The real target: journalists, activists and whistleblowers

This isn't true on the whole in this context. How does the UK's OSA target journalists, activists and whistleblowers?

I think this conspiratorial view of these laws is doing more harm than good and ignores the entire issues that these laws are designed to address.

The problem is we create overly broad laws because:

- There is a problem with child predation / terrorism - There is a lack of understanding on how technology works - There is faith that the system works and won't ever be abused - There are too few people in community self policing these issues.

Addressing any one of these in a different way will negate the need for laws like the UK were trying to implement.

Creating broad gives the police more ability to enforce their spirit. I think that's generally a bad thing when the laws are to do with civil liberties. But maybe a good thing when dealing with, for example, domestic abuse.

	▲	johnnyanmac a day ago \| parent [-]
		>How does the UK's OSA target journalists, activists and whistleblowers? The general context is it targets "anyone who angers the government". Being able to ban your entire internet if this becomes widespread becomes a very powerful deterrent to opposition. \ >Creating broad gives the police more ability to enforce their spirit. I think that's generally a bad thing when the laws are to do with civil liberties. Given the histories of "enforcing spirits" for both the US and the UK police forces, I'm not sure how or why you'd have faith in their interpretations. The police can bring up your info themselves without needing the ability to cut off someone's entire digitial landscape.