Hacker News Reader

Comment by aranw | Hacker News Reader

There is probably a legitimate basis for some powers against actual foreign intelligence operations. But the proposals in the article defining "subversion" to include environmental activism, independence movements, or criticism of UK policy show how quickly these things expand beyond their original scope. The Terrorism Act was meant to exclude domestic activists but two decades later it has been used against protest groups

View on HN

As is tradition. Put the tool in the toolbox, label it "it's for bad guys" to sell it to people, oh no, govt used it for something else, what a surprise.

And even if current government is 100% benevolent, just putting the tool in the toolbox means any subsequent govt, that might not be that, can use it.

> But the proposals in the article defining "subversion" to include environmental activism, independence movements, or criticism of UK policy show how quickly these things expand beyond their original scope.

Yes, but I wouldn't put "independence movements" in that list. Much as I'm relaxed about the Welsh and Scots' independence movements, for Northern Ireland to do whatever it wants including the current kicking-can-down-road approach, and for any future potential from the Cornish and London vague aspirations that nobody currently takes seriously…

… if I was a hostile foreign power, then I would absolutely support all of those campaigns. And more. (Independence for Langstone! :P)

So, you support the government labeling those movements as "subversion"? Your opinion isn't very clear here. If so, why are those movements so different, or are you supporting the government's move entirely, because of those cases?

Noticing that an issue has two opposing sides with good points doesn't mean I must pick a side to favour, nor even that I am competent to do so.

I'm in no position to weigh these things even in isolation, let alone against each other.

All I can do is say that I sympathise with everyone in the UK who wants independence from Westminster, and yet I would absolutely abuse the hell out of that kind of sentiment if I was a foreign agent trying to undermine the UK. Divide and conquor, very old technique.

I would do the same. But the response should be to root out foreign influence campaigns, and foreign money sponsoring divisive voices. A policy that marks your own people as subversive starts from a disadvantaged position.

It will never cease being funny to me how Eurocrats/Anglocrats pout their chests, proclaim proudly how "free" and "democratic" they are, and then proceed to implement a police state and surveillance regime which the DDR could only dream of. Sure you have "nothing to hide", and "intentions are good". Was that also true for every decade in European history? Will that also be true in 10 years? In 20 years?

Europe has for a long time been the cradle of fascism. This type of behaviour should be seen as more of the same.

>Eurocrats/Anglocrats pout their chests, proclaim proudly how "free" and "democratic" they are

That's weird, I've never met a single one since we don't even have a constitution to enshrine civil liberties.

Just listen to any politician talking about the "dictator" Trump while they arrest people over mean tweets.

oh politicians! Yeah fine I agree, but rest assured no member of the public labours under such delusion.

Things are bad, send help.

It’s not just the use against protest groups but selective use of it, that makes this extra bad. From the article:

> The risk is magnified by the racist and colonial legacy of Britain’s intelligence and policing institutions, whereby ‘loyalties’ and ‘foreign influence’ are racially coded terms. It is clear who the state thinks may constitute an agent of ‘foreign power’. Hall acknowledges the risk of “putting certain nationalities under the spotlight or appearing to question their loyalties”, but this is brushed over by the alleged extraordinary threat of national security risk.

This type of abuse of powers is already becoming normalized in America. For example, Governor Abbott of Texas and other politicians from right-leaning states have explicitly condemned Sharia Law and Islam, and are taking various actions to marginalize those communities. The recent incident with an Afghan national has further radicalized the right.

I can see how Sharia Law has no place in a democratic constitutional republic, but Christianity shares many of the same issues as Islam in terms of supremacist tendencies. And many on the right have no issue openly claiming that America is a Christian nation, and advocate for puritanical integration of their religion into law. This gets no condemnation from the right, and I doubt they’ll use their powers to stop the push for theocracy.

> I can see how Sharia Law has no place in a democratic constitutional republic

If there is a sizable population of people who really want to live like this, then why not? Demographics should be politically represented, no?

The war always comes home.

This is classic "think of the children" backdoors; whether in the legislation or enforcement or literal backdoors. Politicians know that no one is going to publicly come out and say a law to "protect" children shouldn't be passed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com