zlacker

[parent] [thread] 17 comments
1. gambit+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:04:28
I've lived in the UK for 15 years now and the complete political apathy is probably what bothers me the most about this country. Few years back when they made it so that every ISP had to log your entire browsing history and keep it for a year and 17 different government agencies(including DEFRA, the agriculture ministry!) can access it without a warrant, barely anyone cared. Wasn't really mentioned in public media, other than the standard "we're finally making the internet a safer place against pedos!". When I mentioned it to my friends here the reactions were mostly "meh" to "I don't browse any dodgy sites so why should I care".

The other example is when the government changed the student loan rules by raising the allowed annual cost from 3k to about 9k, and also linked the interest to inflation, and increased the number of years that have to pass before the loan gets written off. So just for comparison - I paid 12k for a 4 year MSc Computer Science course, and it had 1.1% interest attached to it. So I paid mine off within few years of starting to work. My sister did her degree just few years after me, and her degree cost her 40k + her interest is 8%. She has a job but her payments barely cover the interest. She will never pay it off, so it will get written off at some point, maybe - but until then it's a permament 10% tax on all of her earnings. It's bonkers.

My point is - I feel like in any other country, this kind of economic assassination of entire generation of people would be met with people marching on the capital and burning down cars and setting tyres on fire in front of government buildings in protest. In UK barely anyone cared. Still no one cares. There is no political party that even suggests doing anything about it.

So with this new act - it's more of the same. You've heard our government already anyway - saying openly that if you are against this act you are on the same side as Jimmy Saville(one of the worst child rapists this country has ever produced). Essentially you can't be against it in public or you're compared to actual pedophiles. The only politician who even suggests that hey maybe this isn't right is Farage who is a despicable individual for many other reasons.

If you want my personal opinion on why that is - British society is extremely comfortable with the status quo. People would rather shrug their arms than actually do something about anything, we're surrounded by history, by buildings standing for the last 1000 years, stability is like the paramount value here. That's not to say Britain hasn't has some of the greatest civil movements in history - but right now, in 2025, the feeling I see everywhere is just apathy.

replies(5): >>khalic+s >>andai+u2 >>alexis+13 >>foldr+F4 >>jjgree+ca
2. khalic+s[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:08:48
>>gambit+(OP)
Thank you for the insight, I thought the economic hardship after brexit would make them realise the importance of civic duty…
replies(1): >>octo88+jO1
3. andai+u2[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:27:54
>>gambit+(OP)
> this kind of economic assassination of entire generation of people

It's worldwide, is the issue. A national government cannot solve the problems created by multinational investment firms.

On a related note, central banks have expressed their desire to increase unemployment.

replies(1): >>khalic+B3
4. alexis+13[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:33:15
>>gambit+(OP)
For the most part I'd agree, but the Iraq war had a million people (1/60th of the country) who made the effort to protest in London (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm), and similarly every month supporting Palestine (150K-800K).

The legal mechanisms in place don't appear to be adequate as when that number of activists are ignored. Certainly in parallel with the online regulation, the legal right to protest has been restricted by the previous Tory government, and this current one.

What's also concerning is the lack of oversight with MPs, they follow guidelines, which seem to let them off from regular laws (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68503255 using taxpayers money in a private dispute- fraud) (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68841840 reads like fiction).

Why MPs are not FCA regulated is beyond me, corruption should be stamped out.

◧◩
5. khalic+B3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 10:38:30
>>andai+u2
> A national government cannot solve the problems created by multinational investment firms.

This hits hard, I never framed the issue like this. We really are living a corpo-fascist cyberpunk nightmare aren’t we? Minus the purple neons sadly

replies(1): >>westpf+M8
6. foldr+F4[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:47:26
>>gambit+(OP)
>Few years back when they made it so that every ISP had to log your entire browsing history and keep it for a year

This is a significant exaggeration in two respects.

First, SSL ensures that ISPs cannot log your literal browser history. They can log which domains you visit, how often you visit them, how much data was transferred, etc. etc.

Second, the law requires ISPs to be able to retain this data on a specific individual for up to a year if specifically ordered to by the Home Secretary. So it is not the case the ISPs in general are all recording this information for all of their customers. From their point of view they have no interest in doing so. I suspect that ISPs would in fact lack the capacity to store all of this data for all of their customers all of the time.

I don't support the IPA because I don't think the Home Secretary should be able to directly order surveillance of specific individuals. However, I don't think it is necessary to exaggerate the scope of the legislation in order to make a case against it.

replies(2): >>skeezy+W7 >>octo88+5P1
◧◩
7. skeezy+W7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:22:15
>>foldr+F4
> First, SSL ensures that ISPs cannot log your literal browser history.

unless im speaking to a 90 year old, nobody thinks browser history means offline copies of the page

replies(1): >>foldr+b8
◧◩◪
8. foldr+b8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:24:12
>>skeezy+W7
The point is that they don’t see the URLs you visit, only the domains.
replies(1): >>skeezy+qE
◧◩◪
9. westpf+M8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:27:32
>>khalic+B3
Be the change you want to see the in world. Incorportate neon lights more into your life.
10. jjgree+ca[view] [source] 2025-08-15 11:37:29
>>gambit+(OP)
student loan rules by raising the allowed annual cost from 3k to about 9k, and also linked the interest to inflation

Not quite, "inflation" is CPI, as the government will tell you endlessly if you work for it and ask for a pay rise. Student loans go up by RPI (which is almost always higher).

◧◩◪◨
11. skeezy+qE[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 14:35:53
>>foldr+b8
are you sure about that? ive read its meta-info but didnt see that particular caveat
replies(1): >>foldr+qJ
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. foldr+qJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 15:00:09
>>skeezy+qE
The URL is sent over the E2E encrypted connection. How do you suppose the ISP would be able to see it? Maybe three letter agencies have back doors into this kind of stuff, but your ISP doesn’t.
◧◩
13. octo88+jO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 21:24:44
>>khalic+s
After COVID*

Oh wait it's a bit hard to differentiate isn't it, given the timing...

◧◩
14. octo88+5P1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 21:29:31
>>foldr+F4
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/internet-provi...

> Two internet providers are tracking and collecting the websites visited by their customers as part of a secretive Home Office trial, designed to work out if a national bulk surveillance system would be useful for national security and law enforcement.

> Home Office sources indicated that it was taking advantage of abilities in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to test what data can be acquired, how useful it is in practice, and how it might be used in investigations.

replies(1): >>foldr+7q3
◧◩◪
15. foldr+7q3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-16 14:13:11
>>octo88+5P1
Again, this refers to the domains, not the full URL. As a factual point, ISPs do not retain full browser history, and the IPA does not require them to do so for all customers all the time. It's true that we do not know how much data ISPs are in fact recording. I agree that this is concerning. I am opposed to the IPA. However, I also think that we should take the time to get the facts exactly right when criticizing it. This is understandably an emotive issue for a lot of folks on HN, and there is a tendency to let factual inaccuracies slide if they are part of an argument against internet surveillance. In my opinion the IPA is bad enough as is, and it is not necessary to exaggerate its effects in order to make a strong case against it.
replies(1): >>octo88+2q5
◧◩◪◨
16. octo88+2q5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-17 13:05:22
>>foldr+7q3
All this is a bit moot and a distraction when we know Tempora, Karma Police etc exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...

replies(1): >>foldr+B66
◧◩◪◨⬒
17. foldr+B66[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-17 18:54:15
>>octo88+2q5
I am just correcting some possible misconceptions about what UK ISPs are required to do by law. If you are worried about surveillance by intelligence agencies, then you might be right to be worried, but that's a separate issue.
replies(1): >>octo88+Kea
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
18. octo88+Kea[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-19 09:31:12
>>foldr+B66
> If you are worried about surveillance by intelligence agencies, then you might be right to be worried, but that's a separate issue.

A childish and pathetic comment

[go to top]