If only they cared
He has previously said that the NSA's spying tactics . . . were "appalling and foolish."'
The UK needs a digital bill of rights to protect citizens against the government's "indiscriminate online surveillance", world wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee said on Saturday. The Greatest Living Briton™ was speaking at the Web We Want Festival in London. He lobbied politicos in Blighty to take action in the run up to next …
"Come on Tim!", the only way that you can get what you want is to take full control and reponsibility for your invention. Patent, Register & Copyright that 'www' Motherfuka NOW!!
Once you own it then you can start 'Invoicing the NSA, Google and every other fuckspanner for TRILLIONS.
Remember; "Ownership=Civilization", Andrew Ryan said that......didn't pan out too well for him....but i think YOU can learn from his mistake....don't keep a putter in your office.
It would start with things like telephone privacy adapted to the Internet, so governments and companies are not allowed to store your traffic or meta-data easily.
But in the end it would also have to include the right to decide what software runs on your devices, so closed down boot loaders and DRM-systems would be illegal.
You have the right to decide what software runs on your devices, if you are choosy about your devices. Manufacturers and vendors have the right to limit the devices they provide in any way they like. It is up to you whether to buy them. And those who hold government granted monopolies on books, recorded performances, and the like are entitled to insist on whatever constraints they like, including specifically DRM systems to control your access to them; it is your choice whether to accept the restrictions or not.
Some people (I have read) like the locked down walled garden DRM ridden approach of Apple or the slightly less restrictive approach of Microsoft and the vast majority of Android device providers. There is no more reason to make them illegal than there is to make them legally required.
That copyright duration exceeds by at least a full order of magnitude what is reasonable and that the patent issuing system, especially in the US, is out of control are matters related only peripherally to the mechanisms used to enforce them. They can be addressed separately and, unfortunately, with a similar success probability.
Actually it's not "my choice" to accept DRM or not. Companies are forcing me into accepting it, it's not a free choice I can make. I cannot go to a store and buy a copy of a movie with or without DRM. I can only buy it with DRM, and have to remove the DRM later. Unfortunately because of really broken laws that would be just as illegal as getting a copy I don't pay for at all.
No. You do not have to purchase their products or perform whatever other act that they require for access. It is their product. They are entitled to offer it on any terms they wish, and you are entirely free to arrange to use it on their terms or to not use it. It is a matter of mutual agreement (or not) between provider and consumer. This type of argument is made by people who, having made a contract for a price, think it their right to change it unilaterally because they don't like the terms
I agree that the laws are broken, but that is a side issue in the case of DRM, which is simply a technical means to help verify and enforce compliance with a contract. You can only buy a movie copy with DRM because the creator says so; and if you remove the DRM you violate a contract. If you obtain a copy of someone else's legally obtained copy you have acquired something to which you have no legal entitlement, and the person who provided the copy almost surely has violated a contractual obligation. The real effect of copyright laws in the context of effective DRM is to limit the period during which courts would allow DRM to be effective: a reasonable court would order that a vendor stop incorporating DRM and provide technical means to remove it from existing copies when (i. e., if) the copyright expires, in the same way that a court would deny claims for copyright infringement after expiration.
I agree that the laws are broken, but that is a side issue in the case of DRM, which is simply a technical means to help verify and enforce compliance with a contract. You can only buy a movie copy with DRM because the creator says so; and if you remove the DRM you violate a contract. If you obtain a copy of someone else's legally obtained copy you have acquired something to which you have no legal entitlement, and the person who provided the copy almost surely has violated a contractual obligation.
While there are laws that detail which activities I should not engage in with copyrighted works, this has sweet FA to do with a contract between myself and the copyright holder because no such contract exists. I have bought a number of DVDs and BluRay discs over the years and not once have I ever had to sign a contract with the copyright holder in order to do so.
Indeed, copyright is not a private sector contract. But copyright laws do specify an implied contract, based in the U. S. on Article I, Section VIII, paragraph 8 of the Constitution, in which the people granted the federal government the authority to establish and enforce such laws. English law, as I understand it, is less formalized but has a similar basis. CDs, DVDs, and books usually include a statement of what rights are not granted to the purchaser. DRM may be used to enforce the limitations.
Most commercial software products come also with an explicit contract, the EULA, to which a "purchaser" assents by opening the package and installing the software on a computer. It is a problem that many times the agreement is not visible until you open the package and thereby "accept" it, but it usually is possible to circumvent that difficulty by viewing an online copy. DRM may be used to enforce contract rights.
In either case, a potential consumer has the right to accept the limitations, decline them by declining to purchase, or to purchase and ignore the limitations at some risk of being summoned to a court and punished.
Tim initially sought to defend the nascent web from monolithic FUD spreading 'embracers & extinguishers' - and he did an amazing job. Now, however, a million strong 'security' army has quietly subverted everything on the web, in 13 different ways for every ten that you can guess! it is almost - but not quite - beyond repair.
We know some of the ways out of the problem, e.g. the new "Trust" model for the near-future internet has the usual problem that key personalities on the standards' committees are biased by their covert employers to avoid at all costs things like PERFECT FORWARD SECRECY and numerous other real steps-forward. The eventual suggestions from our standards organisations are often slightly poisoned.
One of these subtly poisoned steps is the idea to improve the CA/Browser "trust" by implementing "Certificate Transparency", an idea that means you'll need to personally check a ZILLION certificate logs to try and spot an MITM, allegedly
http://blog.okturtles.com/2014/09/the-trouble-with-certificate-transparency/ has a good overview.
I think asking questions, trust but verify the responses, is one of the ways out and a UK Digital Bill of Rights could certainly help, CESG could even help write a bill that maintains the proportional level of national security that they seek. Put that in my dossier that you are compiling, guys/gals!
it's not like our web/phone meta-data is being used to bomb children anyway?
The choice you have is whether to buy or not buy the movie legally. It's not as if these things are essential for your survival.
Of course if they started DRMing food/essentials you might have a leg to stand on. But as it stands they are only DRMing luxuries. And while they're only DRMing luxuries you have the option of not having said luxury.
Additionally I'm pretty sure that you could approach a studio and ask them for a DRM free copy of the film that you want. Though you can expect to be laughed at if you're not rich enough or from the right industry. But if you're rich enough I'm sure they'd sell you one for a few hundred thousand pounds.
>> Of course if they started DRMing food/essentials you might have a leg to stand on.
>I think Monsanto would disagree with you on that.
I don't believe they are DRMing their products, and if they did I'm pretty sure that various governments would have strong words with them. But growing GM food is a different topic to purchasing the end product, and should probably take place in a different setting. Suffice to say that my issue with GM food is when they start making it so that you can't grow from G2 seed, rather than you're not allowed to grow from G2 seed.
".....But growing GM food is a different topic to purchasing the end product, and should probably take place in a different setting. Suffice to say that my issue with GM food is when they start making it so that you can't grow from G2 seed, rather than you're not allowed to grow from G2 seed." Strange, I don't remember there being any restraint on Third World farmers growing further crops from genetically-enhanced, drought- and disease-resistant seeds supplied by the UN, specifically the GM maize supplied to African countries to help them beat famines. Are you taking a hypothetical case and trying to pass it off as inevitable or just talking male bovine manure?
> Strange, I don't remember there being any restraint on Third World farmers growing further crops from genetically-enhanced, drought- and disease-resistant seeds supplied by the UN, specifically the GM maize supplied to African countries to help them beat famines. Are you taking a hypothetical case and trying to pass it off as inevitable or just talking male bovine manure?
You may be right in this particular case, but there are many documented instances of Mansanto and others supplying seed on the proviso that they do not replant seed but buy from them year after year. This is not DRM but is a good analog.
A better comparison would be companies developing plants that do not themselves produce seed. That would be a horrendous thing to drop into our eco-system and would inevitably hasten our demise after any natural disaster causing the general collapse of our society. Bottom line: we have to be careful what we let these companies do to our food chain.
On another Planet, in another Sol type system in another Galaxy far far far away.
"Five minutes of data collected."
"Run the predictor."
"Intelligence but perverted again."
"Chances of recovery?"
"Insignificant within their time scale."
"Chances of recovery with intervention?"
"Sigh. Move on to the next target."
Do MPs really care?
They already have their parliamentary web access 'filtered' thanks to Bluecoat (thereby copying in servers in the US in all requests made) and apparently last year moved their mail so that it would be hosted by Microsoft on servers in the Netherlands and Ireland (given recent stories regarding the US government, Microsoft and - funnily enough - Irish servers this seems like a particularly poor decision).
If they can't understand the sheer lunacy of not having complete control over their own IT then what hope is there for any of us?
"...what hope is there for any of us?.."
None - I had hoped that as they were so pig-ignorant about IT that they would consider it inconsequential, but that was before they started to spout about "Terrorists" & "Think of the chillun", so I'm afraid I must answer your question with "Probably none".
Unless of course, we happen upon a latter-day Wat Tyler...
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Sounds like a GCHQ appologist. I grew up near army bases when the IRA were targetting anthing military, including groups like the sea cadets. The remote risk of being caught in a bomb (or mortar) blast was an acceptable price for freedom.
Giving up freedom for a supposed increase in safety is a mug's bargain.
But what if it's not "a little temporary safety," but "the only thing standing between you and utter oblivion"? We already know some people are insane enough to desire The End of the World as We Know It, and technology is making the possibility easier to reach. Furthermore, it's against our instinct to allow an existential threat to linger.
>But what if it's not "a little temporary safety," but "the only thing standing between you and utter oblivion"?
I am not familiar with the situation in the UK, but here are the official stats from Australia. You were 45 times more likely to die least year from diabetes than from the last 2 decades of terrorism activities.
It is a threat, but nowhere near existential threat. That is just an absurd assertion. Any 'victories' in a military perspective that any terrorist organisation can have in the West is militarily insignificant (notwithstanding tragic for the families involved). There are regions where terrorism is an existential threat to some populations, but you can't sacrifice freedom to obtain security because you ultimately end up with neither.
Perhaps you haven't noticed that by simply making the haystack bigger they're not making it any easier to find the needle?
If memory serves one of the 7/7 bombers was under surveillance beforehand, and this had to stop because of lack of resources and a need to target what they had elsewhere.
Unless there is a vast increase in funding and manpower to mirror the increase in what they're gathering then surely they'll just end up making things more difficult for themselves? Rather than minimising the risk they'll end up making it bigger?
"Perhaps you haven't noticed that by simply making the haystack bigger they're not making it any easier to find the needle?"
Perhaps you haven't noticed that the size of the haystack isn't that big of an issue when you've got a magnet, an x-ray machine, or something else that lets you pick out the interesting stuff from all the chaff (that's what the computers are for).
As for the odds, that doesn't mean much either, because you're talking things like plane crashes and meteorite impacts. Sure, the odds are slim, but when they DO happen, they happen BIG (IOW, they're low-incidence but high-consequence). This isn't like your average law-enforcement deal where plods can just investigate things after the fact because after the face is just too damn late when the threat is existential.
A contrarian question:
This type of statement is made, and repeated, so far, without end in the context, and always without the slightest hint of a description of actual loss of freedom by anyone engaged solely in lawful activities. The surveillance may be cost ineffective and a bit creepy, and its products certainly could be used by a government to suppress legitimate activities. Is there significant credible evidence of that in any Five Eyes country?
One example is the nasty habit of the NSA sharing information gathered illegally on US citizens with the likes of the DEA and then having said agencies engage in 'parallel reconstruction' (i.e. lying) to hide the true origins of the information.
Then there's the freedom to run your business without hindrance. Industrial espionage has already been discussed as a result of the NSA programs.
One can only wonder how many things have been going on behind closed doors. The people within the NSA aren't above using their access for their own immoral purposes either (look up the term 'loveint' for one such example).
It's not just the five eyes countries you have to worry about either - the US has given access to data gathered to the Israeli government and for all we know other governments too. Do you trust all of them?
Whether I, or anyone, trusts any sigint agency is irrelevant to the question I posed of whether what they do affects the freedom of those engaged solely in legal activities. Without endorsing any particular NSA or similar CSEC/GCHQ/ASD/GCSB activities I observe the following:
It is not clear whether information passed to DEA was obtained from communications outside the US, legal under FISA 702, from lawful wiretaps (unlikely) or from unlawful eavesdropping on US persons. It may be worth noting that not everyone physically in the US or its territories qualifies as a "US Person". The somewhat malodorous practice of parallel construction can be understood as protecting intelligence sources and methods just as easily as it can be taken as covering up illegal acts. More to the point, drug smuggling does not qualify as legal activity.
Again, these agencies have been accused of industrial spying, but the claim is not evidence. The NSA says it does not, a claim that equally is not evidence. Petrobras is a semi-public company owned mostly by and intertwined with the Brazilian government. It is unclear whether intelligence activities directed at it should be construed as industrial spying or more customary foreign intelligence activity, and the Guardian article includes no information at all that would help in making a judgment about that. It is unclear as well how industrial spying, in general, limits freedom or hinders business activity or, in any specific case, has done so to an identifiable natural or corporate person.
"Lovint:" unauthorized access by NSA employees to personal communications of close acquaintances. This has been reported publicly on the order of a dozen times and probably occurred but went unreported more often in fact. By reports it was done sometimes with good intentions and sometimes out of jealousy, often confessed by the violator, and normally punished by termination of NSA employment. At a given time there probably are several tens of thousands of analysts employed who do not intentionally exceed their authorization. But again, there is no reason to think the illicit surveillance affected the freedom of lovint targets or anyone else.
narrowly questioning your nugget "whether what they do affects the freedom of those engaged solely in legal activities."
the answer is an emphatick FUCK YES, as revealed by the newly published German best-selling book here http://www.amazon.de/Gekaufte-Journalisten-Udo-Ulfkotte/dp/3864451434/
should you not natively speak German, you could always open this link on Chrome & use Google Chrome's built-in translator - why not start here at the review page, which will give you a taste of the current German outrage!
explain this away please?
I do not speak German, but also do not think an Amazon book review is especially good evidence that the book is well researched or accurate. Some do, some do not, and I am not qualified to judge. If and English translation becomes available I may well read it. However, the book appears from the description at amazon.de to describe the operation of political and financial elites through the press and other media, something quite different from the question of whether governments in liberal democratic regimes like those of the "Five Eyes" along with Germany, France and most other NATO members, have used signals and other ubiquitous surveillance products to suppress legal activities. Certainly they did not suppress publication and sale of Mr. Ulfkotte's book.
Downvoted for unnecessary vulgarity.
here's a statement from the journalist in question: IN ENGLISH, referring to INTELLIGENCE subversion of all our media. Do keep up Bond.
Leading German Journalist Admits CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Other Leaders of the Western ‘Press’
Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (which is one of Germany’s largest newspapers), has decided to go public about the corruption of himself and the rest of the Western ‘news’ media, because he finds that this corruption is bringing Europe too close to a nuclear war against Russia, which he concludes the U.S. aristocracy that controls the CIA wants to bring about, or else to bring closer to the brink.
I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I’ve been educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. … The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say … it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe. … I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don’t like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. … We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war. … I don’t want this anymore, I’m fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic, and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom. …
The German media, especially, my colleagues …, day by day, write against the Russians, [these journalists] who are in transatlantic organizations, and who are supported by the United States to do so. …
I became ‘honorary citizen of the state of Oklahoma,’ … Why? Because I write pro-American. I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA. Why? Because I am pro-American. I am fed up with it; I don’t want to do it anymore; and so I have just written a book, not to earn money, no, it will cause a lot of trouble for me. [I wrote it instead] to give the people in this country, Germany, in Europe, and all over the world, just a glimpse of … what goes on behind the closed doors. …
Most of the journalists you see in foreign countries … European or American journalists …, like me in the past, are so-called non-official cover. … Non-official cover means what? You do work for an intelligence agency, … but … when they [the public] find out that you are not only a journalist but a spy too, they [the CIA] will never say this was one of our guys. … So, I have helped them in several situations, and I feel ashamed for that. … I feel ashamed that I … was bribed by billionaires, I was bribed by the Americans, not to report exactly the truth. …
I was just imagining in my car while I was driving to this interview, I just try to work out in my brain what would have happened if I had written a pro-Russian article, in the Frankfurter Algemeine. Well, … we were all educated to write pro-European, pro-American, but please not pro-Russian. … But this is not what I understand for democracy, for press freedom, I am very sorry for that. …
Germany is still a kind of a colony of the United States, you’ll see that in many points; like for example, the majority of Germany do not want to have nukes in our country, but we still have American nukes; so, we are still a kind of an American colony, and, being a colony, it is very easy to approach young journalists through (and what is very important here is) transatlantic organizations. All journalists from respected and big German newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, they are all members or guests of those big transatlantic organizations, and in these transatlantic organizations you are approached to be pro-American, and … they invite you for seeing the United States, they pay for that, they pay all your expenses and everything. So, you are bribed, you get more and more corrupt, because they make you good contacts. … So, you make friends, you think they are your friends and cooperate with them. They ask you, ‘will you do me this favor,’ ‘will you do me that favor,’ so your brain is more and more brainwashed, through these guys. …
Is this only the case with German journalists? No, I think it is especially the case with British journalists, because they have a much closer relationship. It is especially the case with Israeli journalists. Of course with French journalists. … It is the case for Australians, [with] journalists from New Zealand, from Taiwan, well, there is many countries, … like Jordan for example. … Five Eyes indeed
Perhaps somewhere in the collective [pun alert] wisdom of all those against the GCHQ and the NSA, and other such huffers and puffers, an algorithm could be found and applied, but limited in application of course just among these Anti's, that would exempt them from any protections enabled by all such GCHQ and NSA careful electronic surveillance?
Suppose no Enigma machines were ever recovered from German submarines during the Blockade of Britain? And, their code wheels never examined and revealed by the good folks down at Bletchley Park?
Think of the likes of Alan Turing. And the many, many so desperately needed food re-supply ships from Canada and America being torpedoed weekly during that bleak time. And those which were saved by the code breakers at Bletchley and enabled to deliver food and materiel.
...but limited in application of course just among these Anti's, that would exempt them from any protections enabled by all such GCHQ and NSA careful electronic surveillance?...
As always, consider the source when they tell you anything about advantages...
No, indeed the context is most appropriate; so, let's try putting it this way:
How many readers here would've had Bletchley Park closed, or never used for anything but strictly as a private home, most especially never used for England's defense by its Government? [thumbs up]
Maybe better stated as how many readers of this thread had ever heard of Bletchley Park before its being mentioned here?
WWII was genuine war with a genuine enemy. There was no political manipulation and creation of crises for political ends needed, there really was a crisis and everyone knew that even if there was plenty of propaganda.
The present situation is in no way comparable with the Nazis and the government was not spying on everyone, just those with a genuine military significance, those machines were owned by Mr Hitler and associates. As if it matters I have visited Bletchey Park and known about it for decades thanks.
Governments targeting potential threats and enemies for intelligence gathering is one thing. Wolesale indiscriminate collection of data on the citizens of a country by those who govern is completely different. It does NOT enhance security. . . Indeed, there is a strong technical basis for believing that it will significantly degrade it. At the same time it gives those who govern an unprecedented ability to intrude upon and control the lives of a society.
The question, as ever, is, "Who profits?"
And. as ever, remember Miriam Carey.
"Wolesale indiscriminate collection of data on the citizens of a country by those who govern is completely different."
So is a world where a single man can potentially ruin civilisation if you're not careful. That's the thing about eternal vigilance. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. One determined nihilist with time, and resources can unleash pure hell (and with technology progressing as it is, one cannot discount the possibility of something like a rampant viral plague like avian flu). Know any other way to combat a lone-wolf existential threat?
The consensus here is to grant carte blanche to our penetrating Muslim enemy [ who're reminding us non-muslims daily that they are indeed our enemy] while we just stand by all in the name of a blanket-all-encompassing 'Freedom', is simply delusional when our oriental muslim enemy aren't able to conceive of the concept of occidental 'Freedom'. They laugh at that concept. Just read their Koran. Our thought processes simply aren't the same.
Maybe those here so earnestly-smugly saying there is no muslim threat should remember Rotheram, South Yorks. If they indeed admit we have a muslim threat but, oh dear!, we mustn't read their emails; then that's opening a door to mayhem. An obstruction of generalized freedom of muslims to rape children of both sexes and slit our throats in the street.
Here's a partial example of muslim "entitlement" pasted from The Mirror:
"Monsters: Zafran Ramzan, Umar Razaq, Adil Hussain, Mohsin Khan and Razwan Razaq
Raped, beaten and abused by paedophiles, child victims of the vile monsters deserved the full support from the authorities whose job was to protect them.
But social worker chiefs, police and council bosses ignored their plight - leaving the perverts free to continue their reign of terror for 16 years – targeting 1,400 youngsters as young as 11, a report revealed today.
Instead, the victims were treated as “undesirables” and reports of the abuse were “swept under the carpet” because staff feared being labelled racist as most of the attackers were Asian
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook".
And, this is merely the sexual entitlement of muslims. They also decapitate "infidel" soldiers on the street.
Expand those two mere sample of Koran authorized "attitude" to expecting dhimmitude in all facets of our lives. Our women out in public covered in black from head to toe, eye slits permitted.
But no, we mustn't invade the privacy of these muslims' emails to alert ourselves to protect ourselves. Nor must we read their emailed instructions from cell to cell in the old fashioned unremembered Soviet manner. That's racist and anti-muslim. Tut, tut.
This is why I'm convinced of the ostrich-like immaturity of the posters on this thread, regardless of their chronological age, and of their delusional and lethal "political correctness".
1. Actually not all Muslims believe in the Burkha, you are generalising massively.
2. Likewise for pedophilia.
3. As someone pointed out the Nazis was war and we spied on the enemy, we didn't treat our own citizens as the enemy.
4. I have no problems with targeted checking, but I do have problems with our civil liberties being eroded and laws being put in place to do that. Our civil liberties which you are so worried about these Muslims taking, well our governments doing that instead. Our country has been pretty strongly founded on things like our inherent rights for a long time now we shouldn't just give them up for fear the chances of you being killed in a terrorist attack in the UK, is probably lower than you being killed by a cow or a dog.
You are making a large number of assumptions, most of which are a simple setup for a straw-man argument.
To object to the abuse of surveillance powers and to have a desire to restrict them and have proper oversight does not automatically equate to not wanting the security services to be able to do their job. To suggest otherwise as you have done simply undermines every other point you make.
Also, leading with ad hominem attacks is another tactic of the propagandist.
Miriam Carey's shooting, tragic as it was, has exactly nothing to do with collection of data by any government agency. No connection, that is, unless the claim is that the government did, or should have, collected and processes so much information on everyone that they could have provided it on the spot to DC and federal police to enable them to determine that Ms. Carey was depressed and confused, possibly psychotic, and in need of their assistance. Even if they had had such information, her actions were dangerous to those nearby and it is not clear what they could have done to effectively end them.
I am British and while of the opinion that Whitehall drones, spooks and others need to be kept under control by the electorate, I think there are bigger concerns.
The US establishment has amply demonstrated that their own serfs have few rights. We have even less as far as they are concerned. If they do not give a toss about their own sacred constitution, what hope for the remaining 96% of humanity?
An equal worry is commerce. Again, the worst excesses seem to come from across the pond but their subsidiaries on this side are just a bad and they seem to have been giving lessons to people on this side that customers are bad and always steal your stuff.
The first two things that need dealt with come as handy acronyms - DRMs and EULAs need to be completely reformed. If I pay you money for something, the only right you have is how many copies of your software I run. If I sell my copy, all rights should go with it. Whether I watch/hear it on TV, phone, tablet or DVD player is not relevant to you. The Only acceptable EULAs I recall are GPL and Creative Commons. Certainly Microsoft ones are a brilliant example of what they should not say!
There is more to say but some pigs just flew overhead...
You'll never convince the software makers to loosen their terms since many of them have captive markets with no honest competition, especially in the professional field. Let's face it. Except for the most basic of things, GIMP is no Photoshop, and I still haven't found anything that approaches the level of features in Premiere or After Effects. All the software maker has to do to (which many are transitioning anyway) is to render all of their transactions leases or subscriptions. At which point, all the buyer can do is accept the limits of the agreement or go without.
When the town only has one well (and practically no way to make another), do you dehydrate yourself to spite its owner?
With respect, I strongly suspect that surveillance in the U. K. far exceeds what exists, or given the relative sizes and population, is even possible in the U. S. And like that in the U. S., there seems to be precious little evidence that it is being abused by either government.
It certainly could be abused, but both countries have a very long history, most of it in common, of political restraint and forbearance and solving most problems without resort to either popular insurrection or government oppression.
Well said, but those of the mindset we're reading here are wearing blinders and are squinting through their tunnel vision. Or, if women, they're squinting through the eye slits in their black shrouds.
That's why I mentioned Bletchley. If alive then, they'd be concerned about the rudeness and prying of reading the Nazi German military codes, even if the safety of whole cities depended upon accurate translations. That'd be a violation of Nazi's freedoms.
There's no denying the major cultural problem, a murderous problem.
.....is they think the World is full of ivory-tower dwellers that will want to do good and live in harmony. Indeed, the original Internet was just like that, with very few safeguards and security. And then we had the phreakers, followed by the skiddies and the criminals, and then the criminals got worse, and now you need 2FA authentication on your hobby email account, let alone the security on your corporate firewall. The Internet ended up being 'policed' (and that 'policing' will only get worse) as a result of the Netizens. Sir Tim and chums need to get out of their idealistic alternate realities and live in the real World for a while.
I've lived in some low populated areas, islands etc were petty crime such as theft etc were pretty low. Sort of places where you don't worry to much when you forget to lock your door, or don't have to be super aware about muggings etc.
I have also lived in some pretty rough areas and as such I can see the point of locking your door, and having police officers on the street and being a lot more self aware when walking about.
At no point though would I condone having the police let themselves into mine or other peoples homes and having a riffle without the need for a warrant on the basis of just in case.
".....At no point though would I condone having the police let themselves into mine or other peoples homes and having a riffle without the need for a warrant on the basis of just in case." Which is completely different to what they are doing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019