This is how democracy dies in the darkness
I don't know how it started, but their own "war on terror" must have helped to hit that top spot.
Monitoring internet is just the same. "Eyes everywhere". The technology changed (people walking on the street vs people browsing the internet), but the practice remains.
And to show where the focus is (and it's not to serve and protect) the amount of corruption in the UK police (even rapists & murderers) are only caught after years and years, and only after the victims go through hell and high water to get justice. (that last paragraph is a bit provocative - but true)
With that said, there are still a lot of state-operated cameras. Mostly to make money from traffic infraction fines, curiously that's one area where governments don't ever seem to cut police funding :-)
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/po...
OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.
1) There is no such thing as anonymity from state actors on the internet. Apart from anything else, semantic analysis can accurately indicate the identity of the writer of content - never mind the full take interception that has been a fact of life in the U.K. for over a decade now.
2) I really don’t want to bring the hellfire that rained on said friend down upon him once more, or upon myself. They crushed him like a damned insect. If I were to name him, you’d just say “oh, the pedophile. You can ignore anything he says, he’s a pedophile”. He is not, is anything but, and the “evidence” of his transgression that was presented doesn’t exist - the court transcripts from the incident in question show an entirely different picture from what the papers and prime minister threw at him. This made me acutely understand that the truth is entirely irrelevant, when you are up against the powers that manufacture reality.
The UK govenrment monitors UK citizens internet people have already been prossecuted simply for having knowledge of this court case which in the UK is illegal. The fear of surveillance doesn't stop her the reality of the government survaling people and then acting on it does.
"after last week’s emergence of secretly recorded comments he made about bribes in the British newspaper industry and the phone-hacking probes."
I remember this happening at the time. I don't follow 'media news' much, but I do remember the scandal due to the 'recording' and how they were going about recording calls, SMS, etc.
But sure, I can’t see any reason.
Yes, I did. I only know what the OP said, and that it's almost definitely about Rupert Murdoch. Who was the individual?
Surely it's OK to keep secret if it WAS a matter of national security? Quite possibility that is open to debate in this case, but it seems sensible at least to have this provision in law?
There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to try him, but it was also deemed a risk to national security for any part of it to be public. He was evidently acquitted, or perhaps proceedings still drag on, with him wagering on a visit from the reaper before judgement is passed - oh irony.
There was a rather incredible turn of events where one of the parties who had been asked/told to be involved tried to go to the press (not owned by said mogul), and was promptly ratted out to the government, and the prime minister of the day then went on the ten o’clock news to denounce them, bringing their rather comfortable cosy-to-the-establishment life to a crashing end. They became a national hate figure overnight.
Really, we don’t even know what we don’t know — at least in this case we know that antitrust proceedings are underway.