201–210 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. > The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...
Thank you! That’s the dumbest shit ever, lol.
But good on her for sticking with her principles.
I did decide to use Session as a result of this bill, though, since that routes through a Tor-like system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right/left is not imaginary. Whoever told you that wants you to think it's imaginary, so you won't bother to oppose them, because you think the opposition to them is just as bad as they are.
It’s imaginary in the sense that no matter who wins an election, you’re going to end up with substantially the same government every time. If you’re so concerned with political tribalism that you can’t see how utterly corrupt your own team is, then you’ve simply fallen for the distraction.
Besides, the Democrat party isn't left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why the Federalist Papers are some of the most important documents when understanding the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights – and simultaneously the least read! I'm not saying that case law isn't also an important aspect of the 'law' and that the constitution shouldn't be amended – I'm not really a hardcore 'originalist' – I just mean that any time a SCOTUS ruling comes out, it's clear that in the…
The Federalist papers are the equivalent of a Medium blog post. And I will treat them as such. Edit: Evidently I've pissed off enough people who drink the red-white-blue kool-aid. -3 at the moment. These newspaper publishings were expressly for the solidification of power at the federal level, and the weakening of the states. And only look closer at what the "federal" powers were about, and it was all about "secur(in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Her television interview […] Channel 4 News segment: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 The MP, Damian Collins, "who formerly served as a junior Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins Reminder: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Thanks very much for posting that interview. I thought it was good (and honestly impressed that it was quite respectful communication all the way around, as opposed to so often what I see as "debates" on TV), but I admit I got super frustrated to the point I could only watch half of it because nobody wanted to clearly admit to the other side's quite obvious point. I think the Signal president was making great points,…
I believe Meredith Wittaker was correct to avoid addressing the Signal TOS and how it is implemented. This would open the door to the whole "client-side CSAM scanning" (chat control) discussion which would be even more tedious.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/clientside_scanning_c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All kinds of advantages go to one sides benefit. Can we set up an automated monitor on all the traffic cams and licence plate readers and facial recognition systems just to catch cops and politicians breaking laws or just to track their movements and associations the way they do to everyone else? Can we access the same cam footage that the state uses to accuse you of something, to clear you instead? Only occasionally…
Ambient sousveillance. You'd have to get a critical mass of people who care enough to buy the hardware, deploy it, and release the video though.
E2E apps and fully encrypted phones prevent the police from executing legitimate search warrants. This has never been the case with traditional communication mechanisms, e.g. phones, mail. I agree that privacy is important, but it's not absolute, by law. So what we're saying is E2E apps are more important than current law we have, and we want to invalidate the ability of the police to investigate crime. How can that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a function missing from government. All governments, AFAICT. Legislators change the law (including, rarely, the constitution) — effectively by applying a hierarchy of "countermanding orders" — to suit the changing interests of the public. Courts interpret the law, but only downstream of legislation. The executive can make regulation and executive orders, but only in agreement with the law. But at th…
That’s what Constitutional amendments are for, and it’s happened 27 times in the history of the US, most recently in 1992. The corporate media doesn’t typically like to talk about that process since it is a threat to the entrenched powers that be. The ombudsman of the American people is their state legislatures. We have sovereign states in the US. Let’s not add any more power to the federal apparatus to solve a perce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a function missing from government. All governments, AFAICT. Legislators change the law (including, rarely, the constitution) — effectively by applying a hierarchy of "countermanding orders" — to suit the changing interests of the public. Courts interpret the law, but only downstream of legislation. The executive can make regulation and executive orders, but only in agreement with the law. But at th…
That’s what Constitutional amendments are for, and it’s happened 27 times in the history of the US, most recently in 1992. The corporate media doesn’t typically like to talk about that process since it is a threat to the entrenched powers that be. The ombudsman of the American people is their state legislatures. We have sovereign states in the US. Let’s not add any more power to the federal apparatus to solve a perce…
And a system that requires a 3/4 supermajority of not even the population but the state legislatures (with the net effect that some states have a much greater say in pushing through or blocking amendments than others) is hardly a sane or sensible way to gauge public sentiment on such matters.