Glaw
Guest
|
Authored by Glaw on Aug 21, 2013 11:03:40 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by jimbob0i0 on Aug 21, 2013 13:06:32 GMT
|
|
stegu
Veteran Member
Posts: 15
|
Authored by stegu on Aug 22, 2013 9:59:46 GMT
This event almost makes me wonder whether someone decided to step way over the line just to show how abusive this kind of "anti-terrorist" laws can be. I have a very hard time believing that the UK authorities involved truly believe that this was justified, balanced and wise, and that it would pass by unnoticed, or do them any kind of good at all.
The equally misguided and abusive attempt at destroying records by seizing and smashing hard drives at The Guardian's UK offices is also a ridiculously stupid, abusive, disproportionate and ineffective move, one that makes me wonder whether this is done by someone who actually wants a public outcry to happen. The UK behaves like a much too obedient lapdog to the US, so eager to please that it stands out as odd and atypical behavior, even for a close US ally.
I know I shouldn't really assume anything like this when stupidity would explain it, but I have a hard time believing in stupidity and clumsiness at this extreme level, from a government that I have come to respect at least a little, in sensitive matters that are very clearly the talk of the day and very much the subject of investigative journalists all over the world. It seems just... implausible. In my experience, UK authorities have not been nearly as paranoid as the US about some big ugly monster hiding under their bed, and this is an unexpected turn of events, at least to me.
Another explanation is that the revolution is coming. The bad one, the one where we lose our freedom and our dignity and have to fight for decades to take it back from abusive governments pretending to be our benefactors, but that is a much too grim prospect for me to contemplate.
Or, the UK authorities could just be staggeringly stupid.
In any case, how could they possibly expect that this would remove any of the leaked material from access? If anything, it makes people with access to it take extra precautions not to lose it if they are subject to the same kind of unwarranted searches and confiscations of property as David Miranda and The Guardian.
|
|
jmc
Lead Curator
Posts: 14
|
Authored by jmc on Aug 22, 2013 12:44:07 GMT
Looks like Miranda mostly wins in court against UK govt: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578Trying to use anti-terrorist laws to silence people who embarrass DC and BO might have been a mistake....
|
|
gringo
Veteran Member
Posts: 29
|
Authored by gringo on Aug 24, 2013 13:12:02 GMT
steguInteresting proposition that they would use an exaggerated response to show how abusive this kind of "anti-terrorist" laws can be. That is something a concerned, intelligent and resourceful person might think of, but here we probably have many people involved in these decisions. I would interpret their actions as a sign of panic. They felt they had to respond and didn't have time to think it all through. From the Prime Minister on down to the chief of police, each probably had equally stupid ideas of how to lock the barn door after the horse had already fled. We see the result of bad decision making by panicked people who had not anticipated this situation.
|
|
stegu
Veteran Member
Posts: 15
|
Authored by stegu on Aug 27, 2013 8:19:54 GMT
You are probably right. I am unrealistically hoping for someone in government to have shown courage and determination enough to sacrifice their career to create a public outcry and make a point, but people in such positions probably didn't get there by showing courage, thinking for themselves and having bright ideas. People like that would be seen as troublemakers. Sadly, government seems to be a place full of grunts, yes-men and -women who don't rock the boat. There's probably no hope for having any real change come from within. But I can dream.
|
|