News Open Rights Group to sue over DRIP Act

Yeah I have no idea who I am gonna vote for at the next election. Part of me wonders if there is even any point. Voting is the only power I have, but when your choices are between bad, bad and bad what do you do? Abstain, throw ya vote at a party who won't get in, or vote for one of the big three who you don't want to see in power anyway?

 

Or, you could look at the "other" party manifestos, and maybe be pleasantly surprised. In a blind test, a group of people were shown a set of policy lists and asked which they most agreed with. The majority picked the policies which belonged to the Green Party, who most people seem to dismiss as crackpots.

Maybe if people looked more at which party policies they agree with than which of the "big 3" is least bad, we might not be in the mess we are in. I don't see my green vote as a throw away vote, i see it as a chance to express what policies I would like to see exercised in this country.

 

Football leaves me cold. I guess I'm apathetic too. If you find a label for a general state of mind helpful in understanding people's attitude toward a specific issue, knock yourself out.

 

Asking to pick between the main parties is like asking which testicle you want to be kicked in, you're gonna get kicked the nuts whoever you pick... Just have to hope whoever you pick aren't wearing steelies...

 

The Green party is one of those 'throw ya vote at a party who won't get in' votes. Sure if everyone voted for them it wouldn't be a wasted vote, but we all know that people won't.

Maybe I will vote for some group that doesn't stand a chance, but I don't really see that as having my say. If you know they won't get elected in a million years, then your say is effectively worthless. So you took a stand, great. But did it change anything? No. Hence why people vote for the big three as they want to have had a chance of their vote meaning something.

I know that is the wrong way to look at it, but it is the realistic way of looking at it; to me anyway.

Haha yes! Hmm this may find its way into my sig

 

It's not so much looking for a label, it's trying to understand why the majority of people don't seem to care about the encroachment of the government into their private lives and an open Internet.

 

And how does attributing a descriptive label help you to understand people's attitudes and behaviours?

 

I'm not sure i said i wanted to understand people's attitudes and behaviours

I just wanted to know why most people didn't seem to care about the encroachment of the government into their private lives and an open Internet.

Is it a lack of knowledge or understanding on what the implications of the new law means to them personally, or that they are happy to allow the government to encroach into their private lives if it means catching the dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists ? Are they happy with any means justifies the end.
Is it that they believe the politicians when they say this law doesn't introduce any changes, or new powers, or that the only way to catch the bad guys is to monitor everyone, all the time, both the innocent and the guilty.

Call that attributing a label to people's attitudes and behaviours if you like, but IIRC it wasn't me that used the label in the first place, in fact IIRC i actually said i didn't think it was apathy.

 

Sure you did:

As I said: it's because they have more immediate worries to think about.

Erm...

You then edited your post to say that you didn't agree (with whom? ) that it's apathy, only to later come back to:

 

Well as you seem intent on starting an argument, yet again.

You can call or interpret wanting to know why people don't seem to care about the encroachment of the government into their private lives and an open Internet, as wanting to understand people's attitudes and behaviours if it makes you feel better, or if it means i don't have to enter into another of your childish internet fights that you seem to like so much.

And as i said, in the very post you quoted...
Is it a lack of knowledge or understanding on what the implications of the new law means to them personally, or that they are happy to allow the government to encroach into their private lives if it means catching the dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists ? Are they happy with any means justifies the end.
Is it that they believe the politicians when they say this law doesn't introduce any changes, or new powers, or that the only way to catch the bad guys is to monitor everyone, all the time, both the innocent and the guilty.

But i get the feeling none of that matters to you as it seem you are preparing to go of on another of your crusades about how right you are and how wrong someone else is. It seem the topic being discussed is of little importance to you, as long as there is a public arena for you to do your grandstanding on.

How clever of you to take what some said out of context, may i remind you that what you have quoted was in reply to GravitySmacked saying that it was apathy, to which i replied "I'm not sure if it is apathy"

And the second quote you have taken out of context was replying to you, as you can see when i said "the cause of the apathy maybe open for debate but what you describe is apathy."

But i get the feeling that is of little consequence to you, you seem more intent on starting another argument than actual discussion of the OT.

EDIT:

I didn't agree with the post above the one i made saying they thought it was apathy, normally that's the way these things work, one person says something, then the next person responds.

And when replying to a post that is not directly above yours, you quote the person and reply under the quote, as i done in reply to your rather long winded reasoning on why you think it's apathy, to which i replied with the statement that what you described was apathy.

 

I stand corrected: gravitysmacked indeed introduced the term. But you keep putting that word in my mouth ("So you're saying it's apathy") while I keep rejecting it, then deny that you are saying something that you are clearly saying, and then get all in a huff when I point this out. I'm sorry if you feel that simply disagreeing with you is "starting an argument". I feel that says a lot more about who wants to be right all the time.

Basically it seems to me that you wish to attribute the general lack of protest by the public to the introduction of this law to ignorance (they don't realise how bad this is) or gullibility (they buy the government's argument that this is all for a just cause). I think that is rather unfair to the general public. I'm saying it is because they are preoccupied with matters more immediate to their making a living. This is, of course, could be interpreted as a deliberate strategy by the government (if you read your Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four). Put pressure on people's daily survival, and they don't have time and energy left to worry about the political stuff --even though it is all political stuff.

You are welcome to disagree with my point, by the way.

 

Sorry but what exactly are you disagreeing with ? That initially i said that i didn't think it was apathy, and then reconsidered that it maybe but the cause of the apathy maybe open for debate.

Disagreeing with someone is very different than going out of your way to start an argument about something that is totally off topic, such as asking "how does attributing a descriptive label help you to understand people's attitudes and behaviours" When what is being discussed is why people don't seem to care about the encroachment of the government into their private lives and an open Internet.

You can feel how ever you like about it, but IIRC it was you that decided to start an argument about how attaching labels makes people feel better, instead of discussing the reason why people are unconcerned.

At last we get back to the OT.

Well i can't think of any other reasons why the general public are not more concerned about the governments encroachment into their private lives and the openness of the Internet. I also don't agree that I'm being unfair to the public, to me it seems more of a failing of privacy & civil liberty groups to get the message out, to make the public care, to explain how important these things are.

To get the counter argument out there to the constant rhetoric the public hears from the main stream media, and politicians.

Or maybe it's just me being worried for no reason.

 

With your labeling of my proposed reasons for people's lack of protest as "apathy".

It's related to the point above, actually. I'm saying that sticking a descriptive label (like: "apathy") on people's attitudes and behaviour (not caring about the encroachment of the government into their private lives and an open Internet) does not help you understand it any better.

I think that's being unfair on privacy and civil liberty groups. People simply are preoccupied with things that affect their immediate lives.

Example: why are people voting UKIP? Not because of some ideological stance towards the EU, but because they worry about immigrants coming over here, taking their jobs and living off their benefits. As a result they effectively vote for centralising political power in Westminster, with the very same government that is busy screwing them over. People don't see the big picture --they only look as far as their own garden fence --and possibly just over it, to see who lives there, and if they are doing any better or worse than they are.

People are also dumb, of course, but that's a whole other story --and interlinked with people being poor.

 

Caring about it and daring to admit to caring in public are two different things.
Simply put, a lot of people are probably afraid to speak out against the Governments constant intrusion into their lives.

Point is, political activism can easily destroy your life as the dodgier parts of the media (sun, daily mail and so on) will not hesitate to ruin your life.

Also how can you hold onto the belief that your actions may someday help change the Country for the better if you have seen the Politicians avoid punishment for their constant scandals?

And why should you care if the Government puts itself officially above the law with DRIP after they got away with robbing the taxpayers through unjustifiable expenses or all the in the past only (honest) large scale institutional child abuse? If they got away with it when they where supposedly subject to the law then does it matter if they aren't subject to the law?

And even if you do care and dare to admit to it in public, you may well focus on bigger issues, such as a mainstream political party promising to abolish Human Rights, compared to that the issue of surveillance is laughable.

 

Conversation goes like this, Government pushes through new powers, it's because of public apathy, I'm not sure the public is apathetic, here are the reason why they are, so it's apathy then, no it's priorities they are more concerned with other matters, so it's apathy then, how dare you label people like that.

The normal argument over the meaning of words that goes on for pages ensues.

Do explain why understanding the reasons for people not caring doesn't help in getting people to care ?
Aren't labels used in your field of work to make is simpler and quicker to give a quick descriptor. Aren't labels used in everyday life so we don't have to spend hours describing the finite details every time we draw a reference to something, it's what people do, use generally understood labels to expedite matters.

Sure people are preoccupied with other things, but that doesn't precluded taking action when something important happens. Take the argument that politicians used to justify DRIP, they used the shared fear we all have of people wanting to do us harm, everyone nod's and agrees that's something we need and they don't even need to do anything to stay safe.

Privacy and civil liberty groups on the other hand speak out against DRIP and people do what? Ignore them, don't have the time to read why DRIP is bad, think any means is worth the end, don't understand what DRIP is, or what it does.

Why, after all the Snowden revelations does the pro surveillance argument still manage to get the message across that it's all for your own good, that they have our best interests at heart, yet the anti surveillance argument seems like a whisper in the wind and goes largely ignored.

 

You asked me what I disagreed with. I explained. You now start talking about how this is a big emotive argument that goes off topic.

My point is that descriptive labels don't help you to understand behaviour. Hence they are not used in my line of work to explain. But aren't we going off-topic again?

 

I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, or for the "apathetic" people you are talking about. i can tell you as a disabled voter who is unable to work and unable to get out that I have lots of time to dedicate to campaigns against issues I perceive as injustices. If someone who works put in the time i do to research things, to a level *I* understand, they would have no time left to socialise or be with their families. Not everyone is able to pick one or two important issues to get political about, and if they are I'm pretty sure that statistically speaking the majority won't pick the same issue when they have been assured it is in their best interest.

That doesn't mean the issue is unimportant, or that people are apathetic about it. It just means everybody can't always focus on the same issue.

 

I asked you what you disagreed with after you decided to go off on one about attributing a descriptive label that helps to understand people's attitudes and behaviours, and then claiming (incorrectly) that it was me doing the labeling.

You seem more intent on arguing about who said what, what words mean, or that someone is disagreeing with you even when they are not, than an actually discussion about the DRIP law

So when talking about why privacy & civil liberty groups failure in getting the message across we should, instead of using the term apathy, priorities, or people's attitudes and behaviours, we should instead insert your rather long winded explanation, like this ?

Isn't that going to take a rather long time for people to read every time ?

EDIT:

Yet when the pro surveillance argument uses the threat of people wishing to do us harm, that normally gets wide spread agreement.

 

Dude, you asked what I disagreed with. I replied in one short sentence. You are the one who still keeps going on about this?

I'm sorry that multiple sentences with more than three words are confusing to you (I mean, really?!?). You seem to be arguing that simplistic labelling is preferable to precise understanding. The UK government would wholeheartedly agree. As for me, I think that people's behavours and motivations are just a bit more complex than that.

 

And this is exactly what i meant when i said you seem intent on starting an argument, yet again.

Like i said, I asked what you disagreed with after you decided to start your normal grandstanding, and I'm only "still going on" because you seem intent on derailing the thread so you can ramble on about how you are right and someone else is wrong, or how everyone should adopt your precise understanding or description of something, because for some reason you seem to think that people lack understanding.

Yes, people's behavours and motivations are just a bit more complex than that, but then again most people already know that, being people themselves and all. But you feel free to treat everyone like ignoramuses and ramble on with your precise descriptions of everything.