Thread

1. TrackerFF · 1790856519 · focus · HN ↗

   Yeah, people are unfortunately not informed on just how much power border agents wield. Not only in the US, but in many (most I'd believe) other countries, too. I've worked on cases (intel side) where the law-enforcement side would just wait for the surveillance objects to cross the border, as that's where they could do most data collection with the least hassle.

   If for whatever reason you think you're being investigated or surveilled (who knows for what these days, could be enough to just associate with the various protest groups / orgs), you can just assume that the border will be where they'll try to clone / download your data (phones, laptops, whatever)

   1. kypro · 1790857063 · focus · HN ↗

      UK is crazy for this. Border police can detain anyone they like for literally no reason and if they do you have no right to lawyer or no right to silence. Your devices can also be taken and you must hand over any passwords.

      I know the UK is an authoritarian state and not really comparable to the US, but as a Brit it's kinda weird hearing Americans complain about flock cameras and arbitrary border searches – these are common place things in the UK and no one cares (well, apart from me and maybe one or two others).

      1. mvc · 1790857189 · focus · HN ↗

         All the shady stuff the UK does, it does at the behest of the US.

         1. someonebaggy · 1790857545 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't think so. I think the British public genuinely want to live in an authoritarian surveillance state.

            Once they do, they might stop wanting to live in one. But for now they want it.

            1. Ylpertnodi · 1790858268 · focus · HN ↗

               They don't. But cameras - like where I am now - came in gradually, and the public only get to see motorway crashes and the stuff the .gov want you to see. If the aussies have facial recognition, so do the brits.

               One eye. That will rule them all.

            2. OroPla · 1790878824 · focus · HN ↗

               If the country is thoroughly taken over by crime, an authoritarian surveillance state does have its perks. I heard there are no-go zones in London that tourists are warned about, so maybe that is the case over there.

               Citizens had been cheering when the government over in El Salvador was rounding up all the gang members and just locked them up without due process.

               1. goatlover · 1790879396 · focus · HN ↗

                  If a country is "thoroughly taken over by crime", wouldn't it stand to reason that the criminals are running the surveillance state? Certainly starting to feel that way in the US at the federal level.
               2. GenBiot · 1790933612 · focus · HN ↗

                  'No go' zones are massively exaggerated. There are nicer areas and less nice areas, but crime is generally pretty low (compared to other comparable countries) in every area. No one ever describes dodgy parts of US cities as 'no go' areas even though the crime happening there is typically much more prevalent and visible (e.g. Hard drug use on the streets).
            3. tancop · 1790926616 · focus · HN ↗

               The UK is a divided country. Pensioners are the most important demographic for getting reliable votes and they live in fear because they read crime news every day, so they support any measures if they believe it can help put the criminals in line. Most politicians do everything they can to have pensioners on their side. Touching the triple lock was unthinkable for years while liberal and socialist economists were all warning against it.

               Fascists are split between young American influenced ones who want freedom and hate the Online Safety Act, and racists who support anything as long as will make Muslims lives harder. The freedom loving ones are winning today so you see Green and Reform MPs standing together against the government.

               Middle class professionals see Dubai, Singapore and China as good examples and don't mind losing freedom for safety. The rich technocrats running the country are the ones who came up with all this, because they see the world as uneducated masses who need a nanny state to control them. And it helps their investments grow.

               The types of people who are most affected by the surveillance state already gave up on politics years ago because there's no one to represent them. There is no party fighting for young or working class people's actual interests, so they vote for extremists in the hope that something will change.

               When Thatcher said "there is no society" she was wrong at the time, but her successors did everything they could to make it real.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.