Excellent, there's the rub. I'm not sure the concept of an independent ethical arbiter holds up. For me it implies certainties where I find dilemmas. If I didn't find dilemmas I would be dependant on dogma. So I would rather take each issue 'on it's merits'. I was brought up to have a developed conscience and enquiring mind, I am therefore my own ethical arbiter with all my personal qualities and faults.
Absolutely agree. In an ideal and lovely world our privacy would be totally respected, but this is a war in everything, but name. Keeping people safe is the first priority and it is noticeable that we have had few attacks when you would think we are a prime target, though as one defence expert said: We have to succeed every time, whereas terrorists only have to be successful once. As far as I'm concerned Snowden is a self-righteous traitor, not a hero.
Couldn't agree more. I have never understood why he has been treated like some kind of hero and called a whistleblower. If he wasn't happy with what was going on he should have found other ways to voice his concerns without telling the whole world the nations secrets. He is a traitor who at best you could say was too naïve to realise the potential danger he was causing others.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ad-passes-away-at-59/articleshow/49800342.cms Jackass star dies...thought some might be interested. Obviously I have no idea who he is as I am a) female and b) over twelve.
And there's the problem, finding other ways to voice his concerns... Telling your government they are breaking the laws they have enacted has been a dangerous activity throughout history and can lead to a 'Police State', if unchecked. Democracy depends on checks and balances but today many governments depend on cheques and bank balances. Democracy is not just about voting every five years it is about holding your government, and it's agencies to account. May be there was another way for Snowden, but apart from saying nothing I am at a loss to know what it was or is.
Trouble is he didn't even try. You can not assume that every single person in authority is going to turn a blind eye if things are being done that shouldn't. As for the USA turning into a police state if he had taken a different route, I think over 300 million Americans might have had something to say about that. Governments must be held to account without a doubt but this was not the right way.
Totally agree. Its extremely naive to believe that the data collected would be used only for the purpose of security. People tend to imagine things like GCHQ, MI6, etc as nebulous entities rather than just people who have their own beliefs, agendas and priorities, this is just on a personal level however i cant think of a country on earth were unfettered surveillance wasn't eventually used to undermine political dissidents and control the flow of information. Nor is it that unthinkable in modern day britain (E.g At the last election UKIP was the third biggest party in voter share, will anyone seriously argue that if a party like UKIP or some other relatively extreme party gains power that they would not use the laws to further their cause.) Political priorities and agendas shift over time which means something you've said/viewed/done that is innocuous now could be used against you at any point in the future. I would also add that this a very slippery slope and as long as people hold a position of 'doesn't affect me' that would continue the erosion. Would people on here be comfortable with the government having free access to peruse everyone's medical history if it meant they could find people with anti social disorders, anger problems or other potentially harmful problems? Or as Connor mentioned more control over the press in order to stop possibly insidious or dangerous pieces from reaching the public? I could mention other things like the extreme cost, the risk of opening the door for hackers to access the collected data or the fact that the whole idea has been said to be extremely ineffective by just about every senior expert in the field but i'll leave it at that for now *obligatory Orwell quote*
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on Snowden, but he worked in the security services so he has credibility when talking about what happens there. Saying "I'm not worried about surveillance because I have nothing to hide" is a bit like saying "I'm not worried about free speech because I have nothing to say." or "I'm not worried about democracy because I don't vote."
I don't think all those things are the same really Puck. None of this is black and white. Too many views are black and white. The note Tiggermaster wrote yesterday was the excellent.
This is another excellent explanatory piece about how we've got to where we are, with a focus on Iraq - http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story.html
NEVER! And it's not me that's educating you - sadly I know all too little myself, but I'm grateful to the people writing these kind of useful, considered pieces. I do also think it's imperative for people to become educated on these things too. Should be compulsory reading for everyone who's hovering over a keyboard about to post something stupid on Facebook....
jesting apart, both articles you posted on this have been useful. The other one was very long and detailed. This one was written in every day language and a style that made it simple.
Yes - very interesting. Thanks, LTL. Should be compulsory reading for anyone growing up in this world. If we'd listened to T.E. Lawrence when he argued against the "empire" taking over the area and not thinking along tribal lines which had been established for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, one has to wonder if that area would be in so much of a mess as it is now ............ But what is done is done, goodness knows how to get out of it - hopefully (eventually) Iran and Saudi Arabia may form some kind of alliance and sort the issue out, but, unfortunately, they (esp Saudi) are corrupt and power hungry, so I have to despair ......... but then I never saw a resolution to Northern Ireland in the 70s ........
So Corbyn is not happy with the police taking a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack. The police are hardly going to aim for their legs are they Jeremy?
I The last terrorist suspect shot by British police was an innocent Brazilian. So perhaps Mr Corbyn is right to express reservations.
One just has to hope nothing like that appalling "accident" on the tube happens. but I can't see anyone aiming for legs (which, of course, can easily kill as well) in the case of a suspected suicide bomber. Aim for the largest part of the body, we were told ............
