Bravo!
Bravo bis!
The French government has rejected an amendment to its forthcoming Digital Republic law that required backdoors in encryption systems. Axelle Lemaire, the Euro nation's digital affairs minister, shot down the amendment during the committee stage of the forthcoming omnibus digital bill, saying it would be counterproductive and …
Cameron's flawed logic, if granted credence, would go on to ban us all from locking our houses, our businesses, etc. <cameron voice on> because such hiding places might be used by terrorists. To fight this threat, the gov needs to be able to pop round and have a jolly good look any time they fancy. So, for the security of our nation, no door locks can be allowed from now on. <cameron voice off>
Wait a minute, that's just stupid and nobody will buy it! So, the watered down alternative proposal is for everyone to provide a set of spare keys to the police, who may use them to enter when they please, in the name of national security of course. <sarcasm off>
I want security like the French have chosen. Bravo indeed!
Cameron's flawed logic,
Who told you it is flawed. It is the correct for what HE IS. From his viewpoint the logic is all right.
Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. He is aligned within Europe with surprise, surprise: Kaczynski and Orban.
That pretty much defines Cameron. From there on, his ideas are no longer surprising. It may be slightly different populism, but it is populism all right and as any populism it has goes hand in hand with the opinions of the country's version of the Volkisher Beobachter.
There is no political gain to be had from doing that because everyone knows that the answer is better communication, more inter-agency cooperation and more actual justice for everyone. More actual justice for everyone means less wiggle room to fill one's pockets from the trough, so nope, not gonna happen.
Excellent. EU country #2 recognises the obvious. With a bit of luck that should start a cascade of "Why yes; deliberately introduced vulnerabilities used by a large number of people may well escape to people who might not use it for wholly altruistic reasons" votes.
Not sure how Cameron is going to u-turn from his "Let's ban ALL teh encryptionz" speech with grace; but I wish him luck doing so. I'd claim a liquid lunch and "anyway I was winding you up and you totally fell for it"; but I'm not sure you can do that with a whole country.
That assumes politicians even seek out expert evidence. Owen Paterson, for example, reputedly refused to read any document from his advisers containing the words "climate change" or "global warming", when he was Environment Secretary. Cameron is perhaps the exception on that subject, in that he listened to advice on what he needed to say to get elected, resulting in the ironic slogans "vote blue, go green" and the "greenest government ever"! Mind you, his idea of an expert adviser is a spin doctor.
"I'm not a mathematician or IT security professional, as you know. And once the facts had been made sufficiently clear to me I changed my mindrealised that, given the facts which have been uncovered since the events in Paris, and having had time to reflect on the current state of our security services and advice given by those who are industry experts, it would be worth considering alternative paths as well as those previously put forward so that we might find the best possible approach to improving our ability to discover and intercept attempts at terrorist attacks"
Followed by never mentioning it again. Except maybe putting together a committee to discuss the matter which never reports any findings publicly. No politician would actually admit to changing their mind after all, it would suggest they might have been wrong before rather than "over zealous with regards to a quick resolution of the matter"
A good way of making sure that politicians u-turn, when it becomes obvious that they are in the wrong, would be to stop vilifying politicians who do it.
Everyone is human and gets it wrong sometimes. A politician should be able to say "My bad, got it wrong, but now I have changed my mind and am putting that right" without being ridiculed and fearing for their career. As long as we, and the media, make that impossible, we are just encouraging politicians by blindly forge on, regardless of circumstances, lest they be branded a "flip-flopper" or u-turner.
I much prefer a politician who changes their mind for the better, than one who can't and won't, simply because that would mean admitting they got something wrong.
I suppose, at a pinch, it could be said that at least monkeys have backbones unlike the majority of politicians.
I'm fairly sure the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" jibe was an ironic one but "liberty fries" most certainly was not and it would appear that the "land of the free" and the country which "rules the waves" could learn a thing or two from the country we poke fun at.
My US government does NOT understand the technology. My US government does NOT bother with the US Constitution if it's inconvenient. (See the Fourth Amendment and note the flood of violations from my US government brought to public attention).
My US government instead is hell bound determined to apply totalitarian tactics to US citizen communications, with obviously detrimental results. The terrorists <3 LOVE <3 it when their victims go berzerk and wreck their countries with totalitarianism. Goal achieved. √
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Thank you Ben.
How do you think the rest of us feel?
Our UKian government is bad enough but thanks to various "special relationships" and out and out bribery and threats the majority of us in the rest of the world are still ruled by your, ignorant, warmongering, lawless, child-killing, innocent-torturing, fascist government.
Good to see the "cowardly" French and the "crazy drug-dealing homosexual" Dutch seem to be doing their best to resist though.
""They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759"
Even if that little temporary safety is the ONLY safety you can get? If so, what's the bloody point of civilization, anyway?
Well... safety is mostly in your hands. When you start giving up liberties to government, there is no safety, from either outsiders or the government.
Here's my take:
Sure, they can have whatever they like in the way of liberties, but first let's see the "safety". What? You can't protect us? I didn't think so....
"Even if that little temporary safety is the ONLY safety you can get? If so, what's the bloody point of civilization, anyway?"
Your comment suggests that you're using a definition of 'liberty' that is not valid in this context. Liberty is not a complete lack of rules, laws or regulations. Liberty is not the right to trample other people's liberty and rights.
"So, the watered down alternative proposal is for everyone to provide a set of spare keys to the police, who may use them to enter when they please, in the name of national security of course."
Why exactly do you think insurance companies insist that you have British Standard compliant locks?
Hello?
Fuck being monitored. Giving in to fear is just handing them the victory without contest.
And what are you afraid of, really ? Saying that a politician finally did his job (or hers, in this case) ? You're afraid of a libel case ?
If they're monitoring this then they don't enough work. So let me just say this : je suis ravi qu'enfin un membre du gouvernmenet de mon pays ait le courage de dire tout haut la vérité que les lâches et les corrompus voulaient cacher.