The point of "seeing parallels" is that it seems to be moving in that direction with no stopping barrier in sight.
Neither UK nor USA nor Europe are currently oppressive dictatorships. However, dissent is already punished without much appeal or protection available to those punished. Laura Poitras, Jacob Appelbaum as first who come into mind in this mind context.
Powerful anti-terrorist measures are appropriate against guy with bomb in backpack planning to kill thousands people tomorrow. They are not appropriate against occupy members essentially guilty of sitting on a side walk.
Similarly, strong anti hacking measures are appropriate for those who just store millions. They are not appropriate against journalists who humiliated powerful companies.
Twisting non-infractions of political opponents into "terrorist acts" is what is happening here. That is essentially little suppression apparatus being build and used, just not being powerful enough yet.
The more of it is build, the harder it is to stop next growth.
This is the problem. The letter of the law actually allows laws designed to stop actual terrorism to be used against those undertaking activities that those in power deem undesirable. Correct me if I am wrong, but almost every country has some set of laws designed to stop journalists from publishing truly dangerous information. Had Britain used those laws to detain Miranda, there would have been outcry, but the question in court would have dealt with something reasonably within the scope of the spirit of the law. Applying anti-terrorism laws to a journalist just screams of press suppression. If I were an investigative journalist in the UK, I'd be spending all my time learning about encryption, privacy software, and how to move my files to secure, overseas locations with multiple backups and fail-safes.
Neither UK nor USA nor Europe are currently oppressive dictatorships. However, dissent is already punished without much appeal or protection available to those punished. Laura Poitras, Jacob Appelbaum as first who come into mind in this mind context.
Powerful anti-terrorist measures are appropriate against guy with bomb in backpack planning to kill thousands people tomorrow. They are not appropriate against occupy members essentially guilty of sitting on a side walk.
Similarly, strong anti hacking measures are appropriate for those who just store millions. They are not appropriate against journalists who humiliated powerful companies.
Twisting non-infractions of political opponents into "terrorist acts" is what is happening here. That is essentially little suppression apparatus being build and used, just not being powerful enough yet.
The more of it is build, the harder it is to stop next growth.