London ‘thought police’ special unit to track down online trolls
- Thread starter Calamine Lotion
- Start date
countthree
Well-Known Member
We had this one during more than a year until recently: Strategic Coordination Secretariat for National Thought
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretaría_de_Coordinación_Estratégica_para_el_Pensamiento_Nacional
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretaría_de_Coordinación_Estratégica_para_el_Pensamiento_Nacional
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!
BrummieBoy
Well-Known Member
In which case Morrissey may be in serious trouble if he doesn't shut his gob:
Morrissey: from rock genius to internet troll
His comments on the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy and Jacintha Saldanha's suicide sound like a global conspiracy from a man who hasn't changed out of his dressing gown in four days
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...2/dec/13/morrissey-rock-genius-internet-troll
Morrissey: from rock genius to internet troll
His comments on the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy and Jacintha Saldanha's suicide sound like a global conspiracy from a man who hasn't changed out of his dressing gown in four days
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...2/dec/13/morrissey-rock-genius-internet-troll
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hardly the thought police. Posts aren't thoughts they're the expression of thought the same as speech. Speech isn't absolutly free and I dont think it should be
Calamine Lotion
Well-Known Member
Said Anonymous poster number 62Ah347b-210X
countthree
Well-Known Member
How do you comunicate your thoughts if you can't talk about them? Telepathy?
Can you imagine any kind of human evolution without free communication?
Only people who desire this world remains just as it is...
A
Anonymous
Guest
That's beside the point. They're not saying don't think specific thoughts only don't say certain thoughts in a certain manner. It's like not going into a public business and screaming racism. I'd expect to be rightfully thrown out. A threat is a thought that shouldn't be tolerated when expressed. You can think I wanna murder your children for being loud but you shouldnt be able to say it to there mother without a consequence. Even when on a residential public street. Nobody said don't be racist and don't think racist thoughts but people don't have to hear the street or otherwise. I also couldn't set up shop or hand out phamplets of my ideas and not expect too get thrown out of any public business as another example. It's not my being there or my thoughts but my being there and saying certain things in a certain manner. A majority people become angry with others in public but don't say certain things because they rightfully fear a consequence of being charged with threatening harassment or disturbance. Cyber space should be no different and people shouldn't freely express hate online just because they think they can around that consequence and it shouldn't be tolerated
countthree
Well-Known Member
I understand what you say about criminal offenses like threats, calumnies, discrimination, etc. But the information says they will be aided by volunteers (?) to report both criminal and non-criminal incidents. That only happens in fascist regimes, please believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Official police use volunteers all the time to solve other crimes. They're called informants and in other instances neighborhood watches. It's how a lot of crimes are solved. Does it say what they're gonna do with the info on non criminal speakers. I think your leap into describing it facist state behavior is an over reach
countthree
Well-Known Member
I know.
No, they don't say it. Fascism gathers information about common people.
Calamine Lotion
Well-Known Member
Whose leap? This is an excerpt from an article. Click the title to read the full thing. I think the point is more, Why are they keeping track of non-criminal comments in the first place?
Here's some info for you. Britain has a program called "Karma Police" of all things. designed to "create profiles on every visible Internet user's browsing habits."
Everyone who uses the Internet, in Britain, anyway, has a profile.
Then there's this.
UK surveillance powers have gone ‘further than any other Western democracy’ - MP
At least the IP Bill is honest about the fact that it permits the collection of bulk data. However, we shouldn’t be too congratulatory of the bill as we have now gone further than any other Western democracy.”
A
Anonymous
Guest
So any government group or government supported group are racists? I don't get what your trying to say with this. We have a gun registry. Those people haven't committed a crime but the government gathers info on them and I don't think that a facist action. Same with cars.
The leap is thinking that collecting data equates a facist governmental regime as I believe count three indicated. If people want to know why they're collecting data can't they just ask the government through there elected representatives. If enough people cared wouldn't they need to answer.
countthree
Well-Known Member
Fascism, no racism. Two different concepts.
Collecting data about political or personal opinions, forums posts, what kind of newspapers or authors people read, etc., is a trait of totalitarian states. Collecting data about facts, like potentially dangerous objects ownership, crimes, jobs, etc., with reasonable justification, is normal and even desirable under the right circumstances. Please, don't force the argument. You are not stupid. We are not stupid.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yeah that was an auto correct from a typo. I assumed you'd conclude that when facist was used for the rest of the post. Some forum posts are relevant to government interests as well as criminal interest. Isis for sure uses
Social media as just one extreme example. So do white nationalists and mass shooters. Many posts aren't crimes in themselves but could show signs of someone about to commit them especially in the case of mass shooters. Social scientists economists etc for sure study data and info just like the data you're referring to. In the end how people use the data, for facist ends, is what makes it a sign of a facist regime. I don't see that in a democratically elected representative government. Privacy vs societal interest is a complex argument and for me these acts don't cross the line into facist action territory. I fail to see how this collection of data will be used to control me and doubt it will be used to
countthree
Well-Known Member
A
Anonymous
Guest
As data evolves so will the writs and the laws as it should to answer new societal challenges and need for progress beneficial to all. I for one like the transparency aspect of habits data but don't know if agencies should be prohibited from collecting data online or if it should be banned from storing it. There should be a conversation on use transparency and storage security etc but I'm fine with the collection as a concept. Freedom and privacy are not absolute rights or concepts and should not be. They never have been in any society
countthree
Well-Known Member
In theory the evolution, for being considered that way, shoud favour individual rights, not private or public agencies interests. Human Progress, you know. Now, if you consider our privacy and freedom are being neglected and an involution in the area of human right is taking place , I could agree with you.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I don't know much about habeas data but I believe that herds protect individuals and that public agencies in governments democratically elected can serve the public and those individuals it represents and have the backing of the public in order to do so. I mean public agencies don't have rights they have mandates. The public as a whole decides what individual rights people have and how far they extend through they're elected representatives in this case. It's not like laws or policies are being forced on people by an unelected few here with threats to those who object. If the public doesn't like the way law or public policy is being made or executed then that's what elections were made for. I feel like we're both influenced by the governments we were raised under and I don't know much personally about yours, or South American governments in general except from casual reading, but I don't always see mine as some oppressive force out to do something nefarious. I don't see what data collection can do to harm me here in this situation and can see its benefits. I do like the transparency aspect to data collection. You should be able to request what data has been collected on you within reason
countthree
Well-Known Member
That's specifically the aim of Habeas Data. It means: show me the data you have collected about me, tell me why did you collect it, and if that data recollection is abusive, invasive, discriminative, etc., it can be erased from the system at my individual request. It's like habeas corpus (you have the body) but in relation to personal data or information (you have the data).
In relation to the incidence of elections to validate the existence of human rights, the latter can not depend on electoral results. They are inmanent to human condition. That was established in the universal declaration of human rights, signed in 1948 after the holocaust.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I agree with the first part about requesting what data is collected as being valid. I can't see how data collection in this instance is discriminatory or be abusive though as it seems aimed at specific public posts deamed criminal or abusive. As to the files on every user which is another subject that seems aimed at all and therefore not discriminatory. What human right do you think this collection of data on online users violates. Privacy? I think the part that's somewhat important Here is the word arbitrary which can be debatable and we do settled legal debates with elections and call the result of that debate fair based on our democracy to decide fairness and public support to avoid facist laws and policy. What exactly are you objecting to here. The reporting of posters behavior and that the reporting is a facist act and is a violation of the human right to privacy, that the collecting of online users data and creating files on all users is arbitrary and violates the human right of privacy and that this is a facist act or something else I'm just not getting. What do you think they have to gain with this collection. Do you think there are no valid reasons or uses for this data that can be beneficial
Similar threads
