Slashdot Mirror
France Will Not Ban Wi-Fi Or Tor, Prime Minister Says (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: Despite requests from police following the deadly Paris attacks, France will not ban the Tor anonymity network or public Wi-Fi, Prime Minister Manual Valls said on Wednesday."A ban of Wi-Fi is not a course of action envisaged," Valls responded on Wednesday. Nor is he in favor of a ban on Tor, which encrypts and masks users' identifying data. "Internet is a freedom, is an extraordinary means of communication between people, it is a benefit to the economy," Valls added.
Vive la France
The fact this was even proposed shows how disconnected many are from reality. Feel good legislation will not fix anything and will only impose problems on common folk.
The actions of a few must never dictate the life of the many.
Please stop saying "[country] will/did do this ...". ...". Governments come and go.
Instead, say "The current government of [country] will/did do this
Forward-thinking, no knee-jerk reactions, no inflammatory rhetoric to rile up his base, not immediately jumping on an open opportunity for a power-grab... are we sure this guy's a politician?
"...our impulses are being redirected. We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep⦠...the movement was begun eight months ago by a small group of scientists who discovered, quite by accident, these signals being sent through television... ...the poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices... ...their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness.
We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent, to ourselves, to others, we are focused only on our own gain. We ha... ...please understand, they are safe as long as they are not discovered. That is their primary method of survival. Keep us asleep, keep us selfish, keep us sedated... ...they are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor.
We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery."
It's a vent for angry people to express their anger in a non-destructive manner, rather than get more frustrated to the point of actions.
Anonymous speech is a way for them to be confident that their words won't bite them in the ass if they have to express extreme anger.
See, when you do mass surveillance, and you say "your words are watched so watch what you say", you are actually saying "your words are watched by people with their world view and their grudges and their opinions and biases, so be careful not to contradict their world view, or trigger their grudges or contradict their opinions". As if there is a ruling class and a ruled. Slaves and masters. It drives extremism too.
So we have this right. The right to free speech, and we have this other right, the right to privacy, and you surveillance lot, you need to get back within society and respect those rights. The UK in particular, what you are doing in the donut, its not legal.You know its not legal, you know they keep trying to pass the damn surveillance law, you know Parliament keeps rejecting it, and you know Parliament is the top body above Cameron, yet you keep doing it anyway. You need to come back within the boundaries of the UK system.
We had Jacqui Smith's soundbite: "the right to life trumps the right to free speech", it's a false dichotomy. Suppressing basic rights drives extremism. We booted her out of office, and good riddance. Parliament said no. Now we have that other woman in Home Secretary (they can't put men in that office because their porn surfing history is leverage to foreign powers) and she is trying the same "what if your kids die because you don't let us control free speech?" She won't last long either.
Stop following these surveillance idiots, get back within the legal framework of the democracy. /rant
People have the courage to protest and go to the barricade in some countries, and France is among them. Make a rule which enrage most french, expect to have nasty consequences. See De Gaulle and the protests of 68.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So now I'm really confused. Is the French government allowing Tor to stay feral because they can tame it whenever they want, and the cops were too stupid to know?
Or did the question come up because Tor reallyis a good way to maintain a fairly decent level of privacy, and the cops were hoping to get rid of it?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Neither will the United States, as that will be viewed as an attack on our freedoms, our free speech, our liberties, and will result in war.
No. Not enough people care about it. Not enough people outside the tech world understand it. And if you rise in rebellion, you will find nobody rises with you.
Eventually the intelligence and law enforcement communities will find a boogeyman big enough that they can use it to get the rest of the government to support fucking over everyone by making encryption illegal so that mass surveillance works again. Look at how they responded to Snowden--by making *corporations* hold on to mass surveillance data, they were able to get mass surveillance renewed. The only situation in which they might stop is if they are able to penetrate the encryption entirely.
It may take another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11. But eventually, such an attack will happen. It's just too easy to cause mass panic if you have a few people willing to do your bidding.
Police are not thinking on all cylinders. Anonymity works both ways. They need some undercover agents on Tor joining (and reporting on) plans ASAP (at least to the extent they are leaked to new recruits). I suspect, however, that ISIS recruits have to meet physically with handlers at some point - and at that point the undercover work becomes exceedingly dangerous.
The largest number of WiFi nodes I have seen in one place was 34, right outside Le Châtelet Metro station in Paris.
The U.S. government wants to be able to see your private conversations... soon everyone will have to implant a mic as well to please the government because speaking in person is encrypted by walls.
I'm late on this, but I think it's worth stating.
Step One: a government's minister makes an statement about planned policies that cause an outrage.
Step Two: the prime minister of said government claims reassuringly that said policies aren't actually on the table.
Step Three: the government implements less outrageous policies of the same nature that wouldn't have looked acceptable to the public if it weren't for step One and Two having been performed.
I'm pretty sure there's a name for this trick, but I couldn't find it. It's certainly akin to the Argument to Moderation fallacy.
There's nothing like $HOME