bit-tech.net

Open Rights Group to sue over DRIP Act

Open Rights Group to sue over DRIP Act

Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group has announced that his organisation will sue over the government's rushed Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) bill.

The Open Rights Group (ORG) has announced that it intends to take the UK government to court over the passing of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) bill under the guise of a national emergency.

Created in secret by a cross-party special interest group, DRIP is a response to a European Court of Justice ruling that made the government's requirements for ISPs and other communications providers to store and provide access to data on their customers illegal. It was introduced as an emergency bill earlier this month, and passed by a landslide majority in a debate on the 15th of July attended by fewer than 10 per cent of MPs.

Its critics claim the bill, which includes provisions excluding MPs and Lords from the same monitoring as the proletariat, was inadequately debated, devised in secret and rushed through Parliament under a false claim of life-saving emergency. Claims by MPs who voted and argued for the bill that it introduces no new powers have been rubbished, and the 49 MPs who voted against DRIP are understandably displeased.

ORG, a UK-based privacy campaign group, has stated that it intends to fight the matter. 'The courts will have the final say on whether DRIP breaches human rights. And no matter what David Cameron believes, the UK has international obligations. The European Convention of Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and our own Human Rights Act all exist to defend are rights and are where we will be able to challenge DRIP. And that’s what we will do,' the ORG's Jim Killock claimed in a post on the matter. 'We’re already meeting with lawyers and taking Counsel’s advice to work out the best way to take the Government to court. We will work every other group who is willing to help. But a major legal battle like this is going to be tough.'

The DRIP bill, now the DRIP Act, has been passed by Parliament and given royal assent - meaning such a legal challenge is the only thing standing between what its critics call a snoopers' charter and law.

48 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Corky42 18th July 2014, 14:30 Quote
Who thinks it's just coincidence that the DRIP act was passed in such a rushed manner ?

Granted the European Court of Justice only ruled that blanket data retention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights only 3 months ago, but the ECJ advocate general gave his opinion on what the ruling would be 8 months ago, then before that the UK knew this law was going to be challenged in the ECJ 2 years ago.

Yet for some reason, on the same day as a cabinet reshuffle, with one week before the summer recess, there is a life-saving emergency that must be dealt with. :|
flibblesan 18th July 2014, 22:06 Quote
Yeah good luck with that.
Dave Lister 19th July 2014, 12:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Who thinks it's just coincidence that the DRIP act was passed in such a rushed manner ?

No I don't see a coincidence here, just more crap rushed through when hardly anyone's around to speak out. It would seem that those governing us are determined to have complete control over our internet because as soon we get a victory shooting down one piece of cr@p legislation, another is waiting to take it's place.
Fizzban 19th July 2014, 14:15 Quote
Well the saying goes "knowledge is power", and the internet has knowledge in spades. As individuals we probably have more 'power' than we have ever had before. I can see how governments might feel threatened by that.

Not that I am excusing them; far from it.
Corky42 19th July 2014, 15:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lister
No I don't see a coincidence here, just more crap rushed through when hardly anyone's around to speak out.

So it's incompetence then ?
After all the challenge to the original EU data retention law has been known about for over 2 years.

If it was, as the home secretary put it that, "we are facing a situation where potentially we could see the loss of capabilities that lead to dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists being apprehended and brought to justice"

If that's the case you would think the politicians would work through the summer recess, I'm all for catching dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists, but when it comes at the cost of our privacy and liberty i do question if it's a proportional response, do the ends justify the means ?
Nexxo 19th July 2014, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So it's incompetence then ?

I think Dave is suggesting that it's deliberate.
debs3759 19th July 2014, 17:47 Quote
They think it's OK to watch us in case they stumble across paedophiles and certain other criminals, yet they exclude themselves from the same surveillance. From what i keep seeing in the news, a greater percentage of them deserve to be prosecuted for serious crimes than is the case among the general public.

I have nothing to hide, but I don't want anyone watching my every move.

I would join ORG if i could afford to. Unfortunately I regularly have campaign groups requesting a share of my disability benefits. Can't donate to every cause I believe in, but it's great that most still let my voice count.
Corky42 19th July 2014, 19:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I think Dave is suggesting that it's deliberate.

Surely not, that would imply that our politicians deliberately deceived parliament and the general public to allow them the ability to not only see who is talking to who, but also compelling all communications providers to install methods for the intelligence services to be able to intercept those communications.

Say it isn't so. :'(
Say they are not using our TAX pounds to reimburse the communications providers. :'(
Say we haven't become hostile to companies wanting to do business with us. :'(
Nexxo 19th July 2014, 19:16 Quote
I'm sorry sir... but democracy is dead. It was quick. It didn't suffer.
forum_user 19th July 2014, 23:33 Quote
Corky, wasn't it Killock who created a Kickstarter campaign to publicise how bad internet filters were in the UK? Whatever happened to that? ... and the money ... ?
Corky42 20th July 2014, 08:01 Quote
The last update was a couple of weeks ago. Apparently the film has been made and they said it would be released in a couple of weeks, so we should get to see it soon (i hope)
GravitySmacked 20th July 2014, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by flibblesan
Yeah good luck with that.

It's better to try than not to do anything at all surely? The greatest problem with all this is the general public apathy and that's what the powers that be are relying on when pushing through new laws like DRIP.
Corky42 20th July 2014, 15:33 Quote
I'm not sure if it is apathy, would/does the general public actually know that this law allows the government to monitor who is talking to who, do they understand that all communications providers now have to provide a means for the government to intercept and read the contents of all their communications.

Has the general public actually been hood winked into believing the only way to catch dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists is to use a net so wide that it covers every person in the UK, whether guilty or not ?
Nexxo 20th July 2014, 16:53 Quote
I think that the general public is too busy worrying about making ends meet to care. 21% of the population lives in poverty --and just over half of those are working households. Average incomes have dropped by 8% since 2008 but house prices have gone up by18% in the same period.

At the same time University fees have quadrupled, benefits are going down, pension schemes are dropping and long-term employment is a distant dream. Oh, and unions are next in the crosshairs, meaning that labour laws are under threat.

This is a good time to sneak all sorts of other threats to our civil rights in under the radar.
Corky42 20th July 2014, 17:02 Quote
So it's apathy then, the cause of the apathy maybe open for debate but what you describe is apathy.

EDIT: Just to add: I don't agree that it's apathy, i think if the general public knew that in 2012 there were half a million requests to access the communication data on devices (who spoke to who, when, where) they would be concerned that there are so many.

Or would the general public accept that there are half a million dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists that the authorities need to get the communication data from, only devices are recorded, as apparently they don't know how many devices are being used by one person.
debs3759 20th July 2014, 17:26 Quote
I wouldn't call it apathy. That implies people no longer care, or have become indifferent. Most people I know just don't believe "their" government will listen to them. They have lost trust in the system. I know a lot of active campaigners against many issues, including many of the inhuman changes this current unelected government brought in. I also know a lot of others who are angry about the way the system is being changed and hence how they are being treated. They have lost interest, they just no longer believe the elite ruling classes care. The people being pushed into debt and/or poverty generally care about it. The people doing the pushing are the people that don't care, except where it affects their own personal wealth.

This government have a lot to answer for. One of their recent promises is that if they are reelected next year, they will bring us out of the ECHR and withdraw the HRA. Do you want to live in a country where you no longer have rights? Do you believe your vote will make a difference? Many people don't believe that. Many have probably not even heard about many of the recent changes and/or promises. They won't do anything about it if they know nothing about it.
Nexxo 20th July 2014, 17:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So it's apathy then, the cause of the apathy maybe open for debate but what you describe is apathy.

No, it's priorities. Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Struggling to meet the rent/mortgage, having mouths to feed with not quite enough money and the constant threat of job insecurity are concrete problems that affect your life in a very real manner on a day to day basis. As for dangerous criminals, they're the ones terrorising the shitty estate you have to live on, recruiting your kids into gangs, pushing drugs on them and trying to mug you and break into your house to steal what little stuff you have.

Whether the government can or will track your mobile or online communications feels like a more abstract and remote problem by comparison. You and I know it's a big deal, but we're not preoccupied with the possibility of eviction, repossession of goods, redundancy or not being able to feed the kids by the end of the month. We're not living amongst gangs on crappy sink estates.

It's all relative. You can condemn the poor and uninformed for being apathetic, but they have bigger worries on their mind. A starving man does not worry about his civil rights; he worries about where his next meal comes from.
RedFlames 20th July 2014, 17:33 Quote
Nexxo beat me to what i was going to say... and probably said it better than i would have...
Corky42 20th July 2014, 18:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by debs3759
This government have a lot to answer for. One of their recent promises is that if they are reelected next year, they will bring us out of the ECHR and withdraw the HRA. Do you want to live in a country where you no longer have rights? Do you believe your vote will make a difference? Many people don't believe that. Many have probably not even heard about many of the recent changes and/or promises. They won't do anything about it if they know nothing about it.

Yea, i have to admit that when politicians and governments talk about taking us out of the ECHR & HRA it does worry me, especially in light of the Snowden revelations and the constant erosion of our civil liberties.
It wouldn't be so bad if they also talked about what they would replace it with, but so far they seem happy to talk about going after the bad guys without a thought of how this effects normal peoples lives, it's like any means justifies the end.

As for votes not counting, i tend to agree, especially when all three main parties are so similar, or all support the same thing, like Internet filters, RIPA, data retention, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, it's priorities.
<Snip>
So that would be Apathy: lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting

Like i said the reason for it are open to debate, such as they have more important things to worry about, but for one reason or another people have things that they are more interested in, or are more concerned with, like putting food on the plate.
Fizzban 20th July 2014, 19:02 Quote
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?
debs3759 20th July 2014, 19:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
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.
Nexxo 20th July 2014, 19:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So that would be Apathy: lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting

Like i said the reason for it are open to debate, such as they have more important things to worry about, but for one reason or another people have things that they are more interested in, or are more concerned with, like putting food on the plate.

Football leaves me cold. I guess I'm apathetic too. :p If you find a label for a general state of mind helpful in understanding people's attitude toward a specific issue, knock yourself out.
RedFlames 20th July 2014, 19:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
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?

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...
Fizzban 20th July 2014, 19:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by debs3759
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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
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...

Haha yes! Hmm this may find its way into my sig :D
Corky42 20th July 2014, 20:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If you find a label for a general state of mind helpful in understanding people's attitude with regard a specific issue, knock yourself out.

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.
Nexxo 20th July 2014, 20:19 Quote
And how does attributing a descriptive label help you to understand people's attitudes and behaviours?
Corky42 21st July 2014, 08:09 Quote
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.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 08:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I'm not sure i said i wanted to understand people's attitudes and behaviours :?

Sure you did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
...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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.

As I said: it's because they have more immediate worries to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.

Erm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I'm not sure if it is apathy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So it's apathy then, the cause of the apathy maybe open for debate but what you describe is apathy.

You then edited your post to say that you didn't agree (with whom? :? ) that it's apathy, only to later come back to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So that would be Apathy: lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting

Like i said the reason for it are open to debate, such as they have more important things to worry about, but for one reason or another people have things that they are more interested in, or are more concerned with, like putting food on the plate.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 08:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Sure you did:

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
As I said: it's because they have more immediate worries to think about.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Erm...

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

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.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 09:13 Quote
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.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 09:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm sorry if you feel that simply disagreeing with you, or revealing your rhetoric as logically flawed is "starting an argument". I feel that says a lot more about who wants to be right all the time.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
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.

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.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sorry but what exactly are you disagreeing with ?
With your labeling of my proposed reasons for people's lack of protest as "apathy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.

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.
Anfield 21st July 2014, 11:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.

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.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 11:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
With your labeling of my proposed reasons for people's lack of protest as "apathy".

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It's related to the point above, actually. I'm saying that sticking a descriptive label (like: "apathy") on people's 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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
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.

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.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.
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. :?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.
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?
debs3759 21st July 2014, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sure people are preoccupied with other things, but that doesn't precluded taking action when something important happens.

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.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 15:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
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. :?

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
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?

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 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I think that the general public is too busy worrying about making ends meet to care. 21% of the population lives in poverty --and just over half of those are working households. Average incomes have dropped by 8% since 2008 but house prices have gone up by18% in the same period.

At the same time University fees have quadrupled, benefits are going down, pension schemes are dropping and long-term employment is a distant dream. Oh, and unions are next in the crosshairs, meaning that labour laws are under threat.

This is a good time to sneak all sorts of other threats to our civil rights in under the radar.

No, it's priorities. Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Struggling to meet the rent/mortgage, having mouths to feed with not quite enough money and the constant threat of job insecurity are concrete problems that affect your life in a very real manner on a day to day basis. As for dangerous criminals, they're the ones terrorising the shitty estate you have to live on, recruiting your kids into gangs, pushing drugs on them and trying to mug you and break into your house to steal what little stuff you have.

Whether the government can or will track your mobile or online communications feels like a more abstract and remote problem by comparison. You and I know it's a big deal, but we're not preoccupied with the possibility of eviction, repossession of goods, redundancy or not being able to feed the kids by the end of the month. We're not living amongst gangs on crappy sink estates.

It's all relative. You can condemn the poor and uninformed for being apathetic, but they have bigger worries on their mind. A starving man does not worry about his civil rights; he worries about where his next meal comes from.

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

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by debs3759
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.

Yet when the pro surveillance argument uses the threat of people wishing to do us harm, that normally gets wide spread agreement.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 15:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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

Dude, you asked what I disagreed with. I replied in one short sentence. You are the one who still keeps going on about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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 ?

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. :D As for me, I think that people's behavours and motivations are just a bit more complex than that.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 16:56 Quote
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.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 17:22 Quote
OK, all I said was: "I don't think it's apathy. I just think that people have more immediate worries going on in their lives (such as...)".

You claim this aims to provoke an argument. You claim it aims to prove I'm right and you're wrong. You complain my explanation is too long-winded. You claim it is belittling, and treats people like ignoramuses.

Dude, you're projecting. I don't know what your problem is, but it's got nothing to do with me.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 17:55 Quote
No. What i claim provokes an argument is when you decided to accuse people of wanting to "attribute a descriptive label help them to understand people's attitudes and behaviours"
and then to go on post after post, even after you yourself said "I stand corrected: gravitysmacked indeed introduced the term"

Like i said you seem intent on starting an argument, yet again. Even going to the extent of claiming that people are projecting, claiming they have a problem, arguing who said what, or the meaning of words, or how people just don't understand so you need to explain it to them, and even after repeated attempts by myself to get back to the OT you seem intent to instead use this thread as your own personal grandstand.

And when did you say you didn't think it was apathy ?
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 18:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No. What i claim provokes an argument is when you decided to accuse people of wanting to "attribute a descriptive label help them to understand people's attitudes and behaviours"

My point exactly: I did not accuse anybody of anything. Where did that come from? :? I gave an explanation for people's attitude and behaviour. You said: "So it's apathy" (twice). I said: "No, it's that they have more immediate worries to think about. And anyway, just labeling attitudes or behaviours isn't helpful in understanding them."

Then you keep going on about how I am rambling and going off-topic while I keep saying: "Dude, you asked what I disagreed with. I replied. Why are we still going on about this?"

And again: why are we still going on about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And when did you say you didn't think it was apathy ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So it's apathy then, the cause of the apathy maybe open for debate but what you describe is apathy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, it's priorities. Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs...

I'm not continuing this disagreement because it is going way off-topic. Let's steer this thread back on course.
debs3759 21st July 2014, 18:56 Quote
Chill Corky. You're doing yourself no favours by carrying this argument on.

BTW, in post #8, in response to you saying
Quote:
So it's apathy then...... what you describe is apathy.
Nexxo said
Quote:
No, it's priorities.
Corky42 21st July 2014, 19:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
My point exactly: I did not accuse anybody of anything. Where did that come from?

From here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If you find a label for a general state of mind helpful in understanding people's attitude toward a specific issue, knock yourself out.
And here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And how does attributing a descriptive label help you to understand people's attitudes and behaviours?
And here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I'm not sure i said i wanted to understand people's attitudes and behaviours :?
Sure you did:

And some of those were even after you said it wasn't me that first used the "apathy" label
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I gave an explanation for people's attitude and behaviour. You said: "So it's apathy" (twice). I said: "No, it's that they have more immediate worries to think about. And anyway, just labeling attitudes or behaviours isn't helpful in understanding them."

And i gave the dictionary definition of what apathy is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Apathy: lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting
And even said the reason for it are open to debate, such as they have more important things to worry about, but for one reason or another people have things that they are more interested in, or are more concerned with, like putting food on the plate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Then you keep going on about how I am rambling and going off-topic while I keep saying: "Dude, you asked what I disagreed with. I replied. Why are we still going on about this?"

No. i said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I'm not sure i said i wanted to understand people's attitudes and behaviours
And i only asked what you were disagreeing with after you falsely accused me of introducing the term "apathy" and that i was putting words into your mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And again: why are we still going on about this?

Because like i said, you are arguing about the meaning of words, as normal.
Priority: Precedence, especially established by order of importance or urgency.
Apathy: Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
Concern: To be of interest or importance to.

So like i said the reasons for peoples lack of concern are open to debate.
But you seem more concerned with starting an argument, and going on for 20 posts just because you believe a lack of interest or concern is somehow different than what importance people place on things, or lack thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm not continuing this disagreement because it is going way off-topic. Let's steer this thread back on course.
You mean as i have been trying to do for the last 10+ posts when i said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
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.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 20:21 Quote
Are we back on topic yet? :p
Locknload 21st July 2014, 21:40 Quote
So it appears that the current governments policies are thus:

1) Dumb down the people. They seem to love this Cowell chap and his vast entourage of misfits.Give them meaningless games to consume the time they have left to think, when they are not paying taxes.Hay Day anyone?
2) Restrict education/resources to those that can afford them (preference should be given to upper class families within the area of the home counties)
3) Destroy the aspirations of the nation. (Only the Rich should actually own property, the other 95% of population will be offered favourable rental terms)
4) Make assisted suicide legal. A recent report by the ONS states that we will save billions if people who are long term ill are morally allowed to die.Get the General Synod involved, that should speed things up.
5) Take away press/media powers, make it illegal to report anything adverse about the ruling classes and their minions.(Make sure we protect Rebecca Brookes, because Uncle Dave has been giving her one and we don't want that to go tats up).
6) Give large corporations the authority to fleece the consumer without any comeback, providing that we get our cut of course.(Time Warner and HBO are very excited about this new venture).
7) Keep the people chained with green taxes and further promote the effects of global warming and climate change to keep the treasury buzzing along.
8) Sell all the green field sites that were previously occupied by shabby, filthy hospitals and outdated schools.( Make sure that these sites are quantified for fracking prior to sale).
9) Privatise the prison service, and adopt an American model of "Working off your debt to society". This would provide new impetus to the transport budget, if we could get them digging trenches for HS1 or the new London orbital.
10) At every opportunity we must refer to the people of Britain as Citizens, this will work as a subliminal submission and will further undermine the peoples perceived worth.

PS: A vote for The Green Party is a wasted vote on the premise that they will perpetuate the whole climate change con......you have got to love the cheek of it all.
Nexxo 21st July 2014, 21:50 Quote
You forgot about privatisation of health, social and national services.
Locknload 22nd July 2014, 13:23 Quote
Ah! Bugga.
As you well know, parties can change the parameters of their pre election premise without prior notice. :)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums