Slashdot Mirror
Brits Must Trade Digital Freedoms For Safety, Says Crime Agency Boss
bestweasel writes: The Guardian has an interview with Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, (sometimes called Britain's FBI, apparently) in which he says, "Britons must accept a greater loss of digital freedoms in return for greater safety from serious criminals and terrorists." He also mentions pedophiles, of course. The article seems to cover just the highlights of the interview, but in another quote he says that for "policing by consent," the consent is "expressed through legislation." While this might sound reassuring, it's coupled with the Home Secretary's call last week for greater mass surveillance powers. Presumably whoever wins power in the elections next year will claim that this gives them the required consent (that's democracy, folks!) and pass the laws.
Because that always works out well for those giving up freedoms. Always.
In this day and age (in an oecd country at very least) "digital freedoms" are a subset of "freedoms". Spin it how you will, they want your privacy to not exist
Our press are outraged that the Police were using RIPA powers to track down press sources...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
"They have already won, run for your lives! In other news I shouldn't be in this job!." - Keith Bristow
The monarchy still rules. It is your "democracy" that is ceremonial.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
maybe they should.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin, 1755
Can't they commit crimes without having a bureaucratic agency in charge? Though I suppose something as big as constantly spying on everyone might require a National Crime Agency, as it is too difficult for small time criminals.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" album, track 2 "Welcome To The Machine"
"Welcome my son. Welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been."
"Welcome my son. Welcome to the machine. What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream."
Maybe Roger Waters actually got something right a long time ago......
These announcements sound very familiar to what has just occurred in Australia. Are they playing from the same playbook?
Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Maybe you can make it work for you better than we've managed on our side of the pond.
(and yes, before someone decides to play the pedant, I'm well aware of the original context surrounding the quote)
It's almost like playing quotation bingo with these issues now.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Pitt the Younger
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
All laws involve giving up freedom to do a certain thing, usually in exchange for security or safety for the society. Other laws, particularly regulations, ensure justice via making society more fair; for example the USA's Civil Rights Act prohibits a variety of forms of discrimination. The problem is that our overlords use propaganda to convince the plebes that a broad selectively-enforced law is necessary when a narrow strictly-enforced law would lead to more security for the society. Being secure in your belief that you won't be imprisoned falsely, or under a law that wasn't intended or reasonable to apply to your situation, is also an important aspect of society's security.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The Snowden revelations show that the UK snoop on its own citizens without any barrier. The RIP Act can be used to compel handing over of pass phrases with threat of 2 year prison sentence for failure to comply. Short of legislating against the use of crypto or allowing 'in camera' use of surveillance material its hard to imagine a what other powers the state are after.
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
Be such a shame if sumthin' bad happ'ned to that "safety" of yers...
For a brief second I thought the title read, "...says Crime Boss Agency." Which I get the feeling isn't really too far from the truth.
Ironically...
Crime Agency Boss Must Trade Job For Dole, Says Brits
If you need any pointers, we have a bunch of books with accounts on stopping tyranny by governments that don't listen to you. You might want to save the tea for yourselves, though.
meh, in the UK you're going to need to do some things with computers nowadays, if you for example want to drive a car you own...
would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper? really really? or your family photos you just sent to your uncle? really really really?
the laws potentially affect you, say, if your local copper envied something you had and wanted to hurt you with some crap he could dig up without a warrant.. because uh, that's what we are actually talking about when we talk about mass surveillance gathering that's searchable - gathering that just gets everything and is later searchable for 'clues' by anyone with access at will.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
If you aren't doing anything illegal online (pirating, illegal pornography, planning terrorism) these laws won't affect you.
The problem with that is that what can label someone as a person of interest with subsequent consequences as ending up a no-fly list often is nothing more than very vague connections to a suspected terrorist, visiting a site or video deemed illegal etc, for an example look at this statement from the London Metropolitan police:
The MPS Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley. We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation.
The Metropolitan police are unable to currently name the law that citizens could be arrested under for watching the video that depicts the beheading of photojournalist James Wright Foley, despite earlier releasing a statement that said any British nationals watching the video could be committing a criminal offence.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140820/12004128267/theres-reasonable-debate-to-be-had-about-showing-james-foley-beheading-video-claiming-its-illegal-to-watch-is-ridiculous.shtml
If you can't even know what is deemed illegal or not how can you be expected to act within the law?
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Keith is a girl's name.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." USA Constitution.
Basically it means that 90 per cent of your USA patent laws should be cancelled since they don't promote the Progress anymore.
What is the difference between Bristow's stance and the stance of Poettering?
I'd rather take my chances with freedoms than be safe in Keith Bristow's version of the ultimate nanny state.
If an officer of the Law says something is illegal, then it's illegal and it's not among your State-granted privileges to question authority. Do not cause trouble or inconvenience, citizen-consumer. Remember, we're watching you.
...Fuck that.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Why is Snark Required?
Much of the debate was about privacy, atleast now it's clear that it leads to loss of freedom. As for safety, yes giving up freedoms will lead to more protection against crime. But every time the government does a bad job we will suffer less safety, are we that trusting of government?
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
State governments have slowly been implementing "Meaghan's law" throughout Australia. State police are trying to create the American-style "criminals have no rights" policy with the proviso that they decide who the criminals are.
Regrettably, for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift. There may be more restrictions on some, so that there can be more protection for others.
- T Abbott, leader of Australia, September 2014.
Today was fascinating simply to witness how you can just flick that National Security switch in federal politics and suddenly face almost no real debate.
- M Fennell, news commentator, September 2014.
Mr Abbott is trying to pass legislation that allows warrant-less searches of all digital devices. Now the British NCA demands a "loss of digital freedoms". Such a timely coincidence will drive conspiracy nuts into apoplectic fits.
The best thing to come out of the recent referendum on Scottish Independance has been to re-awaken the British public to politics and government.
It's not enough, there needs to be a more jarring and long lasting wake up call to what politicians are doing for corporates and the establishment under the guise of "public interests".
Mass surveillance isn't protecting us, didn't protect us in the past and certainly won't in the future.
Imagine McCarthyism with full access to your historical digital life to twist into whatever form needed to hound you out of your home, job, school, neighbourhood or even country?
Wake up!
> If enough people use encrypted communication, it will only be a matter of time before the use of encryption is made a crime.
So you propose to not use encryption?
FlashBlock and Adblock plus. Use it here, use it everywhere!
Criminals are already using encryption/obfuscation anyway. The only people this mass surveillance will catch are the innocent.
They expect us to make the trade, but provide no guarantees that they will perform on their half of the bargain.
See Sousa v City of Antioch for a pertinent example of them denying their obligations.
Citizenship is supposed to involve reciprocal duties of allegiance and protection. Protection is not guaranteed, but you betcha they'll guarantee to get their pound of allegiance.
But who will protect us from you.
would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper?
Strawman. Nobody's proposing to have privacy sensitive information printed in the newspaper.
play Terrible Secret of Space | sed 's/Space/Terrorists/g'
No, seriously people... go stand by the stairs.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
You don't have to use Facebook, Google, the internet, computers, or any form of technology if you don't want to. By choosing to use them, you must obey normal laws, including laws against copying and distributing (even for free) copyrighted material.
Of course. And speaking is a privilege, because some people are mute. And you don't really have to speak unless you want to. So it doesn't really matter if you can get thrown in jail for saying a lot of things in many countries because you can just keep you mouth shut and enjoy your freedom. :-p
Ezekiel 23:20
You should try and look a little closer to home ref ref ref ref ..
If you aren't doing anything illegal online (pirating, illegal pornography, planning terrorism) these laws won't affect you
Remember, innocent people have nothing to fear.
However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".
'There is an old fable,' said Hardin, 'as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. It runs as follows:
A horse having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of his life. Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Whereupon he approached a man, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man. The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at the manÃ(TM)s disposal. The horse was willing, and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him.
The horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the man, and said: ÃNow that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.
Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied, ÃThe hell you say. Giddy-ap, Dobbin,Ã(TM) and applied the spurs with a will.
I really wish the British would learn the differences between a pedophile, child pornographer and child molester already. And that being a pedophile is not a crime.
And stop using it as an excuse to justify snooping.
...would trade a certain amount of safety for freedom.
We want a level of policing that provides a reasonable level of security but does not compromise our lifestyle unless a large number of casualties would result. One or two events per year do not necessitate loss of liberties that affect everyone.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
...Keith Bristow's resignation
In my opinion, the problems are even bigger. No fly lists and other terrorist lists are completely beyond and above law and due process. There is no way you can appeal them or challenge them in court, except possibly, under very exceptional circumstances, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
And as you rightly mention, there are more and more national "rubber laws" not just in Britain but all over the EU (not to speak of US, who seem to have them traditionally). These are laws that leave it nearly open what exactly constitutes the respective criminal ofense, making it possible to prosecute just about anyone for just about anything if somebody feels a need for it. They violate a basic rights principle, namely that an informed and educated citizen has to be able to tell exactly, from the text of the law, when he would transgress the law.
Last but not least, the biggest problem is that there is a strong tendency to make laws stronger rather than abolishing them or making them weaker, because this is always the safe route for a politician to go (unless he has reasons to believe the law might affect him, so this tendency does not concern anti-corruption and tax evasion laws). Who wants to be held accountable for not having signed this 'anti-terrorist' or 'child protection' law when the something bad happens? And something bad will always happen, that's for sure.
The long-term effect of these processes is increased legal uncertainty for common citizens, much more power for rich citizens who can afford excellent legal council, and an overall fascist society.
”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
Oh wonderful. Seems I just got the "-1 disagree" mod. I love how you "promoters of internet freedom" love to mod down anyone who disagrees with the echo chamber. Ironic, isn't it? You're only for freedom when it benefits you (like not having to pay for music or movies or software).
And to reply to you, one, I don't drive a car, and even if I did, there's no information in a car's computer (if you can even call it that) that I wouldn't mind being intercepted. I have a bank account of course, but I make all my purchases in cash, so if you saw my bank account, all you'd see was my name and other information that was already public. I wouldn't even care if you looked inside my bank account, because the only transactions are direct depost (I make a nice salary, so I don't care about hiding it) and withdrawls.
As for pictures and such, again, I'm not sharing child porn or anything illegal, so if they were leaked, oh well. So you know I went on vacation in the Phillipines or ate at Red Lobster last night with my family? Who cares. I would never be dumb enough to take incriminating sexual or illegal photos.
And I'm out, because I have a feeling I again will just get attacked for having a dissenting opinion on this pro-piracy, pro-anything goes on the internet website.
Care to post your card number and CVV number, and your PIN number.
After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?
It seems they managed to include three of the four horsemen of the infocalypse. Nice.
meh, in the UK you're going to need to do some things with computers nowadays, if you for example want to drive a car you own...
So what? Your name and address are on your driving licence and you have to pay road tax anyway. Registering electronically is no different from doing it by paper.
would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper? really really? or your family photos you just sent to your uncle? really really really?
In what fantasy world would the government print details of your bank account or family snaps in the local newspaper?
the laws potentially affect you, say, if your local copper envied something you had and wanted to hurt you with some crap he could dig up without a warrant.. because uh, that's what we are actually talking about when we talk about mass surveillance gathering that's searchable - gathering that just gets everything and is later searchable for 'clues' by anyone with access at will.
If the police "wanted to hurt you with some crap" I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need electronic information to do so. The protection against that is the rule of law, i.e. police being policed themselves. If that doesn't work, it's irrelevant whether they are using copies of your embarrassing dick picks or confessions beaten out of you with rubber hoses.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your argument makes no sense. Posting your credit card number on-line where any criminal can read it, is different than handing your credit card to the server in a restaurant, for instance, or allowing law/tax officials to see it, or employees from the bank that issued the card.
I remember over 10 years ago here on Slashdot, people joked about the various machinations of Governments around the world moving us towards a Orwellian future. People then considered the jokes amusing for a bit but ultimately a bit lame, mostly due to overuse as there was far too many examples to use them in. Now it's no longer lame, it's more a clear fact. And there's nothing that'll reverse the trend it would seem.
I'm a father of a 4 month old. I try to remain positive about the future, hope for humankind. But with this shit it gets real hard sometimes. Doesn't help that fuckheads like ISIS/ISIL are going from strength to strength - it'd be nice to actually see the good guys win for once.
We need heroes of character - living people who we can aspire to be like. But it seems that doing evil things is proving to be more successful.
VPN's... !next
If you aren't doing anything illegal online (pirating, illegal pornography, planning terrorism) these laws won't affect you
Remember, innocent people have nothing to fear.
However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".
No, society does.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You'll have to trade everything in the name of security. And when you have nothing left to give... they'll enslave you.
As to the solution here? It is rather obvious but politically incorrect and I have no patience for the horde of mindless tools that with gainsay the obvious. Those that know need not be told. Those that do not know probably wouldn't understand in any case. It isn't time yet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The parliament wants mandatory cameras in everyone's left nostril and right ear.
Maybe not, but oh, it sure helps. And if cops don't need electronic information to hurt me, then they don't need electronic information to hurt bad guys, so they don't need it at all.
And they're not. From the beat cop on up to the President of the United States, the executive branch is a bunch of violent criminals and their accomplices, with no effective check. So where does that leave us?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
if they're looking for the pedophiles - they should really be spying on the uk gov't and bbc themselves.
You are, however, dumb enough to not realize that "incriminating and illegal" are in the eyes of the beholder.
Great, another person who thinks we all ought to be grateful for the freedom to live just like them.
I see things are progressing nicely on Airstrip One.
Proverbs 21:19
National Crime Agency? Hahahahaha.. breathe.. hahahahhaha
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
I encrypt my data against casual access, i.e. stolen device, malware, overly-enthusiastic "just looking around". If a police officer gets a warrant for my data, he gets my data. The requirement of a warrant, though, is what makes it okay.
Basically they are going to continue screw us (same thing is happening here in the US) and they are going to do it with our permission (not really but it will legislate that way) and if you're against it... the 4 horsemen of the infopocalypse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... will be evoked.
They are going to take away everything period.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
No, you got the "-1 Ranting Idiot" mod
This all sucks... but the above makes me feel like i have something nice to fall back on when the UK internet completely devolves into a great chinese firewall
VPN is not fun, crappy performance TCP over TCP, setting up servers is not fun, services are overpriced honeypots... go look at sshuttle on github, read the readme - get convinced, then go find a VPS of your choice - you don't have to set anything up because pretty much every nix server system comes with ssh + python. apt-get or clone shuttle and you can easily send all traffic or be selective.
As long as there is one country left somewhere that doesn't severely filter internet traffic...
Think of the Childrenssss!!!!!
Will the state hire me a personal risk assessor who follows me everywhere and prevents me from doing bodily harm to myself or others? Taste tests my food? I mean, we need to think of the poor insurance rates, people!
"No, they are not. They are a privledge."
No. Freedom of choice is not some "privilege" other people are letting you have. Or where did they get the "privilege" to grant others privileges?
Give up your rights. Or else.
On the other hand:
Britons must accept a greater loss of digital freedoms in return for greater safety from serious criminals and terrorists.
Sounds more reasonable. Personally (although I'm not a Brit) I feel more than safe enough. Given this choice, I'd opt for more freedoms.
Have gnu, will travel.
ÃoeThose who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.Ã
Ben Franklin
... No.
Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
Crime and violence relate to population density. The more people per square mile in an area the more laws and secuity are needed. And now we also have a double whammy. We must not only consider population density but also wealth density and tech density as well. For example there are several spots in the US where a small area infested with radiation would lead to such a financial disaster that unusual security must exist. And then there is technology density to consider. A strike upon some areas would disrupt so much tech and tech investment that it could take down a nation. Look at the horrors caused by a failure of a few investment firms has already put upon all of us. It was done by greed and stupidity but enemy agents could have created a similar collapse and frankly they still could. As an example imagine you are set up on an island and you form a firm that offers a ghost stock. The ghost stock simply mirrors who well General Motors stocks are doing. Yet you have no overhead and can pay out a bit more than those who own real GM stock receive. Over time you build up a large following and start to control billions of dollars. And then, simply because you are an enemy, you pull the plug and collapse the value of the frim completely setting off a cascade of failures. Keep in mind that you could set up systems like this for thousands of stocks from different companies. Your ghost market could get enough power to actually control the real markets.
I'll give up some safety for some freedom.
Oh wait, you mean the other way around? I think subjects of The Crown fought this war once already.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".
No, society does.
Of course. "Society" is just another way of saying "other people with more power than you," where "power" can be political or financial or even just the power of being in the majority—none of which justifies the violation of your rights as an individual.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Good evening, London.
Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some aweful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper?
Strawman. Nobody's proposing to have privacy sensitive information printed in the newspaper.
Not in the public paper just the LEO Herald, where any one in authority who has an exlover/object of obsession to stalk, that never happens either. People with excessive power will abuse it, miranda came about after the 60's, when kicking down peoples doors and abusing their rights was more common in the US.
Every crime, or infraction is automatically and instantly a capital crime. From mass murder to littering, everything invokes an instantaneous no trial no appeal death penalty.
Those that trade freedom for security, deserve neither.
Here in the United States, enough people have decided to no tolerate any more infringement of rights. Attempts to do so will be taken by many people as an act of civil war. and many have publically warned the officials, so there is no excuse.
However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".
No, society does.
Of course. "Society" is just another way of saying "other people with more power than you," where "power" can be political or financial or even just the power of being in the majority—none of which justifies the violation of your rights as an individual.
The joke's on him. He thinks he's "Society". Society might think otherwise.
Perhaps the British could finally jump on the Napoleonic constitution train of the former Middle East and Europe. It's not the 19th century anymore and the trust of the people is not won by terrorizing them.
Milan Kundera's book "The Joke" is fascinating insight into what happened in a Soviet block country (Czech) when someone wrote a joke to a friend on a postcard which the authorities saw and used.
We used to look at the East and feel good in ourselves that we weren't being watched and that we had freedoms they didn't. Not any more....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joke_(novel)
When people have to give up their civil liberties, then the terrorists have won. Mr Bristow must be sacked immediately, to prevent handing victory to the terrorists. His attempts at fearmongering ae despicible. Use of base emotive language that invokes fear in this way is highly typical of the apparatus of an authoritarian regime. Civilised countries do not spy on their own citizens. There is already a process in the UK to intercept communications. This involves getting a court order. Further powers would just be creating a UK Stasi/NSA. Us Brits do not want US style human rights abuses on our soil, thank you very much.
There's lots of vectors to get access to encryption keys via a special series of packets.
That was more or less the intent of the Clipper Chip, and which that design failed publicly, there is no doubt given the massive complexity of modern chips and their errata, that there are probably from tens to hundreds of backdoors, either intentionally, or unintentionally placed into modern hardware which makes it easy to gain end-user unauthorized access.
Combine that with Intel's TXT/vPro and ARM's TrustZone feature sets and remote players can have full access to everything on your system, be it memory, io, encryption keys, etc.
Does anyone actually think TPM modules are secure?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Words to live by. Hope the brits enjoy the V is for vendetta reality they are creating for themselves/
Anyone who surrenders a little liberty for the illusion of security deserves neither and will lose both.
Fuck your movie references, fuck your "what-if" liberal bullshit, fuck your community spirit and herd immunity mentality - it's all SHIT. I AM FREE because I SAY I AM, NOT because YOU feel like "granting" me that which I am entitled to by virtue of the fact that I LIVE. And I will defend to the DEATH my right to say what I want in whatever forum I find myself. NOBODY is forcing you to listen, and YOU DO NOT have the right to censor me to quell your moral outrage. FUCK. OFF.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
When I challenged the Met to show the precise area of terrorism legislation that specified the offence, I was threatened with arrest for wasting police time.
The fuck??
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin