Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

MyLifeMyID - The UK governments database state footbullet.

Lave IILave II Registered User
edited July 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Why are young people treated like idiots?

So the UK ID card scheme is a backdoor scheme to create one of the world most complete databases that spies on every aspect of your nature.

So way back when a leaked report detailed that the Government had plans to "coerce" the public into excepting the scheme. And that the first step was to persuade the young.

And that plan has started today with Home Secretary Jacqui Smith launching MyLifeMyID.org a horrible handsfisted attempt to link the ID card with "being able to prove your age."

It's awesome because they've assumed that "Teh kidz" are stupid, and being bombarded by rational, thoughtout opposition. The basic level of propaganda and persuading makes alliwantforxmasisapsp look like Shakespeare.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith biggin it up


We are on the cusp of an important time, today is the vote for David Davis, who resigned over the threats to our liberty by the Database state and 42 detention without trial.

Hell even Geldoff thinks it's going to far.

So yeah, we should care D&D, because I put it to you we are walking into an orwellian society, to such an extent that overblown language like this sentence, no longer seem that ridiculous.

TL; DR - So yeah, a thread for discussing the issue of Liberty (or the lack of it) in the UK

Lave II on
«13

Posts

  • Sunday_AssassinSunday_Assassin Registered User
    edited July 2008
    The only major problem I have with the government knowing verything about me is the prospect that they'll leave that information on the train.

    I get enough spam as it is.

  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The website only vaguely mentions a "biographical footprint." What exactly would that entail? Where you were born and other trivial details the government already knows, or something more sinister?

    Picture1-4.png
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    It's like palm reading.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! In Space.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The database state, brought to you using insecure Microsoft software and the same idiotic IT contractors who couldn't implement a working lightbulb, much less the systems the government wants.

    A farce of 1984 proportions.

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I registered on this site, and ticked the box to not receive any emails.

    My inbox has been constantly filled with illegal, unsolicited emails from the Governement.

    The Government are also using my tax money to fund free marketing for the following brands:
    Super Mario
    Finding Nemo
    Dilbert
    Powerpuff Girls
    Sonic the Hedgehog
    and Batman

    The forum code is terrible, up until a few minutes ago they were ordering posts with the oldest at the top. It frequently shows signatures twice, and the post ordering is in no way conducive to debate. The whole operation is geared towards being as spinable as possible, and aparently lots of threads (coincidentally the most controversial ones) have been 'disappearing'.

    This government can't even put together a stable forum but they want us to trust them with a centralised database of our sensitive personal information?

  • EchoEcho very gravitas Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    We have this fancy Swedish word: "ändamålsglidning". It literally translates to something like "sliding purposes".

    A great example of sliding purposes is the Swedish PKU register. PKU or phenylketonuria is a genetic disorder, and since 1975 all new-borns in Sweden have had blood samples taken and stored in the PKU register for medical research, with stringent laws saying that this gigantic DNA database can only be used for medical research.

    Now the current administration wants to hand that DNA database over to the police. And this is a sliding purpose.

    Adding more insult to injury: currently you can simply send a letter with your name, SSN and some info about your mother and request to have your data removed from the PKU database and any tissue samples destroyed. A few weeks after that became public, the politicians now want to remove the option of removing yourself from the database.

    Now, personally I don't consider ID cards to be bad, but then again I live in hippie commie pinko socialist Sweden. The only times I have to wave my ID card is when I want to buy alcohol, or to prove my identity at the post office to pick up deliveries for me.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    We have this fancy Swedish word: "ändamålsglidning". It literally translates to something like "sliding purposes".

    How do you pronounce that?
    Echo wrote: »
    Now, personally I don't consider ID cards to be bad, but then again I live in hippie commie pinko socialist Sweden. The only times I have to wave my ID card is when I want to buy alcohol, or to prove my identity at the post office to pick up deliveries for me.

    Most people don't have a problem with the ID card per se, but with the idea of a huge government-maintained database storing all of your personal info.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    We are on the cusp of an important time, today is the vote for David Davis, who resigned over the threats to our liberty by the Database state and 42 detention without trial.

    The by-election isn't a meaningful way of over-turning 42 day detention. Firstly, it can't stop the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which probably wouldn't make it through the House of Lords anyway. Secondly, the Conservatives have a massive advantage in the polls nationally, it's a traditionally safe Conservative seat and Davis faces no credible opposition, so the by-election is a meaningless waste. Besides, didn't David Davis vote to extend detention to 28 days in the first place?
    LewieP wrote: »
    I registered on this site.

    A better way of getting your message across would have been to write to your local MP, rather than going to a website designed to promote ID cards.
    LewieP wrote: »
    This government can't even put together a stable forum but they want us to trust them with a centralised database of our sensitive personal information?

    The website isn't run by the government, but by Virtual Surveys, an online market research company.

    Could either of you explain how Britain is anything like an Orwellian society before you get hauled off to Room 101?

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm planning to write to my MP too.

    I don't I said anything about Britain being like an Orwellian, but their is a grey area between Joyville, Happyland and 1984, and this kind of thing is a shift towards a totalitarian government.

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    LewieP wrote: »
    I'm planning to write to my MP too.

    Glad to hear it.
    I don't I said anything about Britain being like an Orwellian, but their is a grey area between Joyville, Happyland and 1984, and this kind of thing is a shift towards a totalitarian government.

    What exactly is totalitarian about an optional ID card that uses information that is already standard in passports? I'll admit that I have misgivings about the Government being able to deal with this data securely in a cost-effective manner, but I have no problems with the principle.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    LewieP wrote: »
    I'm planning to write to my MP too.

    Glad to hear it.
    I don't I said anything about Britain being like an Orwellian, but their is a grey area between Joyville, Happyland and 1984, and this kind of thing is a shift towards a totalitarian government.

    What exactly is totalitarian about an optional ID card that uses information that is already standard in passports? I'll admit that I have misgivings about the Government being able to deal with this data securely in a cost-effective manner, but I have no problems with the principle.


    See you are falling for it, it's techincally optional. But it isn't really. Thats the hook to get it passed. as echo say's it's sliding purposes.

    Read this leaked document Summary and link to pdf here.

    They need it to be optional to pass but then the government want to "coerce" people into joining, by making them "need it every day." Seriously read the pdf, it's fucking horrendous. A governemnent shouldn't try to coerce people. And it shouldn't use the word coerce.

    And it's not info standard in passports. Because an optional form of ID with the infomation of a passport is a passport. This will have over 50 pieces of information on you.

    There is complete missunderstanding about what it will actually have because, it's in constant flux to get it passed. Then they can extend it.

    Do you know for instance that Gordon Brown wanted it your database entery to keep a record of everything you buy? That will come back. Once it's present, it will grow and grow.

    Seriously, read the pdf.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    DNA databases are very much a good thing in my book; they catch criminals like no-one's business. Swap everyone and away we go, I say.

    On a side-note, a show on the TV the other night showed an awesome device: a portable fingerprint scanner. The police at the scene press a person's hand to it and the machine communicates with HQ to display that person's criminal record and any outstanding warrants or details.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Æthelred wrote: »
    DNA databases are very much a good thing in my book; they catch criminals like no-one's business. Swap everyone and away we go, I say.

    On a side-note, a show on the TV the other night showed an awesome device: a portable fingerprint scanner. The police at the scene press a person's hand to it and the machine communicates with HQ to display that person's criminal record and any outstanding warrants or details.


    And the great thing about a DNA database is that with a really, really, really good DNA sample, you are going to get an accuracy of about 99.8% which means that when you run it against your national database of 60 million you only get 120,000 exact matches. Of course if we pretend it's 99.99% accurate you've still got 6,000 perfect matches.

    Brilliant.

    Oh that and it destroys the magna carta's innocent till proven guilty schtick - but you know, no biggie..

  • EchoEcho very gravitas Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    That would be why the courts don't convict solely on DNA evidence.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    So, i tried to sign up for this thing but apparently it doesn't want to co-operate with my anonymous email forwarding service.

    Insidious

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    That would be why the courts don't convict solely on DNA evidence.

    Hypothetically, anyway.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    That would be why the courts don't convict solely on DNA evidence.

    Hypothetically, anyway.

    Can you link me some stories? I'm pretty sure you're right, but can't remember the details of any at the moment. Like any new technology, the police and the CPS get a bit overexcited at first, thinking they've got something that will make them not have to do any detectoring any more. Adding everyone / more non-convicted people to the database would cut down on conviction relying too heavily on DNA evidence, of course.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    That would be why the courts don't convict solely on DNA evidence.

    Hypothetically, anyway.

    Yeah. Properly used, DNA checks can be really useful. If the check narrows it down to one of 6000 people, that means that either you or a relative have their genetic blueprints all over the evidence, or else they're really freaking unlucky. If everything else points to you having done it, plus the DNA is a match, that's a whole lot of "really unlucky" to account for.

    But people are dumb, and think that DNA match = he definitely did it, no questions asked, even when it's explained to them. And since juries are, last I checked, composed of people, the use of DNA evidence becomes a risky proposition.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    That would be why the courts don't convict solely on DNA evidence.

    Exactly but, finding a suspect, then checking their DNA against the sample, and finding a match means your candidate has a high likelyhood of being guilty.

    But running your sample against a database, and then searching those hits for the one most likely to be guilty (nearest etc) means your candidate has a very low likelyhood of being guilty.

    A DNA database paradoxely makes DNA evidence worth less because the Police lose the abilty to show they didn't just single him out, and then find evidence to back them up.

    It's very worrying.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    That would be why the courts don't convict solely on DNA evidence.

    Hypothetically, anyway.

    Can you link me some stories? I'm pretty sure you're right, but can't remember the details of any at the moment. Like any new technology, the police and the CPS get a bit overexcited at first, thinking they've got something that will make them not have to do any detectoring any more. Adding everyone / more non-convicted people to the database would cut down on conviction relying too heavily on DNA evidence, of course.

    I don't have any stories. Right now, DNA evidence is more likely to exonerate somebody than lead to a false conviction, because in order to compare DNA evidence to a suspect you have to have already brought the suspect in on other evidence.

    However, if there were a centralized DNA database, then one possible abuse might be law enforcement data-mining the database for DNA that matches evidence found at the scene of a crime. Then they start brining people in, based on that DNA evidence.

    The latter process opens up the possibility of a false positive where the former (and current) process does not. It's not a foregone conclusion that such false positives would occur, or that they would lead to convictions, but it is something to be very very careful of IMO.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The bye-election is a great way of keeping this issue up there. It forces everyone in the media to keep talking about the issue and forces the likely next governing party to confront the issue squarely on (I think given the Tory's law and order history they could also be taken in by the SECURITY angle), it also gives the opposition to the Bill a much needed shot in the arm to help rally opposition in the Lords to the Bill.

    Davis may have a lot of views I don't like but he has redeemed himself with this one. That is why I donated to his campaign. Besides, when was the last time you saw a politician make a stand in this country about something like this? And fuck off with the whole "waste of money by-election angle" - a couple of million quid is a small price to pay to make us actually sit down and debate this issue properly before it gets passed. Nothing else was working, Brown bribed it through the Commons, so if not on this, then when exactly should a politician ever do anything about anything?

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    We are on the cusp of an important time, today is the vote for David Davis, who resigned over the threats to our liberty by the Database state and 42 detention without trial.

    The by-election isn't a meaningful way of over-turning 42 day detention. Firstly, it can't stop the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which probably wouldn't make it through the House of Lords anyway. Secondly, the Conservatives have a massive advantage in the polls nationally, it's a traditionally safe Conservative seat and Davis faces no credible opposition, so the by-election is a meaningless waste. Besides, didn't David Davis vote to extend detention to 28 days in the first place?

    I'm pretty certain he didn't vote for 28 days either. But it's irreleveant. And whilst it is meaningless to some extent, it's a huge symbol, and massively important. I loathe the tories, but Davis was a shoe in for a big job if they got in the next election - even possible deputy PM. But this issue meant so much to him that he considered the public awareness he has raised more important than his career. Regardless of whether he is relected, he has lost his positio in the shadow cabinat and so won't be in a tory governement. He made the day the 42 vote passed a big deal. The speach he gave (I linked to it in the OP) is brilliant. And whatever happens now, Labour have to tread more carefully. Thats heroic.

    And if you ever said I would one day call a Tory heroic I would have probably have punched you.
    Could either of you explain how Britain is anything like an Orwellian society before you get hauled off to Room 101?

    In principle, once the 42 day law and ID cards have been passed, I could be walking along the street. Maybe I'm doing something like, taking a fucking photograph (watch this it's important), and the police intimidate me a bit, and I stop photgraphing, even though I can.

    Still they decide I'm suspicious, so throw me in jail for 42 days, whilst they check out what I'm like, and if I've done anything wrong. I mean if the council will use extreme anti-terrorism laws to spy on families over their school application form (again - read this, it's important) Then going after a dodgy guy is ok.

    But oh no, somethings happened recently and they need to look like they are making an impact, so they decide to set me up* - and with the ability to use an anonymous witnesses it means they can attack me in court in such a manner I can't properly defend myself.


    Sure that probably wouldn't happen. But then the entire argument becomes The Government has Orwellian powers, but they are pretty nice so i gues they won't misues them.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    What Lave said. It's called False positive paradox and prosecutor's fallacy.

    Huh, I never even knew of this. *reads more*

  • EchoEcho very gravitas Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    Sure that probably wouldn't happen. But then the entire argument becomes The Government has Orwellian powers, but they are pretty nice so i gues they won't misues them.

    This is what goes on in the FRA debate in Sweden. We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    Lave II wrote: »
    Sure that probably wouldn't happen. But then the entire argument becomes The Government has Orwellian powers, but they are pretty nice so i gues they won't misues them.

    This is what goes on in the FRA debate in Sweden. We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?



    Agreed.

    Further, why give the Government powers that 1) they have no need for and 2)when they don't already use the stupidly wide powers they already have

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    The bye-election is a great way of keeping this issue up there. It forces everyone the media to keep talking about the issue and forces the likely next governing party to confront the issue squarely on (I think given the Tory's law and order history they could also be taken in by the SECURITY angle), it also gives the opposition to the Bill a much needed shot in the arm to help rally opposition in the Lords to the Bill.

    Davis may have a lot of views I don't like but he has redeemed himself with this one. That is why I donated to his campaign. Besides, when was the last time you saw a politician make a stand in this country about something like this? And fuck off with the whole "waste of money by-election angle" - a couple of million quid is a small price to pay to make us actually sit down and debate this issue properly before it gets passed. Nothing else was working, Brown bribed it through the Commons, so if not on this, then when exactly should a politician ever do anything about anything?

    Exactly, one of the problems was that Labour was hiding the issues with ID cards and 42 days. For instance, when they had to announce that the ID card plan had gone a 400million quid over budget they withheld it for three weeks later than they were supposed to.

    Why? So they could bury the news by releasing it on the day that Blair resigined, knowing it wouldn't be covered. (source: here)

    Nick Clegg and the Lib dems, went nuts over this, but did you hear about it? Probably not.I only remember because I blogged about it at the time. By resigning Davis is making us talk about it now. So he succeeded.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?

    This is an incredibly concise position statement.

    Is all political discourse in Sweden so concise?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    Lave II wrote: »
    Sure that probably wouldn't happen. But then the entire argument becomes The Government has Orwellian powers, but they are pretty nice so i gues they won't misues them.

    This is what goes on in the FRA debate in Sweden. We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?



    Agreed.

    Further, why give the Government powers that 1) they have no need for and 2)when they don't already use the stupidly wide powers they already have

    Exactly this is the real, real issue here. And depressingly saying this makes people (in the UK at least) call you a crack pot. Laws need to be designed so they can't be misused, and they are no longer being.

    I mean most people in the UK who agree with 42 days detention are doing so because they believe it will be used against guilty people who aren't like them, and most likely a different skin color.

    They can't seem to understand that it means that anyone can be held for 42 days without any evidence. And that includes them. But no you'll just get the editor of the Sun going - "I don't care if you lock them up for 420 days!" whilst failing to understanding that "them" means every-fucking-one and not just scary muslims.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Oh, here is a pretty good link to a summary of the Anti 42 Day position.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?

    This is an incredibly concise position statement.

    Is all political discourse in Sweden so concise?

    If it is, I want to live there.

    Additionaly this applies to databases too. This is why places that had people like the Stasi, no longer keep any data they don't have too, because they know how it can be used. Whilst idiot brits keep it all because we think 'that could never happen here'

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?

    This is an incredibly concise position statement.

    It's a very common and a very inane statement. If any of our countries has a totalitarian government in the future, guess what the problem is? The totalitarian government. They'd just do whatever they want anyway.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?

    This is an incredibly concise position statement.

    It's a very common and a very inane statement. If any of our countries has a totalitarian government in the future, guess what the problem is? The totalitarian government. They'd just do whatever they want anyway.

    It's having effective safeguards built into the system that prevents a totalitarian government from forming. We don't give any one person or one small group of persons unnecessary access to power. That's the whole point of checks and balances. I would argue that the same principle applies here.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    We opponents don't care what you say you will use the law for. We care about what the law can be used for. Who is to say that an administration ten years from now won't use the surveillance framework already set in place for crushing political dissent?

    This is an incredibly concise position statement.

    It's a very common and a very inane statement. If any of our countries has a totalitarian government in the future, guess what the problem is? The totalitarian government. They'd just do whatever they want anyway.

    Oh do come on. Look at how every totalitarian government has come to be. Hitler* slowly distorted his country into one that he was in total control of. The more your countries laws safe guard against that, the longer it takes the despot to take control.

    *Anyone who mentions Godwins law during a discussion about totalitarian states and orwellian surviellance can fuck the right off.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    That's a different argument altogether. The usual point, which Echo made and to which I was referring, was that structures shouldn't be put in place if they'd be useful to future totalitarian governments. Which is a dumb way to run a country.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Well it could be argued that Hitler very rapidly distorted Germany, but blargle, that is another discussion.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    My standard response to national ID fearmongering:

    National IDs are coming with or without the government. Businesses want them, and more importantly, consumers want them. Do you know why our SSNs here in the U.S. became so valuable? They were originally just designed so that we could track one's contributions to SS throughout their life to ensure they got their retirement when they got old enough. But holy jeepers, how valuable was it for business and consumers to know that there was a unique ID assigned to every citizen that could be verified by a business? How many things are SSNs now used for that have absolutely nothing to do with SS? Society took that number and grew it into an immensely valuable tool. The government provided the infrastructure to make it possible.

    But the SSN isn't enough anymore. Businesses and consumers want more. Government agencies want more, too. Pictures, biometrics, age verification, purchasing power, travel, security, and so on. Cry all you want, it's coming.

    The question is whether or not the government ought to play some role in standardizing and regulating society's desire to identify one another, and again, whether or not it is our government who is in the best position to provide a successful infrastructure to support it. I say hell yes. There are about 10,000 functions government has taken on that I wish they'd leave alone, but this particular collective need is something perfectly suited for public governance. Better them than a corporation. Better them than 40 different corporations, or 51 different states and districts, each with different rules and standards.

    Let's worry about totalitarianism and rights abuses when we actually get any inkling that we are headed towards them, not just when a tool that society desperately wants for valid reasons might also be viewed as a potential tool for totalitarians and abusers. The military would be darn useful to a dictator, too. So would be financial institution systems. And jails. And a federal police force. And so on. That doesn't make them evil.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    That's a different argument altogether. The usual point, which Echo made and to which I was referring, was that structures shouldn't be put in place if they'd be useful to future totalitarian governments. Which is a dumb way to run a country.

    Except of course it being a extreme clever way to run a country. I'm not quite sure how to argue something that I personally see as being self evident.

    In a democracy people of varying quality get elected. Often compelete dick heads get elected. Unlike a dictatorship, democracies enforce periodic elections to reset the system if a dick is in power.

    The power for the elected head to be able to call martial law and halt elections would be a useful power in times of chaos, but the ability to misuse that power by a corrupt governement means that the law shouldn't exist.

    Structures that are open to exploitation by totalitarian governments need to be very, very carefully considered, at avoided at all costs.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Scrap the army then. You see how this works?

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.