261–270 of 409 posts
Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…
Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could have recognized that if you even think you need Tor and Signal to protect yourself from your own government, you need to organize politically to install representatives who ensure you don't think you need those things. We overlook that young people with tech jobs in the 90's humiliated a lot of their peers, ones who went on to pursue messy politcal careers instead of business ones. Those peers learned to ha…
To be blunt, I don't think the majority of the populace actually want those things, or at least don't mind the current state of affairs. And then it doesn't matter how much you politically organize - a superminority in a democracy doesn't get much say either way. OTOH if you evolve the tools, they keep working regardless of what the law says (even if the law specifically prohibits such tools).
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…
For completeness, read the anti-federalist papers too. The collective opinion of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay is just one point of view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as conscription laws remain on the books, it should never be taboo to worry about those laws being put into practice.
I don't think you understand anything about the British system if you think that "removing laws from the books" matters at all. As demonstrated by COVID regulations in emergency the law can be changed very quickly. Modern armies (like NATO members) have really got very little to gain by conscription. Being a modern soldier has very little to do with being cannon fodder.
Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities.
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…
What about all the in-person conversations. Seems those might be considered just a bit more traditional than phones conversations, and haven't been subject to those same search warrants.
> 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 make sense?
(*proposed* British online safety legislation)
Let's expand on that then: how can it make sense what humans can have in-person conversations that are not subject to search warrants. These e2e-private-in-person conversations prevent the state from investigating crime.
If police should be able to always access your digital information, would you support the same in the case of non-digital information. Should building codes be updated to require microphones be installed in very room?
If you're not in support of microphones in every room, then please tell me why the conversation between two parties, be they lovers or criminals, should lose it's ability to be private the moment it crosses the internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your insinuation that the UK will implement a Ukraine war draft in order to advance a totalitarian agenda is weird, unnecessarily conspiratorial, and dilutes your point. I encourage you to make one point and to make it well.
As long as conscription laws remain on the books, it should never be taboo to worry about those laws being put into practice.
Conscripts are only good for defense - they know the area and the local language/customs. Additionally, they stand to lose their friends, family and possessions, so they're motivated to do something about that.
None of these advantages apply on the offense.
I've always wondered why politicians in America take similar stances (outside of a few like Rand Paul). Even a wild card like Trump should see how unpopular some of these policies are. Are the intelligence agencies really that influential?
More like: Is the general public really scared of terrorism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even know what my class is! Where do I check? How do you know what class you are? I want to know who to help!
Unless you are born into generational wealth, you are by construction a Prole. If you need to or had to work for a living until you could afford not to, then you are a Prole. Whether you choose to "betray" this class - and fight in support of the people who make the rules, the slave owners, those who play god without permission - is a different thing.
Don't forget to https://signal.org/donate/