Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ntrails | Hacker News Reader

I'm from the UK, and I'm not signing that petition.

Maybe we do need an intrusive government? Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save lives? That the cost of it existing is worth it compared to the cost of not having access to information on ~insert bad person here~. Maybe you value your privacy differently to us?

That's ok, btw, and I respect your point of view. Please, however, consider that alternative viewpoints are valid before telling everyone else what they must do to ensure their country is governed in a way that suits you.

View on HN

I don't believe the end justifies the means, nor do I believe that data will be as useful as meatspace intelligence. Terror will continue anyhow. The war on encryption and privacy persists despite the fact that terrorists haven't even bothered to use encryption in the last attacks.

Obviously we don't get to tell you how to run your country, but at the same time we can certainly be troubled by your country's actions.

tbh my personal view is not entirely aligned with the one I made the comment - I just get incredibly frustrated by the tone of some posters. Statements of how all right minded people must behave, because no other viewpoint is valid.

I suspect that many of the people for whom this is a non-issue are demographically similar to those who voted for brexit. Their perspectives are different, and shouldn't be dismissed as merely ignorant.

Of course you can be troubled, and you're free to make arguments for why it may be considered a bad thing™ - influencing Brits to give a shit.

> That the cost of it existing is worth it compared to the cost of not having access to information on ~insert bad person here~

Can you give an example of "insert bad person here", where having more data made a difference?

> Maybe we do need an intrusive government?

We don't need intrusive government any more than intrusive neighbors. How do you even come to a personal preference for invasive government? Seems actively against self interest.

> Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save lives?

Based on what evidence though? And what lives? How many British citizens were killed by terrorism in the last 5 years? You have far more people dying of smoking or car crashes.

>Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save lives?

I'd wonder where you got that idea then (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/youll-never-guess-how-many-...).

> Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save -American- lives?

I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm genuinely confused. Are you saying that UK citizens support surveillance, by and for the UK government, because it might aid the welfare of American citizens?

It was meant as a strikethrough - I guess I fucked up the formatting. The "American" part was purely comedic.

Alright, but then why are politicians and the media exempt from these data logs? What if you have a double agent in some government position, how would the government audit itself to guarantee it isn't being infiltrated?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com