The UK Is About to Legalize Mass Surveillance [Update] (vice.com) 394
From a report on Motherboard: On Tuesday, the UK is due to pass its controversial new surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act, according to the Home Office. The Act, which has received overwhelming support in both the House of Commons and Lords, formally legalizes a number of mass surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. It also introduces a new power which will force internet service providers to store browsing data on all customers for 12 months. Civil liberties campaigners have described the Act as one of the most extreme surveillance laws in any democracy, while law enforcement agencies believe that the collection of browsing data is vital in an age of ubiquitous internet communications. "The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 will ensure that law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need in a digital age to disrupt terrorist attacks, subject to strict safeguards and world-leading oversight," a statement from the Home Office reads. Much of the Act gives stronger legal footing to the UK's various bulk powers, including "bulk interception," which is, in general terms, the collection of internet and phone communications en masse. In June 2013, using documents provided by Edward Snowden, The Guardian revealed that the GCHQ taps fibre-optic undersea cables in order to intercept emails, internet histories, calls, and a wealth of other data. Update: "Snooper's charter" bill has become the law. The home secretary said:"The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection. "The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe. The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge. But it is also right that these powers are subject to strict safeguards and rigorous oversight."
Doubleplusgood! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of civil society :)
Sadly, I expect it to continue to get worse and worse until it gets bad enough that the "resistance" decides to reset society with an EMP bomb or some such weapon like the tv show "Revolution".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
calling pussygrabbing not Pc is a bit of an understatement.
As opposed to Bill Clinton, Kennedy, etc... who are actually documented as womanizers? Yes, Trump might be a womanizer but you would be hard pressed to name a president that wasn't. Really the only difference between Trump and most other former presidents is that he says in public what other presidents say and do in private. That's what most Trump supporters realize that the left doesn't seem to understand. Sure, Trump is an asshole but so were all the other presidents. They were just better at hiding
Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, Trump is an asshole
IMHO that's the least relevant part of his personality. What is worrisome is the scammer part. How many other presidents ran scams like Trump University?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While they may be womanizers, they do so with consenting adults (alt-right lies about Clinton notwithstanding)
So the idea that Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for obstructing justice and perjuring himself during a sexual harassment lawsuit is just a lie?
Not that I think that gives Trump a pass, FWIW. "Everybody is doing it" isn't a valid excuse for wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you follow the news over there in Russia, but apparently President-Elect Urinal Cake is very PC when it comes to burning the American flag.
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
Of course, he'll have to deal with that pesky Constitution, but I'm sure Trump won't let that stand in his way.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution and two Supreme Court rulings. One (Texas vs Johnson) which says that flag burning is an expression of your First Amendment rights and another (Afroyim vs Rusk) that says that the government can't revoke your citizenship as punishment for a crime. (Trump mulled removing someone's citizenship as "punishment" for flag burning.) Even Scalia recognized that flag burning was covered by the First Amendment
Yes, he'll get at least one Supreme Court appointment, but - at best (for him, not us) - he'
Re: (Score:2)
Trump comes off as a moderate with some of the things he casually says, and personally I don't really care much about the PC stuff or locker-room comments. But what contradicts your claims about him being a moderate are the people he surrounds himself with, such as Steve Bannon from Breitbart, and other far-right wackos like that, plus his own running mate, religious wacko Pence.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to become a heap of neutrinos... (Score:5, Funny)
... at least until they legalize mass-less surveillance too.
Re: (Score:2)
... at least until they legalize mass-less surveillance too.
Neutrinos have mass. Best be a photon. This has the additional benefit that no one will ever see you coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And us too - soon (Score:5, Insightful)
FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump [bloomberg.com]
All because you sheeple want to feel safe.
"People want to be slaves" - Academy Award nominated director I work out with.
Face it, the people don't want to really be free. They want to feel safe above all else. They are so afraid of terrorism when the fact is they are most likely to die from complications of their obesity or from a car accident because they were distracted while they were updating their facebook page.
Your premise is faulty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There will be a lot less Trump and Brexit cheerleaders on here in 4 years.
Don't count on it. Kansas is still red after the past dozen+ years of disastrous economic performance due to governance based on conservative economic principles. It never changes the idiots minds - there's always someone else to blame their problems on rather than facing the reality: Their economic principles shrink rather than grow economies.
Re: (Score:2)
*Sigh*. Fewer cheerleaders.
Encrypt everything! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to crack the encryption. They have access to the unencrypted endpoints.
That only works for endpoints they have already compromised. What the security services are currently more interested in is something completely different, they are interested in using this data for threat detection and to identify potential assets. If you have ever watched that CBS show 'Persons of interest', that kind of an AI with that kind of access is the wet dream of the NSA, GHQ, FSB and every other security service with a bit of ambition. For that purpose they are monitoring, warehousing and data mi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, we need to do everything.
Share connections.
Encrypt everything.
Create false data.
Move to a system more secure by design. Whether that's Freenet, Tor, Onion, or similar, or something entirely new and different.
Speak to friends and family about privacy and security and what it will mean to live with neither.
Personally I've been pointing out to many folks here in the UK "didn't we fight a cold war against this shit?" Didn't people die and didn't we cause suffering all around the world (mostly via proxy wars
Re: (Score:3)
Won't do what you want (Score:4)
They'll just raise your taxes and buy more computing power with your money if they need to. But they probably won't need to.
In the contest between armor and weapons, armor always ends up losing. In this case, you have to recognize that at both ends of the communication, the information is unencrypted. Consequently, if they want you, and you have hardened the communication using encryption, they probably won't even try to compromise the communication. They'll compromise one or more of the computers at the endpoints of the communication. Unless your computer is running your own custom operating system, there isn't anything you can do to stop them short of disconnecting from the communications networks, which kind of puts a damper on your communications capabilities and so is actually a rather obvious form of footgun in that regard.
The right answer is to get the opposition to stop shooting at you.
In this case, the right answer is to get the government out of the business of tracking the citizen's locations, finances, business, and communications.
If that can't be accomplished, then the citizens lose. Period.
The situation here in the USA is dire. The politicians have actually convinced people that it's a good thing that they monitor their banking, their business, their communications, their location, etc. The politicians created and used many forms of hugely-blown-out-of-proportion hysterical narratives to get that accomplished. Today, the average citizen is an Orwellian-class dupe. There's no sign at all that this is going to change.
Security today depends on never sharing anything with anyone. Outside of that, you either are already, or can be at any time, compromised by state agents fully empowered to do so. Not authorized, mind you -- this is exercise of arrogated power I'm describing -- but that no longer matters, which is another severe problem we have been presented with.
And on that cheerful note... :)
This is what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...when guns are illegal. They wouldn't dare do mass surveillance in the US because gun owners would overthrow the government. Right? Right?
No they just wouldn't legalize it. If you think the US Government isn't doing all this behind the scenes then you're an even bigger fool than I give you credit for
Re:This is what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What we need are guns that are built into computer monitors. Anyone can fire them from anywhere in the world rendering their internet foe dead immediately. Then no one will spy on you.
The trick of course is getting your foe to buy a monitor that can kill them.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the face-stabbing peripheral from a few years back. Still got mine.
Re: (Score:2)
DVDA for your data (Score:2)
On the contrary. Tempest [wikipedia.org]
Those high-energy electron guns... very handy for surveillance of any part of the masses one chooses, as it turned out. Of course there were many other mechanisms in play at the time.
Today, a computer running linux, OS X, or Windows connected to the Internet is far better. It's like DVDA for your data. Leaves your data-legs split open like a thanksgiving turkey. They don't need to compromise you carrying the turkey around, either. They're sitting right at your dinner table with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only people in recent recorded history to wave a gun at the government were in dispute over land rights with its tree hugging arm. The next nearest thing likely to happen is lynching of foreigners and brown people. So no the gun owners are largely useful idiots who only respond to primal instincts and are easily manipulated. UN tanks and FEMA death camps my backside.
Re: (Score:2)
because gun owners would overthrow the government. Right? Right?
In case you slept through the US elections, gun owner just did overthrow the government. That's the entire point of democracy: a non-violent means to overthrow the government. Popular vote is a really stupid way to run a government, but the best means yet found to remove one.
What happens next is anyone's guess. Trump is certainly not a predictable sort of guy.
Re: (Score:2)
because gun owners would overthrow the government. Right? Right?
In case you slept through the US elections, gun owner just did overthrow the government.
Really.....so a cabinet full of experienced politicians (and now the spouses of politicians) and a Congress almost completely full of re-elected members is somehow an "overthrow" of government?
Re: (Score:2)
Benjamin Franklin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
UK class system (Score:3, Insightful)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Indeed, and you might notice that Franklin was one of the founding fathers of a country specifically established to escape the tyranny of the British ruling class.
The UK has never had an American style democratic system. Despite pretending it does to the outside world, and going around trumpeting its special relationship with the USA like they are brothers in arms, the UK is still well and truly under the control of a pseudo-hereditary ruling class that is closely associated with ancestral land ownership. U
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Useful to help others to realize, to help drop the scales from their eyes, to help them see that we are being told the bogeyterrorist will eat us if we don't go to bed on time.
It's not like it's a well-kept secret, they only need the inclination, the curiosity to turn their head and wonder about the man behind the curtain. Their exact deductions and conclusions don't mater; as long as t
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the fact that Franklin was talking about taxes instead of privacy, the meaning is still pretty clear. And I do get a kick out of how someone (WITTES) tries to turn Franklin's point 180 degrees around. Because 'Muh taxes.'
WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly,
"believed to have written" I suppose it depends on what those who are interpreting the statement believe. But not having the actual context (the letter) in hand means that anyone can claim that it means anything.
Quotes, context, and originalism (Score:3)
I don't think you understand that what Franklin meant one way, we can mean entirely another -- both can be sincere, and both uses are entirely appropriate. Nothing is lost by attributing the quote, either.
The stance that personal liberty and immunity from government oversight of personal and consensual activities is a good thing, and that trading these off for (generally the illusion of, but very occasionally the actuality of) safety is an act so vile that it renders the trader unworthy of those liberties a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a UK Citizen (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been abused. The police have been using it to identify journalists sources when they were criticised. Some unknown number of people were caught using it to spy on their lovers. And that's just the stuff we know about.
Keep in mind that a lot of stuff data collection has been happening for years, it just wasn't mandated or legal before.
Not people: It's a computer problem (Score:2)
The problem is not correctly posed as "nobody will look at it." This isn't a people problem.
What "looks at it" is computer systems, programmed to look at it. What a human would consider "lost in a sea of data", a computer will have no trouble finding, characterizing, and reporting back as "this is the data you were looking for" to any interested inquiry, perfectly formatted for immediate use / subsequent action.
So the day they m
Re: (Score:2)
You're an optimist, and overstating the safety and benevolence of this program. Quit sugar-coating it, you apologist! ;-)
Peoples' fetish, substance, etc is already illegal, somewhere. And since no government (including UK) has shown itself to have the ability to store things securely (it's almost as though they employ people), it is reasonable to assume the data is (or eventua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Look, I know my browsing will be in a huge database that nobody will look at it... for now."
This sounds like a line of reasoning from a 90-year-old who's never heard of "computers" (and "search") before.
Re: (Score:3)
You forget that right now, you are not a problem for them. But know this, as soon as you are, your browser history will be used to incriminate you for whatever they can find. So remember to keep in line, don't think or do anything that might upset the government, keep your head down and your thoughts to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the real Troll Trace from South Park coming down the pike -- the inevitable hacking of some government Internet monitoring database, and bam, every site every IP ever accessed pops up.
Good luck if any government official goes to jail for this 1984-style grotesquerie.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how people get bent out of shape over corporations doing this, when all they care about is putting you into different advertising bins so they can earn a few percent more on ads. Meanwhile they lie back, largely uncaring (if not outright massively liking) government doing far more, creating a panopticon, the type of tool exactly desired and abused by dictators.
If you want to aavoid dicatorship in the long run, you must prevent the tools of tyrrany from being created in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know this seems bad but it really isn't. (Score:2)
The law doesn't change anything. They've already been doing all this stuff for years, and more probably since its not been under any control.
At least now its out in the open and controlled/limited by visible laws. And now that its out in the open people can start viably fighting against it.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "theyve already been gathering this info for years" are you not getting?
All this is doing is possibly offloading some of that effort onto ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
>> FYI my ISP does not at present
How do you know? There are plenty of companies that are already complicit to the government and lying about it.
Besides, even if your ISP isn't secretly already giving it to the government they already have access to everything you do so are already in a position of trust. If anything this is a good thing because there's now another layer (your ISP) between your data and the government.
When the info leaks.... (Score:3)
It's not a matter of IF but WHEN hackers start leaking embarrassing information on the Royals and members of the government, all collected as part of this program, that their tune may change.
Until then, the "Free world" seems to be engaged in a race to Orwell's vision of Big Brother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When the info leaks.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they will. This way the people in charge of the information gathering can ensure that the elites keep in line and keep approving more snooping powers or else all that embarrassing information might "accidentally" be revealed to the world.
How? (Score:2)
How are ISPs supposed to get browsing history when all of the web traffic is encrypted? The best you can do is domain via SNI/public key transferred in the clear during handshake. Practically speaking you won't really get much more granularity out of that v. netflow.
Mass Surveillance? (Score:2)
Church of Elvis maybe...
The give-a-shit factor. (Score:2)
Zoom out the lens a bit, and the larger problem becomes rather evident, which is trying to convince the masses to give a shit enough about privacy to execute even a single extra click of effort to protect their communications. This also speaks as to how easily something blatantly called the "Snoopers Charter" still passed with arrogant colors, flying in the face of the Snowden revelations. I fully expect the next bill to be simply titled Fuck You, That's Why, with pure ignorance greasing the approval skid
Heh (Score:2)
"The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation"
If by that you mean "Leading the world into totalitarianism and a perpetual police state"
Is that you, Orwell? (Score:3)
The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation, that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares what you send, they know how you think because an algorithm looks at the web sites you visit and decides which box you belong in. It must be a right pain switching all the Russian site readers out of the terrorist box and moving all the Arab news site readers in to replace them to align with Trump. Expect Tor and VPN to be made illegal shortly.
Re:Encrypt! (Score:5, Insightful)
Talking about putting people in boxes. If you use Tor, expect the government to be looking at you a little closer. Surely you must have something to hide if you have Tor.
It's like putting a box in the break room with a note saying "do not peak" written on it. Everyone is going to open the box. Use Tor and the government is going to want to see what you're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Encrypt! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with your statement. I'm just saying, by going out of your way to hide, "the man" is going to want to snoop all that much more- they're going to jump to assumptions. That's what the man does.
Re: (Score:2)
it only means that they want something to be private
Yeah I think you're missing the central axiom here. Stanly G-Man doesn't really know if your Tor is "Hey I just want to privately watch my squid fetish" or if it is "Hey here's the blueprints for where to put the bomb." Seeing how they'll tend to look similar at cursory glance. So if you do have something you want to hide, because it's just easier to assume you are the next bin Laden in waiting and then breathe the customary/belittling sigh of relief where you are not, they'll just go ahead and sit in on
Re: (Score:2)
It starts Thursday in the US: (From Techdirt [techdirt.com])
the DOJ wants permission to break into "compromised" computers and poke around inside them without the permission or knowledge of the owners of these computers. It also wants to treat anything that anonymizes internet users or hides their locations to be presumed acts of a guilty mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're sending anything important in plain text over the Internet these days, you're as good as asking the government to read it.
What a completely ------ thing to say to someone like -------! I can't figure out why people like you always ---- and ----- when you could be ---ing. Seriously, do you even ---- it? I for one trust out ----- over----s completely. Rule Brit------!!!
(and now I have to write a bunch of other useless prose to get by Slashdot's junk filters. Which is a really useless filter. I mean just because goatse ASCII is a thing doesn't mean no one ever had any legitimate uses for copious punctuation. My word, are we reall
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Encrypt! (Score:5, Insightful)
You and I don't need to invent anything. We can create our own encryption keys, exchange them, and securely communicate.
The problem is the HTTPS infrastructure is broken by design, which is what the original poster was talking about.
The absolute irony is that visiting a site with a self-signed certificate shows the user a warning error (I understand why, don't worry) yet the resulting HTTPS exchange is actually immune to any and all eavesdropping. When visiting a site with a cert authority signed certificate, no error is displayed, yet this connection is vulnerable to anyone who has broken/intercepted the chain of trust. This includes state actors, but also businesses, and anyone that can get their certs onto your system, or can influence the signing authorities to give them the keys.
At this point some rabid net admin for a large corporation will chime in with "it's my network" etc... but the point is that we have been training users for years to interpret HTTPS as being "secure" and "safe" when it actually isn't. Just like we have been encouraging users to update Windows, yet now Microsoft have broken that trust with their forced updates and broken/mislabeled updates. The internet is currently broken and indeed has been broken maliciously by state actors. Are we going to just accept that as "good enough" and live with it? What exactly was so terrible about the internet in 1990 or 2000, before the NSA got their hooks in and started fucking everything up?? Can we point to a global reduction in crime, violence, terrorism, or child pornography, due to the valliant efforts of the NSA and similar outfits abroad?
At the **very very least** prior to this bill in the UK passing, anyone with half a mind should take note of the current state of UK society and crime. In ten years time, once the full ramifications of these new laws come to pass, look around again and make a comparison. My prediction, for what it's worth, is everything will be exactly the same (in which case what was the point?) or it will be much much worse.
Re:Encrypt! (Score:5, Informative)
The absolute irony is that visiting a site with a self-signed certificate shows the user a warning error (I understand why, don't worry) yet the resulting HTTPS exchange is actually immune to any and all eavesdropping. When visiting a site with a cert authority signed certificate, no error is displayed, yet this connection is vulnerable to anyone who has broken/intercepted the chain of trust
Not quite. Both connections are entirely safe from passive eavesdropping. Even if I've compromised a root cert that you're using, that doesn't let me decrypt TLS traffic. It does mean that if I am actively performing a man in the middle attack on you, then you won't notice, because during the initial key exchange you'll connect to me and establish a secure connection and I'll connect to the remote server and establish a secure connection. You'll trust me because I'll use a cert signed by one that I trust. The difference between this and a self-signed cert is that when the server uses a self-signed cert, there's no need for me to compromise a root cert that you trust: I can still perform the MITM attack and you won't know the difference.
Certificate pinning protects you from this to a degree: If you connect to a server twice and the certificate changes, then there may be a problem. On the other hand, there might not be, and with a self-signed cert, you can't revoke it if it's compromised and you can't easily advertise the fact that this is a replacement cert from the same person (unless you properly self-sign, rather than simply not signing, and people pin your signing cert).
Certificate transparency protects in both cases, by providing a public log of all of the certificates that have been seen by people connecting to the server. If the server operator sees a cert that they didn't issue, or if you see a cert that's not the same one that other people are seeing, then something is wrong.
Re:Encrypt! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And with all this HTTPS everywhere malarkey
I call bullshit on you. The EFF's HTTPS-Everywhere is not "malarkey".
I don't know if you're trying to imply that HTTPS-Everywhere forces people to use HTTPS (it doesn't) and that therefor more people are self-signing certs which is would somehow be bad (it isn't)... I can only guess, because your post reads like buzzword bingo, and seems quite intent on undermining confidence in encrypting.
bull SHIT, brother.
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit on you. The EFF's HTTPS-Everywhere is not "malarkey".
I don't know if you're trying to imply that HTTPS-Everywhere forces people to use HTTPS (it doesn't) and that therefor more people are self-signing certs which is would somehow be bad (it isn't)... I can only guess, because your post reads like buzzword bingo, and seems quite intent on undermining confidence in encrypting.
bull SHIT, brother.
Honestly I fundamentally don't get any of this. It makes no logical sense to me.
Let's encrypt (LE) runs some kind of agent that does some voodoo to automatically renew certs on a quarterly basis.
Commercial cert providers that cost what $10/yr allow you to put something in a folder on your unsecured website to verify possession. LE does essentially the same thing programmatically depending on responses from *unsecured* protocols.
All of these systems depend on totally unsecured communications channels to bu
Re: (Score:2)
They just rely on root certificates for authentication of public web pages. People rely on them when they don't have any other way of exchanging keys. They don't make the cryptographic protocols or keys themselves insecure.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK has advertisement free web viewing ?
And their websites don't occasionally have a script that pegs the cpu and makes the browser a sluggish mess ?
Really, 'broadband experience' has little do with connection speed once you pass 5mbit unless the website is horribly bloated.
To keep slightly on topic, if surveillance and logging is noticeable to the common citizen, then they are doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Most websites are bloated (looks suspiciously at /.), so yeah it will help. Faster the average the speeds get, the more bloated websites become, unless you choose to browse the slimmed down mobile version.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been happening apace ever since the end of the cold war. Extremely disappointing to discover all that rhetoric against the evils of communism was just rhetoric now that capitalism can get away with the same behavior.
Re:Not just law (Score:5, Informative)
The BBC has multiple stories on this. Maybe you should dislodge your head from your ass?
From here [bbc.com]:
Blogger Chris Yiu compiled a list of the 48 organisations and departments that will be able to access the browsing records of individuals without a warrant.
They include various police, military, government and NHS departments as well as the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive.
I found this article in about 20 seconds.
Re:Not just law (Score:4, Insightful)
You've never watched the BBC, have you?
Re:Not just law (Score:5, Funny)
He has, just from a chair over in the far right of the room.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple exceptions to attorney-client priviledge in the US as well, but don't let pesky things like "facts" get in your way.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's why (Score:2)
Because "crime" is not an adequate discriminator for "bad."
Just a few obvious examples over time: Helping a slave escape from slavery was a crime. Using a fountain while being black was a crime. Having various types of wholly consensual and informed sex has been a crime. Using various drugs is a crime. Going naked in public is often a crime. There are many more examples like these.
None of which rise to the level of "bad", except inasmuch as they demonstra
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are native issues inherent to any society and need to be addressed.
Yes, it should. It should be addressed before the boogeyman of the "mooslem terrists".
Mass murder by foreign agents is not something we have to accept.
Only 175 people were killed in 2015 by terrorists in Western Europe. That's less than a day's worth of murder in the same region.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe for a second that an individual would deliberately "oppress themselves". Common sense tells me that oppression, in any form, must come from the top down, not the bottom up. Oppression, like any relationship based on coercion, involves an aggressor and a victim, and obviously, they can't possibly be the same person.
The trick is to make the oppressed actually want the oppression. Do this, and you can very easily have the people oppress themselves, and cheer as it happens.