> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act
> I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.
> I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.
> I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
This is what I find so terrifying about the terrorism act. I cannot understand how this is legal. The right to silence and privacy should be a human right.
> The examining officer may only stop and question a person for the purpose of allowing a determination of whether that person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of “terrorism” as defined in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000
I guess that makes sense... But then in the end of the same paragraph:
> An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism.
So, essentially anyone can be examined for any reason (or no reason at all)?
UK law is such complete ass. There is no getting around just how stupidly bad the Parliamentary Supremacy doctrine is. Parliament passed it so it is constitutional. There aren't enough insults in the world for the people who would think any of this qualifies as a good idea.
The UK is the epitome of a surveillance society. It’s very creepy. Cctv everywhere, no right to silence or counsel because terrorism… it’s a surveillance state.
Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to?
I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else.
Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL
I ran into a similar problem entering the US on a ferry from the Bahamas.
I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.
This is the importance of the state in keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear with their propagandists in the media. It's what allows garbage legislation like this to proceed in the first place.
At CPH:DOX this year they showed the documentary "Phantom Parrot" about human rights activist Muhammad Rabbani that was prosecuted for refusing to give up his passwords at a border crossing into the UK.
The surveillance programme, codenamed Phantom Parrot, is designed to copy the personal data of individuals at airports and border crossings.
> Craig John Murray is a Scottish author, human rights campaigner, journalist, and former diplomat [...] he became a political activist, campaigning for human rights and for transparency in global politics as well as for the independence of Scotland [...] Murray was one of few people granted access to Julian Assange's extradition hearing which started in the Old Bailey on 7 September 2020. He published detailed reports of each day's proceedings on his website.
Seems absolutely bananas that law enforcement can cite anti-terrorism laws in order to confiscate and detain an individual with absolutely zero ties to anything violent. What terrorism are they stopping here?
In the UK there's the concept of a 'proscribed organisation', that is an organisation which is illegal and the promotion of that organisation is illegal.
I think most people in the UK think of this law as being about the Troubles and banning the IRA, etc, but it looks like the list is mostly Islamic extremist groups now.
This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)
The UK is very worried about Scottish Independence. Mr Murray is a very vocal supporter of that, and an active figurehead in the independence movement.
I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him.
As we predicted when the UK proposed these monstrous laws: they are being abused to go after anyone who annoys the establishment. That's what they were always intended to do. The whole "terrorist" thing was a way of getting popular support for them, just like the popular fears of child abuse have been used to pass yet more police state surveillance laws.
Take this however you will - I'm pretty far from Craig Murray politically but he seems sincere in his beliefs and doesn't seem to care who he upsets.
And in terms of who he has upset, he has lots of recent run-ins with the SNP in Scotland. He is currently appealing a sentence he got for "jigsaw-identifying" the woman/women that accused Alex Salmond (previous head of SNP) of rape/sexual assault, on the basis that he believed that Alex Salmond was falsely accused on the basis of some SNP in-fighting.
Outside of what Craig is alleging, SNP the party seems to see themselves as synonymous with the Scottish government and several senior legal positions seem to be in their gift with constitutional implications.
He cites "support for Palestine" in his first paragraph. It's not "zero ties to anything violent" if you didn't sleep through the last month. I mean, he probably isn't a member of Hamas or anything like that, but he very well may have donated to Hamas-affiliated NGO, either knowingly or unknowingly. It'd be not a huge link but also not zero link. He also publicly endorsed Hamas and Hezbolah in his tweets and dared the security services to arrest him. Also not zero. Well, now he got his wish as if seems.
> I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide.
The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a poorly stated context of self-defense.
I was once investigated for terrorism by Special Branch in the UK in about 1996.
They came to my parent's house at a weekend to question me. I'd just happened to have gone home for the weekend to see my folks. I was running perhaps the largest warez site on the Internet at the time, so I thought I was super busted.
The detective sat me down and said to me, "What do you know about a plot to kill the President?" and I burst out laughing, mostly out of relief. He stares daggers at me and says "You're not taking me very seriously, are you Mr Charles?"
Luckily he did not detain me. We came to the conclusion that one of the hundreds of people I'd given an account to on one of my Linux servers had sent a death threat to [email protected]. Apparently it contained information about the president's movements that was "not well known."
I never saw the email, but the detective called me on the day they were going out to pick Kushil up. I'd given him an account a few months previously so he could play MUDs and download porn. Seemed like a really nice guy. The detective read the end of the email to me over the phone, "Come get my ass you bastards," it said, and then had his address and map co-ordinates to his house.
Arbitrary search and seizure at the border has been a steady feature in western countries for, like, the solid part of the past two decade. I have travelled to the USA three times during this period and during every single visit I had been pulled aside by the TSA for extra screening (SSSS). In the last 5 years or so when I return to my home country of New Zealand, I have been repeatedly searched by customs which has never happened before.
I would not be surprised at all if my name is on a list somewhere, despite me being very much inactive on social media and does not subscribe to any remotely radical ideology. Perhaps as a unmarried millennial male I just had that Unabomber vibe and must be stopped before I turn.
I do sympathize with Mr Murray , however there is really no need to act like it was a brand new development when similar stuff has been going on for pretty much my entire adult life and his recent career.
The reason for this is the expansion of the TSA (or airport security body). When you have a very small number of people/devices, you just let people in. When you have a large apparatus, you make use of it. And the large apparatus will try to find work for itself by stopping as many people as humanly possible. They'll also stop the most normal people out-there because they tend to make less of a fuss about it.
Recently, I flew SFO and they seemed to have a shortage of TSA officers or something (all security booths were empty). There were a couple old guys, they just randomly selected people for screening but everyone else were just let go without baggage screening.
While scanning your comment history looking for unusual interests, I found an intriguing comment that's unrelated to this topic: "Cash is already heavily monitored and most petty criminals have already moved on to Amazon gift cards."
Can you describe what you mean when you say cash is heavily monitored?
The possibility of no-trace hidden partitions I can’t disprove the existence of does not seem like it would serve me well in the backroom of some government facility where my rights have been revoked.
"Here's my unlocked phone, officer!" - "There are no calls, emails or any history in this phone. Are you claiming you have not used this phone to call anybody or interact with any social media?" - "Yes, officer, I never did!" - "Excellent, here are records from your phone company, showing this phone ID making $CRAPTON of calls, and here are records from social media companies showing the IP assigned to this phone accessing your accounts. You just lied to a government agent, and we have a proof of it right here with us, we don't even have to do any work for it. Welcome to hell!".
Or, if you get smart - "Oh yes, officer, I did, but I just reset this phone this morning, because I forgot the password!" - "Too bad, but then you won't object us seizing this phone for further investigation, given that there's nothing on it. There's nothing on it, right? No tricky OSes, no double partitions, no secret codes, nothing like that?" - "Oh yes, officer, absolutely nothing like that!" - "OK, our forensic team would be glad to hear that". In a week: "Our forensic team discovered the presence of Hide My Real Data Super Secure Double Password Toolkit on the phone. You have lied to a government agent and now are under indictment for it. Welcome to hell!".
The modern government of the UK has, as far as I can tell, become a raging pseudo-fascist nanny state of grotesque proportions. It combines the worst aspects of old fashioned authoritarianism with smothering feel-good nannyism to repress individual freedoms in all sorts of creative ways that serve every side of the bureaucratic spectrum while persistently moving the ratchet forward on fundamental state power.
That a country which for centuries was considered a bastion of fundamental individual freedoms should pass hideous deformities of the rule of law like the Terrorism Act (among the other things they've been doing) is sad.
>This is an enormous abuse of human rights. The abuse of process in refusing both a lawyer and the right to remain silent, the inquiry into perfectly legal campaigning which is in no way terrorism-associated, the political questioning, the financial snooping and the seizure of material related to my private life, were all based on an utterly fake claim that I am associated with terrorism.
It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but when you enter the UK you give up your human rights. Easy mistake to make assuming you had those here.
I'd love to donate money to him and help but I live in the UK and don't want to be accused of supporting terrorism or some other nonsense. It's an idiotic situation to be in as a society.
I get the impression that the way the law was being interpreted was that there is a window of one hour in which:
a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent
AND
b) one doesn't have the right to a lawyer.
I could imagine a potential world in which one or the other might briefly apply, but both together would be a complete license for abuse of course. So that can't be entirely right.
Reading the actual text of the law [1] I can't quite see how that would be the intended interpretation. I hope someone with more knowledge of British Law can clarify.
As a sidenote has anyone else been surprised by the extreme political iron-fist and omnipresent media control to side with Israel?
When talking to colleagues, family, and even my Israeli friends there's a plurality of opinion, sadness, serious discussions, but when looking at mainstream media, even relatively moderate it seems like everyone and their grandma is screaming for bombs and are "tired of the stupid poor palestinians" like everyone forgot the enormous plights they have gone through, the hundreds of thousands dead over decades, the property stolen by settlers and that they were mostly moderate farmers before they were annexed and carpet bombed (There's countless of videos of this).
It's like living in a Black Mirror episode.
The worlds largest military carpet bombing a tiny strip of land and a downtrodden people, and i have never seen politicians this bloodthirsty.
At the same time i see very, very few public figures, colleagues included having the courage to call out the atrocities done by Israel continuously, for fear of "something" while there's never ending stories from the opposite side.
Can anyone tell me what that something is - and if this is some extreme geopolitical importance of Israel to the west that the idea of the western "free society" has finally come to some screeching halt?
How can there be such an enormous difference between "the man on the street" and the media landscape?
My grandparents fled war, and the way the west talking and behaving is so incredibly shameful to me, but i don't recognise this war hunger when i turn off the TV.
I hope that stories like this make people realise the rights that they have given up and start campaigning and voting to get them back again.
Terrorism laws are so obviously hugely disproportionate to what they allegedly protect against at this point.
Governments should balance two kinds of freedom. "freedom to (do as we please)" and "freedom from (others harming us)".
If these terrorism laws were really about protecting "freedom from" then they would also have a blanket ban on cars, guns, knives, alcohol and tobacco, all of which cause orders of magnitude more harm. Of course bans like that have been historically attempted and populations very clearly told Governments attempting to enforce them in which direction to fuck off to.
But these kind of abuses are a lot easier for people to ignore when they always happen to "someone else" but "probably will never happen to me".
Maybe some lawyer can explain to some complete noobie. I thought you always have the right to not answer any questions until you have your lawyer present, and that you have the right to that one phone call to a lawyer. My knowledge comes entirely from movies and novels. I understand that there could be exceptions, but what is the basic rationale of the exception here? The UK is a country of laws, and generally the laws are not absurd. What is the extend of this exception? Can the information they get from you be used in a court of law to incriminate you?
> I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
Veracrypt hidden partition, plausible deniability, use it.
> They asked how considered my tweets were
That’s exactly the reason why, he definitely made a tweet that put him in some arbitrary list that feeds into an official “anti-terrorism” list, believe it or not, there’s a whole business and scheme on adding people on these lists and cancel them just because they tweet something, and sometimes, even taking an out-of-context and make an article about it somewhere, and use that as a “reference” to cancel you and put you in many hidden lists. Besides what some are mentioning here about privacy act and what not, I would go in a different approach, these lists should be searchable online just like any public records, and you have the right to challenge it in court if someone put your name in there and sue for it, but keeping it secret meaning there’s a hidden entity actively blackmailing individuals for their thoughts, the “CI/CD” for these lists goes like this: article about you (fake or real won’t matter) => some unknown list maintained by shady organization => feeding into an official country anti-terrorism list => feeding into a regional one like EU or similar, leading to travel ban, banks ban, etc. and none of them will question the source of such list.
What did they say was the crime? They had to suspect you did something. A probable cause. In the United States if you are suspected of cyber-terrorism they will just breach your WiFi/router and take the information without your knowledge. They will create zero days and exploit your devices. All under the terrorism statute. That’s why it’s best to never attach you iPhone to your home WiFi networks.
I hope some of you realize that this is not normal, and not common in all the western world as some of you suggest. There are several countries where the right of any individual is valued much higher than whatever that terror bullshit is. Any EU citizen has more personality rights.
This is really disturbing and would this be my government I would try to change whatever I can or flee.
[+] [-] kypro|2 years ago|reply
> I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.
> I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.
> I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
This is what I find so terrifying about the terrorism act. I cannot understand how this is legal. The right to silence and privacy should be a human right.
[+] [-] diggan|2 years ago|reply
> Who can be examined?
> The examining officer may only stop and question a person for the purpose of allowing a determination of whether that person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of “terrorism” as defined in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000
I guess that makes sense... But then in the end of the same paragraph:
> An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism.
So, essentially anyone can be examined for any reason (or no reason at all)?
[+] [-] rmbyrro|2 years ago|reply
I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy.
No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world".
Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly at any moment.
[+] [-] coldtea|2 years ago|reply
Simple: power balance determines what's legal and what's not.
[+] [-] Nasrudith|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ornornor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cataphract|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] t0lo|2 years ago|reply
I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else.
Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL
[+] [-] KenArrari|2 years ago|reply
I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.
[+] [-] EricE|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coolThingsFirst|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kawsper|2 years ago|reply
The surveillance programme, codenamed Phantom Parrot, is designed to copy the personal data of individuals at airports and border crossings.
There's a trailer for it here: https://youtu.be/8QzZteMWbww
[+] [-] fullarr|2 years ago|reply
Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out.
He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to
Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored
[+] [-] hulitu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkclouds|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] neilwilson|2 years ago|reply
It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal.
Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law.
It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote.
There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and their representatives.
[+] [-] diggan|2 years ago|reply
> Craig John Murray is a Scottish author, human rights campaigner, journalist, and former diplomat [...] he became a political activist, campaigning for human rights and for transparency in global politics as well as for the independence of Scotland [...] Murray was one of few people granted access to Julian Assange's extradition hearing which started in the Old Bailey on 7 September 2020. He published detailed reports of each day's proceedings on his website.
Seems absolutely bananas that law enforcement can cite anti-terrorism laws in order to confiscate and detain an individual with absolutely zero ties to anything violent. What terrorism are they stopping here?
[+] [-] semanticist|2 years ago|reply
Hamas is on the proscribed organisation list.
Here's the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12
And the list of proscribed organisations and a more accessible explanation of the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...
I think most people in the UK think of this law as being about the Troubles and banning the IRA, etc, but it looks like the list is mostly Islamic extremist groups now.
This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)
[+] [-] marcus_holmes|2 years ago|reply
I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him.
As we predicted when the UK proposed these monstrous laws: they are being abused to go after anyone who annoys the establishment. That's what they were always intended to do. The whole "terrorist" thing was a way of getting popular support for them, just like the popular fears of child abuse have been used to pass yet more police state surveillance laws.
[+] [-] gadders|2 years ago|reply
And in terms of who he has upset, he has lots of recent run-ins with the SNP in Scotland. He is currently appealing a sentence he got for "jigsaw-identifying" the woman/women that accused Alex Salmond (previous head of SNP) of rape/sexual assault, on the basis that he believed that Alex Salmond was falsely accused on the basis of some SNP in-fighting.
Outside of what Craig is alleging, SNP the party seems to see themselves as synonymous with the Scottish government and several senior legal positions seem to be in their gift with constitutional implications.
[+] [-] Zisko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8organicbits|2 years ago|reply
The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a poorly stated context of self-defense.
[+] [-] qingcharles|2 years ago|reply
They came to my parent's house at a weekend to question me. I'd just happened to have gone home for the weekend to see my folks. I was running perhaps the largest warez site on the Internet at the time, so I thought I was super busted.
The detective sat me down and said to me, "What do you know about a plot to kill the President?" and I burst out laughing, mostly out of relief. He stares daggers at me and says "You're not taking me very seriously, are you Mr Charles?"
Luckily he did not detain me. We came to the conclusion that one of the hundreds of people I'd given an account to on one of my Linux servers had sent a death threat to [email protected]. Apparently it contained information about the president's movements that was "not well known."
I never saw the email, but the detective called me on the day they were going out to pick Kushil up. I'd given him an account a few months previously so he could play MUDs and download porn. Seemed like a really nice guy. The detective read the end of the email to me over the phone, "Come get my ass you bastards," it said, and then had his address and map co-ordinates to his house.
Nobody ever saw Kushil again after that.
[+] [-] Laforet|2 years ago|reply
I would not be surprised at all if my name is on a list somewhere, despite me being very much inactive on social media and does not subscribe to any remotely radical ideology. Perhaps as a unmarried millennial male I just had that Unabomber vibe and must be stopped before I turn.
I do sympathize with Mr Murray , however there is really no need to act like it was a brand new development when similar stuff has been going on for pretty much my entire adult life and his recent career.
[+] [-] csomar|2 years ago|reply
Recently, I flew SFO and they seemed to have a shortage of TSA officers or something (all security booths were empty). There were a couple old guys, they just randomly selected people for screening but everyone else were just let go without baggage screening.
[+] [-] lilsoso|2 years ago|reply
Can you describe what you mean when you say cash is heavily monitored?
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Condition1952|2 years ago|reply
It is a real atrocity that most devices are unable to lie for us when a wrong password is typed and create a mock profile to waste time
[+] [-] quirino|2 years ago|reply
You can even set a different fingerprint so that different fingers unlock different profiles.
The feature is called Second Space
[+] [-] r3trohack3r|2 years ago|reply
Though I’m not sure I want it.
The possibility of no-trace hidden partitions I can’t disprove the existence of does not seem like it would serve me well in the backroom of some government facility where my rights have been revoked.
[+] [-] noman-land|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|2 years ago|reply
Or, if you get smart - "Oh yes, officer, I did, but I just reset this phone this morning, because I forgot the password!" - "Too bad, but then you won't object us seizing this phone for further investigation, given that there's nothing on it. There's nothing on it, right? No tricky OSes, no double partitions, no secret codes, nothing like that?" - "Oh yes, officer, absolutely nothing like that!" - "OK, our forensic team would be glad to hear that". In a week: "Our forensic team discovered the presence of Hide My Real Data Super Secure Double Password Toolkit on the phone. You have lied to a government agent and now are under indictment for it. Welcome to hell!".
[+] [-] spydum|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] southernplaces7|2 years ago|reply
That a country which for centuries was considered a bastion of fundamental individual freedoms should pass hideous deformities of the rule of law like the Terrorism Act (among the other things they've been doing) is sad.
[+] [-] Arch-TK|2 years ago|reply
It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but when you enter the UK you give up your human rights. Easy mistake to make assuming you had those here.
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddmf|2 years ago|reply
>"But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support." >“If that is a crime, send me back to jail.” > https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511
You can't openly support a terrorist group in the UK.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|2 years ago|reply
a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent
b) one doesn't have the right to a lawyer.I could imagine a potential world in which one or the other might briefly apply, but both together would be a complete license for abuse of course. So that can't be entirely right.
Reading the actual text of the law [1] I can't quite see how that would be the intended interpretation. I hope someone with more knowledge of British Law can clarify.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
(edited for clarity)
[+] [-] kossTKR|2 years ago|reply
When talking to colleagues, family, and even my Israeli friends there's a plurality of opinion, sadness, serious discussions, but when looking at mainstream media, even relatively moderate it seems like everyone and their grandma is screaming for bombs and are "tired of the stupid poor palestinians" like everyone forgot the enormous plights they have gone through, the hundreds of thousands dead over decades, the property stolen by settlers and that they were mostly moderate farmers before they were annexed and carpet bombed (There's countless of videos of this).
It's like living in a Black Mirror episode.
The worlds largest military carpet bombing a tiny strip of land and a downtrodden people, and i have never seen politicians this bloodthirsty.
At the same time i see very, very few public figures, colleagues included having the courage to call out the atrocities done by Israel continuously, for fear of "something" while there's never ending stories from the opposite side.
Can anyone tell me what that something is - and if this is some extreme geopolitical importance of Israel to the west that the idea of the western "free society" has finally come to some screeching halt?
How can there be such an enormous difference between "the man on the street" and the media landscape?
My grandparents fled war, and the way the west talking and behaving is so incredibly shameful to me, but i don't recognise this war hunger when i turn off the TV.
[+] [-] sixhobbits|2 years ago|reply
Terrorism laws are so obviously hugely disproportionate to what they allegedly protect against at this point.
Governments should balance two kinds of freedom. "freedom to (do as we please)" and "freedom from (others harming us)".
If these terrorism laws were really about protecting "freedom from" then they would also have a blanket ban on cars, guns, knives, alcohol and tobacco, all of which cause orders of magnitude more harm. Of course bans like that have been historically attempted and populations very clearly told Governments attempting to enforce them in which direction to fuck off to.
But these kind of abuses are a lot easier for people to ignore when they always happen to "someone else" but "probably will never happen to me".
[+] [-] credit_guy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tamimio|2 years ago|reply
Veracrypt hidden partition, plausible deniability, use it.
> They asked how considered my tweets were
That’s exactly the reason why, he definitely made a tweet that put him in some arbitrary list that feeds into an official “anti-terrorism” list, believe it or not, there’s a whole business and scheme on adding people on these lists and cancel them just because they tweet something, and sometimes, even taking an out-of-context and make an article about it somewhere, and use that as a “reference” to cancel you and put you in many hidden lists. Besides what some are mentioning here about privacy act and what not, I would go in a different approach, these lists should be searchable online just like any public records, and you have the right to challenge it in court if someone put your name in there and sue for it, but keeping it secret meaning there’s a hidden entity actively blackmailing individuals for their thoughts, the “CI/CD” for these lists goes like this: article about you (fake or real won’t matter) => some unknown list maintained by shady organization => feeding into an official country anti-terrorism list => feeding into a regional one like EU or similar, leading to travel ban, banks ban, etc. and none of them will question the source of such list.
[+] [-] darksoulpants|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herbst|2 years ago|reply
This is really disturbing and would this be my government I would try to change whatever I can or flee.
[+] [-] swader999|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biolurker1|2 years ago|reply
Weird that he got questioned you say?
[+] [-] voz_|2 years ago|reply