even after you managed to grow yourself TEN THOUSAND PAIRS you still ain't gonna do no shit to the Government of the United States of America
they are so entrenched and they have EVERY PART of the system working for them
This is what "they" have placed in your head to dis-empower you. By telling you that you can only vote for mainstream parties, the big parties avoid getting any competition. You should do it anyway just in order not to be a collaborator.
plus, even if the citizenry of the USA give a fuck, who are they going to vote for ?
i mean, what choice do they have in the polling station ?
vote Republicans ?
vote Democrats ?
vote alternative ? which alternative ??
Any alternative. Libertarian; Green; Californian Independence Party; Beer Party. Anything. Every vote for an alternative is a long term threat which shows people are unhappy. It builds up alternative parties by giving them money. It makes politicians from mainstream parties take an interest in your views and try to get you back. This gives a chance that change for the worse will slow.
You have a deeply deficient sarcasm detector. I can sell you an upgrade for 15 bitcoins. Please specify your head size and postal address in reply to this post. I will give you an bitcoin address to reply to.
Interesting. So lets assume GCHQ/NSA already know what the insurance procedure is though not full details. They clearly went far enough to trigger something, but not to trigger a full release. Maybe this was a probe for more information about the insurance data?
Have a non UK person encrypt it remotely. Keep a log of the commands used. If she gets asked for the keys other than by a special agreed procedure (which should be designed to prove to him that you aren't in police custody or acting under duress she is to destroy them. I guess that would be interesting legally.. I'd ask a lawyer first.
Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.
It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)
And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.
There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments. This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.
"Of course, if you prefer to manage your own keys then you can still encrypt data yourself prior to writing it to Cloud Storage."
is meaningless; In other words, what they are saying is just that you could encrypt your whole file, not that you can encrypt your whole storage remotely?
Pro-Microsoft stories are a great way to get responses, which lead to pages, which lead to page views, which lead to ad impressions. Fear leads to hate, you know the rest.
Agreed; the interesting lies are definitely worth putting up so that they can get debunked too.
On the other hand, there is a contingent of pro-Microsoft shills here. We've seen them evolve from creating accounts for single shillposts all the way up to creating a whole posting history before leaving a series of comments with phrases lifted directly from press releases which are trivially provably false. That doesn't mean every pro-Microsoft post is a shill; this discussion in particular is over an issue which is legitimately divisive.
I have no problem with this. I'm not objecting to posts. Just objecting to avoiding objectively interesting "pro-Google" stories whilst selecting objectively boring "pro-Microsoft" stories (MS R&D has reinvented the modem - which even turns out to be a pre-existing iPhone app).
If you manage your own keys and you use a client that isn't written by Google, how does Google get at the decrypted data?
As I understand the system there's nothing they could do and they do allow third party clients?
If so it would be a very good reason to insist your cloud data provider is not the same as your OS vendor. In the end though it's your OS vendor you have to trust for everything since they clearly do have (indirect) access to the keys. Another good reason to use Ubuntu rather than Windows or Cyanogenmod/Replicant rather than Android I guess.
Yes that does make it discrimination. That's good; you should discriminate between those who rob you and those who don't.
Or alternatively, you should have a rule which means that, for everybody, if they rob you and don't repent then you don't let them into your party. In which case, it sort of isn't discrimination or our disagreement just comes down to word definitions;-)
What bullying can Microsoft do any more. I would say the bigger bully today would be Google, you know, "you have no expectation of privacy" Google
This is more or less what everybody said when Netscape dominated web browsers; look how that ended. Microsoft managed to use other strengths to find a way to attack Netwscape in an area where they had been completely lost. Currently Microsoft still dominates desktop operating systems. They also have vast dominance in the political control of US politicians and plenty of influence (through their investments in Ireland etc) in the EU. They also seem to have much more strength in software patents.
In each of those areas you can already see Microsoft moving to use their strengths to try to destroy Google. This is exactly what Steve Ballmer promised too. Until and your politicians can guarantee Google protection from that stuff, you have no right to accuse Google of being the bigger bully.
What Google is doing is saying: "No, since we don't like your company, you will never be allowed to write an app for YouTube. Ever. We are assholes, and we own YouTube, and we hate Microsoft, so you can go f*ck your self".
Actually, the grandparent is wrong. At some point Microsoft will fix their app to work the same way the Blackberry one does and then Google will allow it through. Having made the promises they have openly made, anything else would open them up to a lawsuit. If Microsoft had any extra restrictions beyond those on Blackberry they would have told us about that. This is about something else; e.g. Microsoft wants to reduce Google's ability to present content so it is no better than their own and is pretending they don't understand some tag or other to do that. Alternatively, Microsoft won't agree to some data protection on some of the data they get or something similar.
If only that was what google actually was saying publicly I would cheer happily. Microsoft needs to die, the sooner the better, and they have absolutely zero reason to complain with their history of being evil.
But instead of publicly telling MS to fuck off, google is pretending that there is no problem at all. This is the same kind of scummy behavior I hate about MS, and so I cannot be happy about it.
There are a bunch of things to remember, for example:
Microsoft is one of the biggest political donors going; they have more politicians bought on both sides of the US Houses than most other donors added together
Microsoft has been making repeated anti-trust accusations against Google. They have used their political connections to drive those through.
You might think that was just cheeky and hypocritical, but they have actually managed to get investigations started which is almost unheard of (Google was mostly cleared but their room for manoeuvre is being continually restricted)
Microsoft currently have ongoing complaints in both the EU and US against Google's search engine and Android
Microsoft is actively suing Motorola (owned by Google) to force them to allow Microsoft to use Motorola's almost for free whilst avoiding the FRAND obligations which should fall on Microsoft for doing so.
At the same time, Microsoft is making more money than Google by overpricing it's own, completely outragously bad, patents and using those against phone manufacturers
Essentially Google is under continual legal siege from Microsoft. Almost anything they say to defend themselves will be used against them. They simply cannot afford to comply with what you request. Any public statements from them would place them at great risk somewhere.
The rest of us, people with no connection to Google, have to stand up to this playground bullying and say that it is wrong. Don't blame the victim. Don't allow Microsoft telling you "she was wearing a short skirt" / "she wasn't wearing a Burha" / "she didn't scream no loudly enough" to distract you from the fact that Microsoft is doing the raping and Google (and others) deserve support as the victims.
Until the legal system provides clear protection for Google from Microsoft it is unfair to demand that Google does anything.
Wow, who'd have thought that, in this fight... You'd be rooting for Microsoft?
Slashdot seems to have been taking an extremely pro-Microsoft bias. On they day that an Android based phone in customer satisfaction, they post stories about how Galaxy phones are having problems. On the day that Microsoft's cloud crashes they post stories about how "MS Researchers Develop Acoustic Data Transfer System For Phones". Mostly I guess the shrills and astroturfers have got to the moderation system and the posting queue, but you really have to occasionally wonder about the fact that Microsoft does have a huge advertising budget.
It's really worth just entering "Microsoft" and "Google" into the front search box to see how much pro Microsoft bias there is in Slashdot stories recently. Again, this might be partly that Microsofts publicity companies keep posting, but a bunch of the anti-Microsoft stories also keep disappearing.
So it was wrong when Microsoft did it, but because Microsoft did it's ok for Google to do it?
Without any provocation you shoot me; bad. I shoot you back; self defence. Yes; it is not just justified to do this to Microsoft it is the only possible survival mechanism for dealing with them. Companies like Borland that partner end up getting screwed over. Companies like Oracle that fight end up surviving.
We need to get past the "sticking it to Microsoft" mentality and focus on the fact that it's wrong no matter who does it.
"sticking it to Microsoft" is not a "mentality" any more than worrying about your own kids when a known recidivist child killer gets released into your neighbourhood is a mentality. You demand protection for your own children from the authorities. If they don't give it then you have to do things to protect your kids. Look at the way the competition authorities and even Judges have been bending over backwards to give Microsoft everything they ever wanted to destroy FRAND standards even when it was clearly illegal. Google, frankly, just isn't nearly standing up to Microsoft as much as they should.
It is very clear from the article that Microsoft decided not to even try to do what Google expected from new Apps
both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming,... whine whine whine...Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators / Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us.. whine whine whine..
Try getting your app approved by Microsoft into Windows app store based on coding standards from 2008. They would laugh at you. And what the hell is "technically difficult and time consuming" coming from a company that is meant to be providing HTML5 coding environments. All app development is "technically difficult and time consuming". That's what developers get paid for.
Wait. You forgot to say "Microsoft says". Surely that is relevant.
not to mention smarmy bits like
inconsistent with Google’s own commitment of openness
Which basically means
we would never let you be compatible for free; look at how we block free implementations of ActiveSync; however we demand that Google let us into their market so we can fuck them because they aren't nearly as nasty as we are
Microsoft are a bunch of hypocrites as ever. Google should not be opening up anything for them until Microsoft fully opens all of their server protocols; clearly shows remorse for the things they have done in the past (including clearly identifying who was responsible and ensuring that they are handed over to the justice system) and fully and clearly compensates all of the companies and people (Sendo; Netscape; Borland; Novell; IBM etc.) they have damaged in the past through abuse of their monopoly situation.
If some guy has come by and been caught robbing you several times, that does not make it discrimination if you don't invite him when you invite all your other neighbours over.
it's in the god damn android PRNG initialization of Android and yes, it applies to their Nexus devices though when it's fixed, it will at least be fixed on them.
Please read through my post again. The thing which doesn't apply to a Nexus is the boot loader protection which "protects" you from fixing the Android PRNG yourself (on a Nexus, you can even install alternate ROMS that you can compile yourself). You might also want to note my signature.
? It's not the first currency to be exchanged nor stored anonymously.
This is true because Bitcoin is not really designed for anonymous exchange. All transactions are public and many points on transactions are publicly known. You have to try pretty hard to be anonymous.
What has bitcoin done besides assert its own value on the premise that it will somehow be the future of worldwide finance?
What Bitcoin added is lack of a single point of centralised control or even distribution. It is a pretty neat cryptographic design which has actually been implemented in real life. Up until recently, the NSA could probably have taken over and destroyed Bitcoin at any time, but since there seem to be quite a number of ASIC miners working now probably even the NSA doesn't have the compute power to do that and so there's no real way to put Bitcoin back into centralised control.
There was nothing before Bitcoin that achieved all that.
Having said that, if someone could do the same but with proper anonymity and some other desirable characteristics there's nothing to say that Bitcoin won't be swapped out some time in the future. No idea what that would do to the value of a Bitcoin. Probably depends on the value of the Bitcoin holdings of the guy who designs the future.
It's okay though, with Android you can just write your own PRNG and change all the other software to use it, then you'll be good to go.
It's even better than that though. You can write it; but Google carefully thought to protect you from actually deploying it by putting Android under the Apache license which means that your phone manufacturer can lock down your bootloader to protect you from actually changing anything. Just think of all the people who might end up putting insecure random number generators into their phone and screwing their security if Google had used, for example, the GPLv3.
All hail the all knowing and all wise Google.
(I will admit that at least Google's own Nexus devices don't really do this; but why spoil a good rant with facts.. )
I seriously doubt there is an ISP in the world that would dare charge Google to send data to their customers. The negotiations would be swift: "OK, we won't."
Git Hub is based in the USA where public domain dedications are well established (see the link in the post you are replying to) so it is very likely that source distributed by Git Hub can be in the public domian. If you are really paranoid you can use the CC0 to dedicate to the public domain or achieve as near as possible an effect.
Garbage. The comment he was replying to was indulging in "ad hominem" and he was attacking that argument by pointing out that it wasn't even attacking the right person. The parent poster didn't even claim that Bruce is right.
I hereby declare a new logical fallacy; "Argument by yourlogicalfallacyis.com"
But freedom is useless if crime and terror hit a certain level.
This is the wrong way round. Freedom is what helps stop "crime and terror" hitting that level. If the people are not free then the police concentrate on rounding up "politicals" and feel free to profit from taking things from the population. If you are in a free country then the police are afraid of ignoring the public and concentrate on stopping "crime" including "terror".
It's not a coincidence that the safest countries are the ones which have been long term democracies with high levels of freedom whilst the most dangerous are failed states and effective dictatorships.
Slashdot Mirror
even after you managed to grow yourself TEN THOUSAND PAIRS you still ain't gonna do no shit to the Government of the United States of America
they are so entrenched and they have EVERY PART of the system working for them
This is what "they" have placed in your head to dis-empower you. By telling you that you can only vote for mainstream parties, the big parties avoid getting any competition. You should do it anyway just in order not to be a collaborator.
plus, even if the citizenry of the USA give a fuck, who are they going to vote for ?
i mean, what choice do they have in the polling station ?
vote Republicans ?
vote Democrats ?
vote alternative ? which alternative ??
Any alternative. Libertarian; Green; Californian Independence Party; Beer Party. Anything. Every vote for an alternative is a long term threat which shows people are unhappy. It builds up alternative parties by giving them money. It makes politicians from mainstream parties take an interest in your views and try to get you back. This gives a chance that change for the worse will slow.
The worst thing is to give up.
You have a deeply deficient sarcasm detector. I can sell you an upgrade for 15 bitcoins. Please specify your head size and postal address in reply to this post. I will give you an bitcoin address to reply to.
Interesting. So lets assume GCHQ/NSA already know what the insurance procedure is though not full details. They clearly went far enough to trigger something, but not to trigger a full release. Maybe this was a probe for more information about the insurance data?
Have a non UK person encrypt it remotely. Keep a log of the commands used. If she gets asked for the keys other than by a special agreed procedure (which should be designed to prove to him that you aren't in police custody or acting under duress she is to destroy them. I guess that would be interesting legally.. I'd ask a lawyer first.
Wow. My comment gets modded down, but the one I replied to is just as wrong, yet no down-mod.
It does seem that the original post is based on pretty thin evidence so I'll post this to give your post a little more attention (I get a Karma bonus and you would too if you logged in and posted coherently)
And people say this site is full of righty conservatives rather than lefty liberals.
There is a huge range of views here. Most of the mods seem to leave alone stuff they disagree with and mod up good comments. This is what you are told to do in the moderation guidelines. If you post anon, it only takes the first person to be annoyed by your comment and it's gone. In this context you haven't said at all what you meant. "One of his books" is about the most annoying way of saying it possible. Even if I look up accusations against Obama's treatment of the constitution I can't find any such thing. It would really help if you gave an actual quote and said what you think is wrong with it.
please look up "Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program"
"Of course, if you prefer to manage your own keys then you can still encrypt data yourself prior to writing it to Cloud Storage."
is meaningless; In other words, what they are saying is just that you could encrypt your whole file, not that you can encrypt your whole storage remotely?
Pro-Microsoft stories are a great way to get responses, which lead to pages, which lead to page views, which lead to ad impressions. Fear leads to hate, you know the rest.
Agreed; the interesting lies are definitely worth putting up so that they can get debunked too.
On the other hand, there is a contingent of pro-Microsoft shills here. We've seen them evolve from creating accounts for single shillposts all the way up to creating a whole posting history before leaving a series of comments with phrases lifted directly from press releases which are trivially provably false. That doesn't mean every pro-Microsoft post is a shill; this discussion in particular is over an issue which is legitimately divisive.
I have no problem with this. I'm not objecting to posts. Just objecting to avoiding objectively interesting "pro-Google" stories whilst selecting objectively boring "pro-Microsoft" stories (MS R&D has reinvented the modem - which even turns out to be a pre-existing iPhone app).
If you manage your own keys and you use a client that isn't written by Google, how does Google get at the decrypted data? As I understand the system there's nothing they could do and they do allow third party clients?
If so it would be a very good reason to insist your cloud data provider is not the same as your OS vendor. In the end though it's your OS vendor you have to trust for everything since they clearly do have (indirect) access to the keys. Another good reason to use Ubuntu rather than Windows or Cyanogenmod/Replicant rather than Android I guess.
Yes that does make it discrimination. That's good; you should discriminate between those who rob you and those who don't.
Or alternatively, you should have a rule which means that, for everybody, if they rob you and don't repent then you don't let them into your party. In which case, it sort of isn't discrimination or our disagreement just comes down to word definitions ;-)
When people find matching Dilbert quotes, sometimes it's scary. It's when Calvin is our philosophical guide that I get downright terrified ;-)
What bullying can Microsoft do any more. I would say the bigger bully today would be Google, you know, "you have no expectation of privacy" Google
This is more or less what everybody said when Netscape dominated web browsers; look how that ended. Microsoft managed to use other strengths to find a way to attack Netwscape in an area where they had been completely lost. Currently Microsoft still dominates desktop operating systems. They also have vast dominance in the political control of US politicians and plenty of influence (through their investments in Ireland etc) in the EU. They also seem to have much more strength in software patents.
In each of those areas you can already see Microsoft moving to use their strengths to try to destroy Google. This is exactly what Steve Ballmer promised too. Until and your politicians can guarantee Google protection from that stuff, you have no right to accuse Google of being the bigger bully.
What Google is doing is saying: "No, since we don't like your company, you will never be allowed to write an app for YouTube. Ever. We are assholes, and we own YouTube, and we hate Microsoft, so you can go f*ck your self".
Actually, the grandparent is wrong. At some point Microsoft will fix their app to work the same way the Blackberry one does and then Google will allow it through. Having made the promises they have openly made, anything else would open them up to a lawsuit. If Microsoft had any extra restrictions beyond those on Blackberry they would have told us about that. This is about something else; e.g. Microsoft wants to reduce Google's ability to present content so it is no better than their own and is pretending they don't understand some tag or other to do that. Alternatively, Microsoft won't agree to some data protection on some of the data they get or something similar.
If only that was what google actually was saying publicly I would cheer happily. Microsoft needs to die, the sooner the better, and they have absolutely zero reason to complain with their history of being evil.
But instead of publicly telling MS to fuck off, google is pretending that there is no problem at all. This is the same kind of scummy behavior I hate about MS, and so I cannot be happy about it.
There are a bunch of things to remember, for example:
Essentially Google is under continual legal siege from Microsoft. Almost anything they say to defend themselves will be used against them. They simply cannot afford to comply with what you request. Any public statements from them would place them at great risk somewhere.
The rest of us, people with no connection to Google, have to stand up to this playground bullying and say that it is wrong. Don't blame the victim. Don't allow Microsoft telling you "she was wearing a short skirt" / "she wasn't wearing a Burha" / "she didn't scream no loudly enough" to distract you from the fact that Microsoft is doing the raping and Google (and others) deserve support as the victims.
Until the legal system provides clear protection for Google from Microsoft it is unfair to demand that Google does anything.
Wow, who'd have thought that, in this fight... You'd be rooting for Microsoft?
Slashdot seems to have been taking an extremely pro-Microsoft bias. On they day that an Android based phone in customer satisfaction, they post stories about how Galaxy phones are having problems. On the day that Microsoft's cloud crashes they post stories about how "MS Researchers Develop Acoustic Data Transfer System For Phones". Mostly I guess the shrills and astroturfers have got to the moderation system and the posting queue, but you really have to occasionally wonder about the fact that Microsoft does have a huge advertising budget.
It's really worth just entering "Microsoft" and "Google" into the front search box to see how much pro Microsoft bias there is in Slashdot stories recently. Again, this might be partly that Microsofts publicity companies keep posting, but a bunch of the anti-Microsoft stories also keep disappearing.
So it was wrong when Microsoft did it, but because Microsoft did it's ok for Google to do it?
Without any provocation you shoot me; bad. I shoot you back; self defence. Yes; it is not just justified to do this to Microsoft it is the only possible survival mechanism for dealing with them. Companies like Borland that partner end up getting screwed over. Companies like Oracle that fight end up surviving.
We need to get past the "sticking it to Microsoft" mentality and focus on the fact that it's wrong no matter who does it.
"sticking it to Microsoft" is not a "mentality" any more than worrying about your own kids when a known recidivist child killer gets released into your neighbourhood is a mentality. You demand protection for your own children from the authorities. If they don't give it then you have to do things to protect your kids. Look at the way the competition authorities and even Judges have been bending over backwards to give Microsoft everything they ever wanted to destroy FRAND standards even when it was clearly illegal. Google, frankly, just isn't nearly standing up to Microsoft as much as they should.
It is very clear from the article that Microsoft decided not to even try to do what Google expected from new Apps
Try getting your app approved by Microsoft into Windows app store based on coding standards from 2008. They would laugh at you. And what the hell is "technically difficult and time consuming" coming from a company that is meant to be providing HTML5 coding environments. All app development is "technically difficult and time consuming". That's what developers get paid for.
Wait. You forgot to say "Microsoft says". Surely that is relevant.
not to mention smarmy bits like
Which basically means
Microsoft are a bunch of hypocrites as ever. Google should not be opening up anything for them until Microsoft fully opens all of their server protocols; clearly shows remorse for the things they have done in the past (including clearly identifying who was responsible and ensuring that they are handed over to the justice system) and fully and clearly compensates all of the companies and people (Sendo; Netscape; Borland; Novell; IBM etc.) they have damaged in the past through abuse of their monopoly situation.
If some guy has come by and been caught robbing you several times, that does not make it discrimination if you don't invite him when you invite all your other neighbours over.
CentOS, which is COMPLETELY legal and above board, has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with counterfeit Windows products.
Exactly
CentOS) Costs Nothing
Counterfeit Windows) Costs Nothing.
Exactly nothing in common.
it's in the god damn android PRNG initialization of Android and yes, it applies to their Nexus devices though when it's fixed, it will at least be fixed on them.
Please read through my post again. The thing which doesn't apply to a Nexus is the boot loader protection which "protects" you from fixing the Android PRNG yourself (on a Nexus, you can even install alternate ROMS that you can compile yourself). You might also want to note my signature.
? It's not the first currency to be exchanged nor stored anonymously.
This is true because Bitcoin is not really designed for anonymous exchange. All transactions are public and many points on transactions are publicly known. You have to try pretty hard to be anonymous.
What has bitcoin done besides assert its own value on the premise that it will somehow be the future of worldwide finance?
What Bitcoin added is lack of a single point of centralised control or even distribution. It is a pretty neat cryptographic design which has actually been implemented in real life. Up until recently, the NSA could probably have taken over and destroyed Bitcoin at any time, but since there seem to be quite a number of ASIC miners working now probably even the NSA doesn't have the compute power to do that and so there's no real way to put Bitcoin back into centralised control.
There was nothing before Bitcoin that achieved all that.
Having said that, if someone could do the same but with proper anonymity and some other desirable characteristics there's nothing to say that Bitcoin won't be swapped out some time in the future. No idea what that would do to the value of a Bitcoin. Probably depends on the value of the Bitcoin holdings of the guy who designs the future.
It's okay though, with Android you can just write your own PRNG and change all the other software to use it, then you'll be good to go.
It's even better than that though. You can write it; but Google carefully thought to protect you from actually deploying it by putting Android under the Apache license which means that your phone manufacturer can lock down your bootloader to protect you from actually changing anything. Just think of all the people who might end up putting insecure random number generators into their phone and screwing their security if Google had used, for example, the GPLv3.
All hail the all knowing and all wise Google.
(I will admit that at least Google's own Nexus devices don't really do this; but why spoil a good rant with facts.. )
I seriously doubt there is an ISP in the world that would dare charge Google to send data to their customers. The negotiations would be swift: "OK, we won't."
Google is more than google.com. The ISPs want to force them to pay for Youtube traffic whilst getting free access to the search engine.
There is a whole world of hurt coming for someone.
Not in any sane country. In other words, probably; yes.
Git Hub is based in the USA where public domain dedications are well established (see the link in the post you are replying to) so it is very likely that source distributed by Git Hub can be in the public domian. If you are really paranoid you can use the CC0 to dedicate to the public domain or achieve as near as possible an effect.
Garbage. The comment he was replying to was indulging in "ad hominem" and he was attacking that argument by pointing out that it wasn't even attacking the right person. The parent poster didn't even claim that Bruce is right.
I hereby declare a new logical fallacy; "Argument by yourlogicalfallacyis.com"
But freedom is useless if crime and terror hit a certain level.
This is the wrong way round. Freedom is what helps stop "crime and terror" hitting that level. If the people are not free then the police concentrate on rounding up "politicals" and feel free to profit from taking things from the population. If you are in a free country then the police are afraid of ignoring the public and concentrate on stopping "crime" including "terror".
It's not a coincidence that the safest countries are the ones which have been long term democracies with high levels of freedom whilst the most dangerous are failed states and effective dictatorships.