41–50 of 553 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The French version (readable with a translation extension) does, but it's just one of a long list of things including GrapheneOS, LineageOS, Jitsi, FDroid, Tor, RiseupVPN, etc.
I must say I spluttered a bit at F-Droid.
The key is that, while there is suspicion (the people arrested have a far left ideology, have been to Syria to fight against the Islamic state, own weapons and encrypt all of their communications), there is no crime nor proof of an intent to commit a crime . These people have been sent to prison because they are suspicious, not because of an action they have done (something made possible as a special case of an older…
Yesterday the French government dissolved an environmental movement (which I don't like btw), amongst the reasons stated[0] are that they leave their phones at home or switch them off, refuse to talk to the police when arrested, or even that they organize their protest over the internet. When accused of authoritarian tendencies the government usually answers "go to China or North Korea to see what a dictatorship is l…
China and North Korea exist on completely separate spectrums.
The key is that, while there is suspicion (the people arrested have a far left ideology, have been to Syria to fight against the Islamic state, own weapons and encrypt all of their communications), there is no crime nor proof of an intent to commit a crime . These people have been sent to prison because they are suspicious, not because of an action they have done (something made possible as a special case of an older…
Slippery slope? No, no, we're already down the slope and going fast, we are now at "dissolve informal ecologist organizations and raid their homes and families with antiterrorist groups and gear for the crimes of blocking some construction", "get friendly with neonazi groups and let them parade in Paris, let them attack prides and leftist bars".
The key is that, while there is suspicion (the people arrested have a far left ideology, have been to Syria to fight against the Islamic state, own weapons and encrypt all of their communications), there is no crime nor proof of an intent to commit a crime . These people have been sent to prison because they are suspicious, not because of an action they have done (something made possible as a special case of an older…
Yesterday the French government dissolved an environmental movement (which I don't like btw), amongst the reasons stated[0] are that they leave their phones at home or switch them off, refuse to talk to the police when arrested, or even that they organize their protest over the internet. When accused of authoritarian tendencies the government usually answers "go to China or North Korea to see what a dictatorship is l…
Pretty much relying on the assumption that investigators will find stationary phones suspicious when they spy on you
Could put them in those charging lockboxes seen as airports and festivals, the infrastructure is already there
Guess I’ll market it to climate activists in europe lol
edit: maybe those delivery robots are even better couriers, since it fits the idea of getting a courier to come back to you better than an uber on the other side of town. risky but the fun kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very interesting; it looks like these people went to Syria to fight ISIS, and got this ill treatment when they returned. Why does it seem like the French government is always supporting the worst actors in any conflict? ISIS is (was) so evil and barbaric, they make Putin seem like a great guy. Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light?
>Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light? In part, because the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group, for various political reasons, and also because having leftists trained in handling weapons is seemingly more terrifying to the government than having neonazis trained in handling weapons. Make of that what you will.
The key is that, while there is suspicion (the people arrested have a far left ideology, have been to Syria to fight against the Islamic state, own weapons and encrypt all of their communications), there is no crime nor proof of an intent to commit a crime . These people have been sent to prison because they are suspicious, not because of an action they have done (something made possible as a special case of an older…
It's not really a slippery slope, we've already arrived at the bad thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slippery slope? No, no, we're already down the slope and going fast, we are now at "dissolve informal ecologist organizations and raid their homes and families with antiterrorist groups and gear for the crimes of blocking some construction", "get friendly with neonazi groups and let them parade in Paris, let them attack prides and leftist bars".
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The monopoly on violence is the central component of the power of the state. This case undermines that power as much as violence used in self defence does, and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are.
> and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are. Citation needed of self-defence killings im France being prosecuted passionately and unfairly.
After that remark became massively controversial he attempted to walk his statement back and claim that he just meant that he said he was against the presumption of self defence (which seems to imply he supports a presumption of guilt in self defence cases).
https://www.europe1.fr/politique/oppose-a-la-legitime-defens...
Basically every country in the world that has somewhat stable law and order has a history of prosecuting dubious self defence cases. The requirement for the state to have a monopoly on violence might sound edgy, but it’s not a controversial idea, it’s a requirement for being able to enforce the law. Self defence is an almost universally justifiable reason for a person to violate the monopoly, and it’s not hard to understand why government agencies can end up viewing it as an existential threat, not to the country or its people, but to their own institutions.