we need to cut out the bad parts to save the system
I think you meant, "Cut out the bad parts and rebuild the entire system from first principles", there, but I agree with the sentiment. Courts ought to be essentially open and even-handed instead of covering up systemic corruption and biased in favour of the rich and powerful.
I am wondering which party figures it out first... that supporting a lying politician gets everyone no where.
Apart from getting everyone elected to office and/or in a position to negotiate favourable laws and "trade" deals to make themselves and cronies even more of the already ludicrous money they already control, you mean? Of course it doesn't get "normal" people anywhere, but they don't count, do they?
No, Edward Snowden had not sparked a global debate about privacy
Well he's sort of right, in that aware people in the UK knew privacy was being screwed long before Snowdon and attempted to debate it... but the UK Government response has always been similar to the rest of his tirade - i.e. sticking his fingers in his ears and going "La, la la la la! I'm not listening!"
Re: Would you like a border sham? Would you like it Sam-I-am?
Where "border" includes international airports, so by far the majority of the U.S., and particularly the majority of its citizens, are not under the protection of the Bill of Rights these days.
Doesn't even need to include airports to be outrageous... A quick look suggests that an area over 5x the size of the entire United Kingdom is encompassed by "100 miles from the actual border".
According to the ACLU, the "border" exemption applies to approx 2/3 of the US population! (~200 million people!)
From this side of the pond it increasinly looks like the US government is like: "Oh, yeah... the Constitution... fabulous document... in the abstract. Let's just not have it apply to actual people, right?"
My bank has never, not once, called my and requested a password. In fact, my bank has (obnoxiously) often sent me emails telling me they cannot access my password, and will never request it on a phone call or email
Yeah, that's what they say and as far as your online password that's correct. However, phone bank services etc often use a "password" as shorthand, or sometimes certain characters of a passphrase. Failing that, they will usually verify your identity with personal details such as DOB, mother's maiden name etc... in the case of insurance, sometimes make/model/reg of vehicle.
All this I have no problem with.... except when they phone you and request this kind of info, which (I suppose US banks may not), UK banks etc do all the time.
And no, I don't give out that kind of information... I find the call centre number independently and ring them back to discuss whatever it is so I can be sure I'm actually talking to the company they claim to be.... I've even complained about the practice and got told "Well that's just how we do it and we have to prevent fraud" - basically a "We're doing it to cover our ass, not yours"
My point is that this kind of practice conditions most people to simply answer this kind of question to (at least) anyone that they think they have a trust relationship with. People putting their password into the site of a "trusted brand" is hardly surprising considering.
It also shows that the one-sided nature of corporate sovereignty -- where companies can sue nations, but not the other way around -- not only tilts the playing field unfairly towards investors, but encourages them to abuse the system even further. Both are compelling reasons to drop corporate sovereignty chapters in trade agreements completely.
Well, yes indeed.... but the argument; "Our corporation basically bought you the election and you wouldn't want those 'fact finding' trips to stop either, would you?" is far more compelling and suggests this kind of thing is unlikely to stop any time soon...
This was my question too... talk about double standards. IANAL, but surely you've got perjury, perhaps a contempt of court and would Apple not also have a cause of action to sue for having been dragged into court with all the associated costs under false pretences?
...or is breaking the law something that only happens to people who are not agents of the state?
We need to consider that in a free society there are limits to what can be "stopped".
...Though I can never tell if years of governments promising a magic "stop" button has caused it, or whether a large chunk of the population believing there is a magic "stop" button leads governments to promise one.
The "anti-lobbying" clause to be inserted into new grant agreements will create a barrier to evidence-based policymaking and will have unintended effects on the work of [Parliament's advisory] select committees.
"Because, damnit, how is a good politician supposed to pass laws based on blind faith if you keep coming at me with all these facts!?"
So the UK as a whole (the people and the governments) have perhaps a different view of things because of their experiences.
You seem to be attempting to imply that the UK does this crap because "we know how scary is really is out there and this is what's really needed".
Wrong... in fact 180 degrees wrong. Certainly any UK citizen alive in the '80s is familiar with the threat of terrorism more intimately and immediately than the mot ofthe US but that lends a rather more sensible perspective. Such people know that, while terrible, the actual threat is small - potentially even vanishingly small - and barely worth more than a slightly cautious thought in day-to-day life.
The issue is not whether the UK population wants this law (it doesn't)(, the issue is whether the UK government wants this law that will in fact do little to combat "terrorism" that is not already being done) for other reasons and whether the UK population is little enough aware of the real dangers of it to swallow the propaganda or only raise a mild and polite English protest.
I haven't flown commercial in a while, but my understanding is that it's not great fun going through security. But we make the concession because -- it's a big intrusion on our privacy -- but we recognize that it is important.
Nope. We "make the concession" NOT because we "recognise it's important", but because our personal reasons for travel are sufficiently important to put up with the annoying and intrusive crap and because enough people have yet to stand up and say, "You know this is totally bullshit, right?"
Looks like you're 2 for 2 on being wrong about security front, Mr. Obama...