11–20 of 60 posts
Besides, how do they think this will play out with financial transactions? Government websites? Heck, any website that uses https? Stupid idea.
> The context here is that France and Germany have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks over the past year, including a co-ordinated attack in Paris in November 2015 that killed 130; a July 2016 attack in Nice where a truck driver ploughed into crowds celebrating Bastille Day; and a stabbing in a church in Northern France that killed an elderly priest. To put this in perspective, about 700 people would die from homi…
That means the increase in homicide from recent terrorism is anywhere between 14 and 21%. That's not insignificant however you look at it.
Those 600,000 people are going to die either way, but those 150 people a year are still up in the air.
Doesn't mean that cancer isn't a bigger issue on the grand scale, but having people see terrorism as a natural disaster is a bit of a stretch.
With the number of spam emails that look like the output from bad Markov Chain generators, you could send messages in clear-text, using a simple traditional code, and it would be drowned in the noise.
I don't think that it's possible to ban encryption. I can use gpg to encrypt anything and send it as a text via any channel. I can do anything in my computer. They could ban encryption for wide audience, that's true. But those who need to hide something, they will have access to encryption.
Hypothetically, they (actually, we, as governments are just representative of the voters) can ban encryption. Which means that any communication with no signal naturally emerging from noise is suspicious, thus they/we can ask you to justify yourself and keep you locked until you demonstrate that what you were hiding doesn't represent a threat for the community. And then give you a fine you anyway, so next time you'll think twice before breaking the law.
PS: it's not "you" you, it's "you" in general :-)
> The context here is that France and Germany have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks over the past year, including a co-ordinated attack in Paris in November 2015 that killed 130; a July 2016 attack in Nice where a truck driver ploughed into crowds celebrating Bastille Day; and a stabbing in a church in Northern France that killed an elderly priest. To put this in perspective, about 700 people would die from homi…
no significant mortality risk to Europeans. This is "Whataboutism". The rational behind being wary about terrorism is as follows. 1. Normal homicides are random individual actions, and they are under reasonable control by standard policing. In other words, if we continue policing as we do now, normal homicide rate will remain constant. 2. Terrorism is not random individual action, but rather organised violence by lar…
That cannot be accepted as an 'axiom' without proof.
> The context here is that France and Germany have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks over the past year, including a co-ordinated attack in Paris in November 2015 that killed 130; a July 2016 attack in Nice where a truck driver ploughed into crowds celebrating Bastille Day; and a stabbing in a church in Northern France that killed an elderly priest. To put this in perspective, about 700 people would die from homi…
I think you are misrepresenting the issue. 700 would die from homicide in a normal year. +/- 150 died from terrorism in 2015, 2016 is on track to have a slightly lower number (100), That means the increase in homicide from recent terrorism is anywhere between 14 and 21%. That's not insignificant however you look at it. Those 600,000 people are going to die either way, but those 150 people a year are still up in the a…
Terrorism in the last year is a significant proportion of the total number of homicides in France, but the percentage increase doesn't mean the absolute number is relevant. If you didn't worry about being murdered in France before 2015, there's no reason to worry about dying in a terrorist attack after 2015. Moreover, we might expect terrorist attacks to regress to the mean, so 2015 would be unusually bad under that additional assumption.
If the number of homicides increased by 14-20% due to some other cause, it likely wouldn't be seen as an urgent policy issue.
> Those 600,000 people are going to die either way
In fact, many will die from avoidable causes, like medical errors.
> The context here is that France and Germany have suffered a spate of terrorist attacks over the past year, including a co-ordinated attack in Paris in November 2015 that killed 130; a July 2016 attack in Nice where a truck driver ploughed into crowds celebrating Bastille Day; and a stabbing in a church in Northern France that killed an elderly priest. To put this in perspective, about 700 people would die from homi…
no significant mortality risk to Europeans. This is "Whataboutism". The rational behind being wary about terrorism is as follows. 1. Normal homicides are random individual actions, and they are under reasonable control by standard policing. In other words, if we continue policing as we do now, normal homicide rate will remain constant. 2. Terrorism is not random individual action, but rather organised violence by lar…
I hate to be this guy, but with enough knowledge about our ancestors going far into the past, how do we know similar acts did not take place?? Look at USA alone - they were asian tribes that got wiped by indians with arrows. Indians got wiped by whites with guns.. whoever comes for us now... I say... let it be! We will of course arm to teeth and defend, but if its written somewhere in stars that we are doomed to fail, no amount of policing will change that.
Whatever will happen today, it will happen and those living in year 2,500 would not see it any other way. Just as empires fell before, who says Isis or other ideology will not fail similarly one day?
> Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's still the case today, no?
Unless I have unprotected sex with multitude of partners (stats shows homosexuals tens to spread AIDS more than hetero) and won't inject stuff with borrowed needles, my chances of getting AIDS are still super drastically slim.
I mean sure I can be a virgin and never even smoke a joint, and get affected by riding a subway with infected person who happened to touched a pole with their bloody finger and I happened to touch it after him/her with open wound in a short period of time before the virus dies given there was enough blood to get affected in the first place. But again chances are probably the same as walking in random park in a random European country at a random day and being blown up into peaces by a random person, who happens to randomly stand next to me and turn out to be a terrorist. I sure take my chances.