being investigated, or that they're committing a crime. They may not be using The Trial as a reference when doing this, but they certainly seem to think government should be able to determine guilt without any interference from annoying things like defence lawyers and juries. :)
There are many other dissimilarities with Nineteen Eighty Four, but that's the primary one.
Re:Their Dark Intentions Remain (Score:2, Insightful)
The worrying thing is, I'm think they're genuinely being honest.
Of course, evil people don't consider themselves to be evil. They all have some motivation that they believe justifies their actions. Japanese internment in WW2 was a pretty reputable act but those responsible thought they were doing it for the common good. Serial killers will usually come up with some rationalisation. The Labour Party want a police state and absolute power for the head of the party because it will reduce crime and make it a lot easier to govern. They're right, but it's an easy to govern prison, not a country.
Re:Orwell's 1984 (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Their Dark Intentions Remain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Orwell's 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think so? So the politicians are just a bunch of bumbling golly-gee-how'd-THAT-happen idiots who somehow always manage to try to increase state power. Their intentions are great and all of this is just an accident hmm? Incompetence and malice can be hard to distinguish, not that the difference is very important, for the only difference that makes is in the timetable. Otherwise, they are both equally dangerous.
Again you really believe that this doesn't quite naturally go together with a desire for increased state power and a desire for further control and subjugation of the people? Politicians are a bunch of good-hearted, good-natured people who really care about us, yet the world over they just accidentally coincidentally happen to always have this same effect? They're not professional students of statecraft with thousands of years of history of what worked and what didn't work who know how to tell us exactly what we want to hear? The people aren't just trying to live their lives and aren't largely ignorant of such things as propaganda techniques, thesis antithesis synthesis, bread-and-circus, and divide-and-conquer? This doesn't create a gross imbalance of the sophisticated and entrenched versus the naive and under-represented? Really?
I'm sure their intentions are pure *cough*. The only thing worse than abuses of power are the apologists and useful idiots who defend and promote them. If not for them, the power grabs would easily be recognized for what they are and swiftly dealt with, probably in the form of public pressure. I think that happened here only because of the UK's record of the protection of private data, certainly they handle this much better than the USA does. The people of the UK who opposed this measure have enjoyed something like real privacy during a time when it's become more important than ever and they now appreciate it and don't want to have it taken away. They have an advantage also, in that "data privacy" is more of an intellectual debate that doesn't have the sort of thought-killing fear-mongering that surrounds other issues.
What it seems you are not handling better than the USA is the "terrorism threat" and the realization that your reaction to it can be much worse than the initial threat. If the Western nations lose their traditions of individual liberty because a few evil men blow up a few buildings, then we are only showing those evil men that we are better at causing our destruction than they are. That's an odd way to win a contest against them.
I've known Jack Straw (Justice Secretary) since.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
What public support? History is littered with examples of totalitarian regimes from both sides of the political spectrum. Almost everybody, regardless of their political view, realises what kind of society they should hope to live in by granting more power to the state.
You have just summed up the true nature of "divide and conquer". This is a thing that many people believe they understand but have never seen in action.
The state sits and watches the two sides squabble and lets them argue all they want. Meanwhile the two sides are too busy opposing each other to notice that no matter what happens, the state always becomes more powerful. When overwhelming state power becomes an undeniable threat, usually in the form of an openly totalitarian regime, the two sides then find themselves powerless to oppose it because by this time it is far too late. Then "go along to get along" changes from the favorite tool of the apologist or an excuse for not having the courage to stand up, to a method of survival, sort of like that saying "it's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." How many examples of this must history provide before we learn to recognize these patterns?
I cannot tell you whether it was designed deliberately or if it arose on its own and was promoted because of how very convenient it is for the statists, but the left-vs-right method of politics is designed to limit possibility. This is shallow and superficial one-dimensional thinking, which is precisely why it can be represented as a linear continuum by drawing two points and one line. One side favors economic freedoms and is willing to reduce personal freedoms, while the other favors personal freedoms and is willing to reduce economic freedoms. It doesn't work that way, which is why the Left, or the Right, or the Left working with the RIght are always going to reduce freedom because neither of them value it for its own sake in all of its forms. That's a serious error and no amount of reform or adjustment of any party platform is going to fix it.
When I repeatedly try to warn against buying into this system and believing for one moment that it has our interests at heart, this is not an exercise or an intellectual debate. There is a real danger here, only it's a subtle one. It's a corrupting, compromising type of danger that demoralizes and weakens. If the media were truly your friend, you would hear about this every day on CNN and Fox News and ABC and MSNBC, and you'd probably believe it then, not because they have the authority of self-evident truth but because they have the kind of authority to which most of you respond. That is not at all natural but it's what you might call unnaturally natural. It is evidence of the compromising, corrupting, demoralizing influence of which I speak that for most of you, even your thinking and your truth needs to be prepackaged for you.
If you don't like the tone of this post, well that makes two of us. I don't like it either, but I'm really tired of the systemic failure to recognize things that are really quite basic and simple. The denial and the "can't happen here" surrounding these issues are staggering. These things should be so obvious that I am beginning to wonder whether Western culture has a collective death wish or a suicidal tendency. Especially in the USA, I don't believe that any outside threat is going to harm us. I think we're doing a fine job of that all on our own. I'd like to see that change, I'd like to see it change peacefully, and I'd like to see people wake up and start daring to dream that if we will just settle a few basic questions once and for all, and then learn to love one another, then something like "heaven on earth" might emerge. I think that's inevitable because nothing else is going to work long-term, it's just a question of how badly we need to suffer before we get there and how many unsustainable systems must fail before we make the realization that we're missing something simple and fundamental. How long that will take is entirely up to us.
Re:Orwell's 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to most government projects it's ahead of schedule.
Translation please...... (Score:3, Insightful)
"A spokesman for Mr Straw said the 'strength of feeling' against the plans had persuaded him to rethink"
Means:
Oh shit. Only one year to the election deadline...
Nuff said really
The Usual Modus Operandi (Score:5, Insightful)
Introduce something awful
Withdraw it
Re-introduce watered down version
See Poll-Tax -> Council Tax
Re:Cattle (Score:3, Insightful)
Because families like the Bush family, the Clinton family, the Kennedy family, and so on are in this for the long haul. They increase their wealth and power in their own lifetime, but then they also look at the "long term investment" for their family and their class of people. This is how monarchs retained their power throughout the centuries. We really are just cattle to them, and what do you think will happen when we are no longer useful?