511–520 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There doesn’t have to be a secret agenda. There doesn't have to be, but there totally can be.
Nonsense. Government organizations never do things in secret. The very idea is patently absurd. I mean, how would that even happen in practice, someone does something without blasting it on Twitter, as I said, absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For starters, have you reviewed this Wikipedia page: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond. This comment by me within this thread might also expand on the to…
Direct Democracy was addressed and criticized specifically by American founding fathers. You should read the fedaralist papers, specifically the numbers written by Madison. They were aware of what I see here as an extremely naive case for "democracy".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is yes. Murdering other humans who have no way to see it coming and no way to defend themselves is deeply evil. Especially when you factor in the murder of innocents (also referred to as collateral damage), and the facts that mistakes happen.
What if the "other human" is in the process of murdering people at that very point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The best way to deal with this is non-compliance and there need to be technical solutions to deny such attempts. I disagree. While these are good to have, they are not enough. The reason is always the same: if you are found to be using the circumventing tech., you'll likely be in breach of the law, which will give the goons a legitimate reason to come and harass you. In a civilized country, that can translate into…
The reason is always the same: if you are found to be using the circumventing tech., you'll likely be in breach of the law, which will give the goons a legitimate reason to come and harass you. Not if almost everyone does it at once.
Omnicriminalization is not a good thing for the rule of law, much less for opponents of the people in charge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the "other human" is in the process of murdering people at that very point?
Send police to deal with the situation. If that is not possible for some reason, then that is the problem that needs fixing. You don't need murderbots.
I suppose a better question would be, why do you feel that in this particular situation - a murderer on rampage - you still feel that it is "deeply evil" to kill them in such a way that they "have no way to see it coming", to the point where you'd prefer other people to risk lives to do it in some other way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of the many articles covering it; Wikipedia has a few more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... But I think it's best to go directly to the source, which would be the 2018 ACLU memo that triggered the attention and judge for yourself: https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... To be fair to ACLU, they did backtrack somewhat on all this. Speaking as a member wh…
Thanks, generally agree with your assessment. Might be wrong, but it’s likely that only real solution is for the organization to introduce controls that attempt to put distance between the donors and operations of organization. Issue is donors, especially large ones, are very aware that organizations crave additional funds and often willing to bend the operations and positioning of an organization to gain them. Beyon…
I don't think there is a solution to this, though. If ACLU doesn't get a steady supply of new members, it will wither and die. If it constrains itself to be small enough that the available supply of new members who fully support the existing platform is sufficient to sustain it (even as that platform becomes further away from the mainstream), it will be too small and lacking power for many important fights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without privacy, human beings cannot be their true, complete selves. Why do some people only sing in the shower?
> Why do some people only sing in the shower? Because we have structured society and our culture in such a way that some people can only feel safe when inside a small thick wall cell with the door locked behind them. That's terrible though, my proposition is to invert that, what would allow people to sing in the streets without any fear of judgement, and use that as a basis. Privacy as an idea suggests "let's put mor…
Separately, privacy and secrecy are related but distinct things. Telling me that you sing in the shower is a different thing than inviting me in to see and hear it.
Because it’s coming from the EU Commission, and they are intertwined with media and institutions in all member states.
In the U.K., when we debated leaving the EU, I was struck by how obviously our leading broadcasters, such as the BBC, expressed such a pro-EU bias. Obviously, the mainstream media tends to align with the wealthy metropolitan liberal types who benefit from the EU. But we simply didn’t have a neutral media that we could rely on to report truths about the EU.
That’s still the case today. The media won’t expose the EU for what it is - an ambitious, expansionist, authoritarian political project which benefits a few at the cost of many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outside of the USA you can't simply order gun parts or ammunition without a licence. You'd have to manufacture everything yourself. That's a lot harder than simply 3D printing a lower receiver. Also that gun would be useless for any legal purpose. You'd be prosecuted even if you used it to defend yourself.
While true, the post I was responding to claimed you needed to be a gunsmith. That simply isn't true anymore. > Also that gun would be useless for any legal purpose Also irrelevant, given that the topic is illegal firearms.
This is why criminals prefer to smuggle industrially manufactured illegal guns from somewhere else instead of making them at home.
Gun laws don't prevent someone from making shitty homemade guns. They prevent them from getting properly made ones. Accessing gun smuggling networks isn't that easy without connections to the criminal underworld.
I looked up Luty's homemade firearms. He claimed that they can be manufactured by anyone. But that's obviously not true. He definitely had good metalworking skills. I certainly would not be able to manufacture anything like that at home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...you're not concerned about all of the other Trusted Root CAs that ship in OS/browser updates? Why would the NSA/GCHQ/etc need to compromise a high-profile target like LetsEncrypt when they could bribe any of the dozens of companies names listed in my own local certmgr.msc that I don't recognize at all[1]. 1: I'm seeing names like "Actalis", "Baltimore CyberTrust", "Cetrum" - some of these sound more like pharmaceu…
I'm more concerned about why I can't see a list of sites that CA has authenticated, or put my own restrictions on them. Taking the first one: AC Camerfirma S. A. I suspect I've never authenticated anything against that CA. I'd love to know what sites it has authenticated, and maybe I'd be happy with a lot of .es sites Wouldn't surprise me if I rarely if ever encounter 80% of the CAs that I trust. Looking through I'd…
AC Camerfirma seems to operate multiple CA certificates (e.g. some labeled by year). Here's a search that finds certificates issued by one of them: https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25&iCAID=51020