The fact that every "democratic" superpower seeks to criminalize or prohibit E2EE at the same time gives the impression there is some sorta coordination between state actors to do so.
Edit to add: I mention the five eyes because cryptography (and cybersecurity) tend to fall into the purview of the signals intelligence agencies in government, so that would be NSA in the US, GCHQ in the UK etc. They collaborate under this arrangement.
[1] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-five-eyes-the-intelligen...
[1] Just a random click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_House_o... on the Bishop of Chichester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Chichester#List_of_b... reveals a list of bishops going back as far as 681, the year 681. Particularly funny is how the majority of the bishops seem to have "died in office". To call a land with 1,300+ years of hegemony "democratic" is beyond satire.
At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)
Entirely untrue. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister. There have been many cases of the Queen getting carveouts, influencing laws, and vetting bills. There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent. This notion that the British monarch has no power is an absolute farce.
There’s also the whole concept of King’s Consent, wherein the King gets to vet every single bill for affect the crown's own prerogatives or interests, and negotiate secretly with the government to change the contents of that bill. The Guardian articles detail this process as well. If you seriously believe the King has no power in practice I have a bridge to sell you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-l...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-fo...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-l...
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-v...
Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana...
As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939."
Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4...
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68.
Command of naval and military forces.
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why.
I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor.
In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.
Turns out that people who hate fun (Puritans) are even less popular than a King who keeps starting wars, so Parliament installed a replacement King.
Refusal of Royal Assent has happened since then, and not caused similar responses, though (in England; parts of British North America are…a different story; no regicide of course, but the monarchy itself was replaced.)
Most recently Assent was withheld from a law passed in Scotland, on the advice of the British government. This conflict makes sense, the Scottish Parliament is necessarily subsidiary, and this was basically a Culture War law, in my opinion the Scottish were on the right side of history, but it's not astonishing that (as conceived when the Scottish Parliament was set up) the British parliament could say "No".
Before that the last time assent (as opposed to consent) was refused in 1708 is genuinely interesting. It was used because of unfortunate timing. Parliament said OK, those Scots seem useful, we don't fully trust them but we need more armed men and nobody doubts they can fight, so here's a law arming the Scottish. And then, with the Bill passed but Assent not yet granted, they received news of a French Fleet landing in Scotland. Suddenly giving arms to the Scottish seemed less clever as who knows if they'd be on France's side. So Mary was told (by the Government) to withhold Assent from that bill.
Probably not if, as was the case the last time it happened (in 1708), it was because of what was perceived as a radical change of relevant circumstance in between the law being passed and the expected date of royal assent.
(Of course, refusal of royal assent to colonial laws in North America did happen after that, without that reason, and did cause, or at least contribute to, a revolution in those colonies.)
That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable
Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.
That you don't see an issue with democratic debate being shutdown on the advice of a government minister to the monarch is another issue.
If you're genuinely interested, you can learn more about the Royal Prerogative and prerogative powers here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03...
I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508
I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one.
Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.
No, even aside from soft power, the monarch has some hard power (which can serve as a powerful lever for soft power, as well). Notably, for instance, the requirement for Monarch’s consent (not just the more pro forma Royal Assent) to legislation affecrtng the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, including the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Monarch's private estates, and the Monarch's interest as a landlord or an employer.
The statement only observed a bad thing. It did not advocate or even hint at some other bad thing as a proposed solution.
Putting words into someone else's mouth is worse even than whatever they might have said if they had actually said it.
It's an actual wrondoing that you did vs a fabricated wrongdoing you accused someone else of doing.
From the sibling comment by PhilipRoman:
> But I would ask you this - when you are jailed for speaking, would it be of some comfort to know that the decision to jail you was decided by 100 politicians instead of 1?
I realize this comment was written 5 minutes after yours, so you had no way of knowing, it is amusing how quickly the parent turned out to be right.
They weren't saying that democracy is bad, or that anything else is better, they were saying that it (largely) doesn't exist.
I think the point was not to say that authoritarianism or anything else would be better, but simply to say that in order to get a useful result from judging something, you have to judge what it actually is, not something you imagine.
Oligarchy is probably just an inevitable emergent property of any collection of cells each exhibiting the human condition. No one is saying that it's good or roght, just that it is the actual state of things, where democracy as we were told to imagine it in school, is largely a fantasy. A nice one, and surely the direction we should always aim, but not what is or realistically ever will be.
The point as I see it, is only to point out that when trying to decide what to do, and how to interpret the results of what has been done, there is a difference between the direction you push, the ideals you want, and how far you have or even ever possibly can get, how much of those ideals you have been striving for you actually have, regardless what labels are on things or what they tell everyone in school and on tv.
If you want to judge something, and have a useful result, you have to know correctly what you are actually judging. IE: it's misleading your own self as well as others to imagine that various outcomes and current conditions are the result of democracy, no matter what country you are in. In all cases, regardless what label is on the tin, it is really the result of oligrachy. (or at least to some large degree, and at least so I percieve that comment to be saying, and at least so I am saying myself)
Aiming for democracy is still probably better than not. Not because it demonsteably produces better outcomes, but because at least on paper there is some chance for it's nominal purpose. A paper declaration of agency is better than none at all.
edit: re-reading your comment, I think (mistakenly perhaps) you were suggesting that I support Russia. I would like to clarify that I most certainly do not.
So your comment is unfounded and useless, in other words.
One can point out that liberal democracies are heavily liberal and only somewhat democratic without committing to endorsing any other kind of government or regime, ya know.
(A common statist fallacy: assuming that some criticism of an existing type of government must imply that they are rooting for another kind of government. Not saying that this applies to you, though!)
they can be completely bypassed when necessary
they are a scrutiny committee and despite the gold and pomp they do quite a reasonable job
There is statistically a good chance you are from the US, which has no concept of Lords, but which has its own very serious shortcomings.
[1] Just the top: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), almost 51.5 years mandate, most kings couldn't even dream of such a lengthy reign, https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston,_Baron_Winston
[1] A really fun one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Dunsany#Barons_of_Dun...
Christopher Plunkett, 1st Baron of Dunsany (1410–1463)
Richard Plunkett, 2nd Baron of Dunsany (died c. 1480)
John Plunkett, 3rd Baron of Dunsany (died 1500)
Edward Plunkett, 4th Baron of Dunsany (died 1521)
Robert Plunkett, 5th Baron of Dunsany (died 1559)
Christopher Plunkett, 6th Baron of Dunsany (died 1564)
Patrick Plunkett, 7th Baron of Dunsany (died 1601)
Christopher Plunkett, 8th Baron of Dunsany (died 1603)
Patrick Plunkett, 9th Baron of Dunsany (1595–1668)
Christopher Plunkett, 10th Baron of Dunsany (died 1690)
Randall Plunkett, 11th Baron of Dunsany (died 1735)
Edward Plunkett, 12th Baron of Dunsany (1713–1781)
Randall Plunkett, 13th Baron of Dunsany (1739–1821)
Edward Wadding Plunkett, 14th Baron of Dunsany (1773–1848)
Randall Edward Plunkett, 15th Baron of Dunsany (1804–1852)
Edward Plunkett, 16th Baron of Dunsany (1808–1889)
John William Plunkett, 17th Baron of Dunsany (1853–1899)
Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (1878–1957)
Randal Arthur Henry Plunkett, 19th Baron of Dunsany (1906–1999)
Edward John Carlos Plunkett, 20th Baron of Dunsany (1939–2011)
Randal Plunkett, 21st Baron of Dunsany (born 1983)[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_Plunkett,_21st_Baron_of...
Real power flows through those who've maintained their assets, e.g. Duke of Devonshire; those who own the media, e.g. Viscount Rothermere; and just buying your way in, like Baron Lebedev, son of former KGB oligarch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax#:~:text=still%20o....
I’m not for a second saying the system is wonderful and beyond reproach. But suggesting it’s equivalent to an autocracy or something is just flat out wrong. If you want to complain about the U.K. political system complain about first past the post or the creeping anti-democratic forces pushing things like voter ID laws. The House of Lords and the King aren’t anything comparatively.
That alone is a big "if". Getting an ID rarely requires no effort. But the bigger question above all that is why do it anyway? Why do anything to make it harder to vote? There is little to no evidence of voter fraud taking place in the UK (or US for that matter), certainly never on a scale that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election. Every time the number of people who would be unable to vote (even just because they've lost their ID) eclipses the number of fraudulent votes that would supposedly be caught.
Sure, UK is a great place to live for many of their citizens, and a great country overall, culture and so forth. It's not for nothing we are speaking their language and not Esperanto or something. But it's not a democracy, and that is fine.
If you ask me (I know you didn't, but just in case), not even the Nordic countries or Switzerland pass the main test of democracy: not being able to vote for everything, but being able to vote "No" to anything and everything. That should probably be the hallmark of a democracy. Even the toga-wearing Greeks did not have democracy to such an extent.
In an ideal world, every ballot would have as a first option the option "No". I said in some other HN comment [1], a second point would be to tie the duration of the mandate to the voter turnout, if 30% vote, then the mandate is not 100%, but 30% also of the 4/5 years mandate.
One technical issue to solve beforehand is reducing the cost of elections by 6-7 orders of magnitude. 2020 US election costed $14 billion (presidential and congressional) [1], 2020 India election costed $7 billlion [2]. It's completely unsustainable. Sending 500 million HTTPS messages using Amazon SES costs around $50,000. Perhaps elections should cost a bit more, but not with much, in order to be able to run them every other day/month.
The fact that our societies are unable to hold elections often and at the cost of spam emails is also a sign we are not trending towards increasing democracy.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-electi...
[2] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabh...
Being able to vote "No" or "No One" may see no improvement, but it would at least give a true option to the 30%-60% of people (various countries) who never vote, a protest vote which is actually significant, especially if voting "No" further decreases the mandate time.
I guess in general we should ask ourselves if the principles on which we build the society are for increasing democracy or for decreasing it. And then we can label it as "democratic" or not, but the rate of change towards a heightened democracy is more important than a single scalar "democracy index". Hence my initial repartee about a 1,300 old society which steadfastly had and has bishops, lords, kings as instruments of power or power-adjacent implementers of power.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
This idea that the royal family has no meaningful political power is not congruent with how the British political system works.
This is all outlined in the previous citation I gave.
Please define "meaningful power".
Because getting millions of pounds from the state every year [1], having massive media attention, having the ear of international leaders in politics, and having ones face on currency, sounds pretty impactful to me, especially given the fact that all this is conferred by being born to certain parents, and not by, say, something like an election.
Just imagine for a moment if the PM was head of state... Who would be leader of commonwealth? Liz Truss? Boris Johnson? Can you see how this would cause conflict? Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Electing someone would introduce politics and that isn't feasible when you need someone who can represent such a diverse range of views.
I also think the UK monarch serves as a unifying voice for the UK. No matter our political differences we can still all turn to the monarch as voice of unity for the nation during difficult times. I think this lack of an apolitical leader is quite noticeable in the US and other nations.
I don't like all of the tradition and baggage that comes with the Royal Family and I think they would benefit from trying to modernise their public perception, but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. I think the question really is how much we should be spending on that. At the moment it does seem a bit excessive...
Does it need one? For doing what exactly? And why is a hereditary position better for this than one elected by democratic means?
> Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation.
Why?
> , but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers.
Such as? Because tons of countries in the world don't spend huge sums of money on such an institution, and don't seem to miss out on anything.
I'm not saying the Royal Family are not impactful (I'm certainly not defending them at all!) but I'm specifically refuting the notion that the presence of a King means that the country is not democratic. Kim Kardashian has millions, draws massive media attention and in all honesty could probably have the ear of international leaders. None of that means she can override what US voters do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
turns out separating politicians from the concept of The State works quite well
There's nothing like that in the US, by design, due to our constitutional separation of church and state. The words "In God We Trust" were added to our currency in 1864, and "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.
Although I think we'd benefit from having an ELI5 branch to provide a final sniff test by voters for all controversial legislation. There's only a 10% correlation between what the public wants and what congress passes, because we never managed to separate freedom of speech from freedom of money to buy speech. So the wealthy have a disproportionate say in our political discourse, that's why they push stuff like corporate personhood to maintain power. Which goes all the way back to the formation of the country as a democratic "republic" to hand off unethical decisions around slavery, sexism and colonization to a semi-elected ruling class that maintains the status quo, much like we hand off minor sins like killing animals for meat consumption to butchers. In other words, the US effectively has a lobbyist branch which worships money, instead of a religious branch.
Of course the same argument could be used in reverse to say that all religious involvement in government is about the final control of money and power.
Its not though. The House of Commons is elected. The House of Lords and the Crown are not elected, and all three are integral components of the Parliament. [0]
[0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-othe...
Just a rudderless, inward looking joke floating adrift off the west coast of France.
There's no smoky backroom where Biden and Macron and Sunak and Scholz sit in high-back leather chairs with glasses of whisky scheming about how to counter each threat to their power (with their super-secret puppeteers present only as a grim silhouette in the shadows, or maybe as an unexpected call at a climactic moment).
The only coordination that exists at the level of these superpowers is systemic, caused and communicated purely by a commonality of incentives and threats, not by words.
Every government wants power. One obvious means to achieve that is to retain an ability to surveil their populace. They grew accustomed to growth of this ability as communication shifted from whispered conversations to physical letters to telegrams to analog telephones to unencrypted Internet communication; now the ability of ordinary citizens to trivially encrypt their communication is a major setback to that expectation.
The timing of it is merely coincidental, or at most coordinated by the cross-border technological developments.
Why whenever anybody says anything that can be construed as conspiratorial do we automatically assume it is? World leaders can meet without the conspiracy, they do it all the time.
For instance, the leaders of prominent American tech companies conspired with each other to suppress wages. Should this be laughed at?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Role_in_illegal_n...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
Cultural drives are somewhat globalized, big news stories which might lead to some desire for government action are unlikely to remain purely local, and they're even more unlikely to be isolated events
The whole world uses the same apps to visit the same websites and see mostly the same news stories, tv shows, movies, books, songs etc
This kind of big legislation doesn't sprout from nothing it takes time to gather momentum and in the world right now it's not crazy to think that multiple people are thinking about the same thing at various stages at the same time
And when one of these laws gets proposed or passed somewhere it helps provide momentum elsewhere so you get a slow boil and then everywhere "at once"