[rwmj]

The UK, but my answer would equally well apply to the US or the majority of democratic nations. There's not a Big Conspiracy. There's just lots of people, often stupid and ill-informed, but nevertheless people voting for what we want.

[betterunix]

"There's just lots of people, often stupid and ill-informed, but nevertheless people voting for what we want."

How exactly do you think uninformed people are voting for what they want? The USA is a country where people are surprised by what is illegal.

[rwmj]

Firstly, it is possible to go out and inform people. Best to get off HN and out of the house, because only a tiny number of pretty intelligent people use HN and all of us have similar backgrounds and beliefs.

Secondly, although I think HN-readers would make great voters on subjects we care about, eg. how the Internet should be regulated, yet I'm sure we'd be mostly stupid and ill-informed about things that we don't know or care about, eg. farming regulations, or sickness benefits for elderly mentally-ill patients, or a thousand other specialized subjects.

[betterunix]

"yet I'm sure we'd be mostly stupid and ill-informed about things that we don't know or care about"

That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we are expected to follow laws that we know nothing about, particularly since ignorance of the law is not considered a valid defense in this country. If you are not running a farm, you are not expected to adhere to farming regulations and you could not violate those regulations. On the other hand, if you use a computer -- and the majority of US citizens do -- you are expected to abide by computer laws.

Right now, there are a lot of laws that everyone is expected to follow but that few people are aware of. Most Virginia residents had no idea that opposite-sex cohabitation was illegal when that law was repealed -- millions of people in that state could have faced prosecution for a law they were never aware of (and in the 90s a woman was threatened with prosecution as part of an attempt to shut down her business). Typically, the police are unaware of these laws and so most people will never be arrested even if they are in violation. On the other hand, when the government wants to prosecute someone (e.g. Alexander Shulgin), all they need to do is look hard enough to find a law the person violated. Sometimes the government seeks nothing more than to set a precedent (Aaron Swartz) that would allow them to prosecute others. That is where the real danger lies: the government is limited not by the lack of criminal laws but by its own inefficiency in searching the legal code.

Most people are entirely unaware of this situation and believe that as long as they are not harming anyone they are safe. It is hard to raise awareness, because most people do not see anyone being prosecuted in this way, and even when they see it they usually have a hard time feeling sympathy for the defendant (e.g. Lori Drew). After all, who can feel sorry for someone who collects this sort of artwork:

http://www.japanator.com/man-arrested-for-manga-collection-t...

[jdkx]

It's not a conspiracy but the effect is just the same. Selective enforcement of laws that make everyone a criminal allows people in positions of power to target anyone they wish. This is made worse in countries where penalties are very severe, like the US.

[drharris]

This assumes people are intelligent enough to know what they actually want. Not being mean, just a sad truth about the state of culture right now.