-
I think you guys are misinterpreting his words. I don't think he's stupid enough to say math doesn't work in his country. Instead, he meant to use laws to moderate people's behavior (in this case, using math to circumvent government's evidence collection).
Check out some of the other things he's said and done and I think you'll come to the conclusion that he could very well be stupid enough to mean what he said.
We, in the English speaking world, seem to have recently acquired some of the worst and dumbest political leaders that we have ever had.
It's come to something when an Englishman gets to look at the French with envy for the intelligence and integrity of their president.
-
He's saying (to corporations and investors) that they don't have to worry about anything factual, as he's got their backs and will never let scientific facts stand to determine how they are treated in Australia. (Just the law, which they have deals to control, and wherever the law is silent, they are innocent.)
Even if they knowingly poison people, as long as they don't break any "standards" they'll be okay. This is important because all sorts of chemicals are varying kinds of dangerous (for example, endocrine disrupters, which are often used in plastics, flame retardants, etc, we come into contact with every day, or even put into our bodies, which cause dozens of diseases, including cancer, diabetes, sterility, and gasp: morbid obesity) Which are building up in the environment.. with unknown effects for mankind in the future. (they could threaten human reproduction)
Dangerous substances are knowingly being used in products people use everyday because they make something more profitable. The march of progress had to be stopped because business is clearly being irresponsible, the cost of diseases caused by these chemicals is astronomical (a significant portion of the world's GNP, its estimated).
Engineered nanomaterials are similar. They are a potential disaster for people's health, but so useful in products like "tyres" and athletic equipment and underwear that companies are rushing to use them even though many are clearly dangerous in some contexts.
He's affirming that its national governments role now is to absolve businesses of guilt, not control them.
-
You had your tinfoil hat custom made out of a solid block of CNCd aluminum, didn't you?
-
The European Union and the most European Country are against there own Population.
The situation turn into the orwils nightmare. -
The European Union and the most European Country are against there own Population.
The situation turn into the orwils nightmare.
With Franco we lived better
-
I agree, those laws weren't intended to be used like that, but all that's needed is some bad people in the crown prosecution service and a dodgy judge. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.That kind of shit is common with authoritarian governments: make lots of things illegal with tough punishments but don't enforce it, so everyone is routinely breaking the law. Now if they want to get rid of someone, for whatever reason, they have an excuse to because they've broken some obscure law.
And that includes governments that one would not automatically think of as "authoritarian governments", such as the UK. There's a case making its way through the system at the moment based on "possessing information useful to a terrorist organization" under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and it's clear from the way the law was drafted that it was intended to be one of those kind of laws.
Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 creates the offence, liable to a prison term of up to ten years, to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
If you're a journalist who has a list of MPs addresses (a quite reasonable and legitimate thing to possess) you have "information of a kind likely to be useful ... terrorism", or a student with a chemistry textbook that includes information that could be used to make explosives you have "information of a kind likely to be useful ... terrorism", and so on.
There is nothing in the law itself that requires intent, mere possession of "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is sufficient. The government can choose, on a quite arbitrary basis, who will and who will not be prosecuted for this offence. Most people possess some information that could conceivably be used by a terrorists, such as a map, and could quite legally be arrested and swept off the street at any time.
If you ask awkward questions about the existence of laws like this you're likely to get a reply like "Well of course we wouldn't use it like that", but the very existence of a law that could be lawfully used like that is a direct insult to the idea of democracy. Parliament failed on this one to ask the question that should always be asked about laws like this - "What could this law do if put into the hands of my worst enemies?".
-
Quote
With Franco we lived better
I dont know every part of the History but what I know is Merkel was invited everyone in the World to come to Europe ( ) and German NGO Smuggle every Day Thousand and Thousand of African People into Europe.
Tell me in which European Country is the Unemployment Rate under 0%?
Sorry we cant support the Million People who got Bombed by the Germans, British and American Army.
The NATO Member cause everyday crimes against the Humanity. Does it Stop no...
The American also support ISIS with Weapons and Money. The Saudi Regime also support it with there Religion.
So get back to the Tec Forum. Do you know what the DARPA currently make research in?!
Do you every read the news from Tec Company when the present there Solution? Like Cams with Build in Face recognition who send an ID to an Server System.
The new drones who are under development for better Human Tracking.
-
Corporations are not people and are a legal fiction so they occupy not physical space, so they needed countries to be located in. But now they are creating a new network of private international law which supersedes national laws in areas involving economic issues like goods and services. The rules that control everything of economic importance is being takjen out of the hands of voters because the logic goes, they would just vote for things that help them. Do you want healthcare that works, and saves lives, or do you want healthcare that makes lots of money for a very few and dumps people who aren't profitable or run out of money.
Since in the future fewer and fewer people will have jobs and many have less saved than they want. People probably made a faulty assumption they were living under a democracy which wouldn't have been changed in 1995 to not allow anything to be fixed, but in fact it was. It was rigged.
What should they have done? If they were better informed they would have demanded more of the profits that were made be plowed back into society, for example, in public education , health care and infrastructure, as well as living wages, so people could save more money, but that stands in the way of supply and demand and a predicted race to the bottom that the owners hope to reap big rewards from as wages fall as demand falls and supply grows.
So the people weren't told this was being done, anywhere, it seems, so they wouldn't speak up.
In fact here in the US, three out of the four Presidential candidates ran on platforms that were in many respects already banned by trade agreements. Two candidates entire platforms were all barred. So one could even say they were part of an elaborate cover up.
We start getting into a complex moral situation here, that anybody can see makes the situation quite evil. And illegitimate.
Who gave politicians a right to sign these agreements that gave away our rights to fix things, internationally? They are basically agreements between the very wealthiest people to set aside democracy for good, now just as the world really needs it.
A system that undermines the core values of society and which virtually everybody agrees corruption and self dealing by the powerful is out of control.
Ironically, the solutions that save the most money are also the most hated by neoliberalism.
For example, public healthcare, which trade agreements block, saves money.
http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/mythbusters/Myth_User_Fees_EN.pdf
Thats why they want to get rid of it, its too efficient, and it doesn't allow the jobs and soon, patients to be used as bargaining chips in what amounts to an international poker game.
Quote from: Lord of nothing on Today at 09:12:10The European Union and the most European Country are against there own Population.
The situation turn into the orwils nightmare. -
The European Union and the most European Country are against there own Population.
The situation turn into the orwils nightmare.
With Franco we lived better
That amuses me, because Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War. -
The big change for the EU came in 2006 with the Services Directive (Services in the Internal Market Directive)
"in order to promote competition" However in areas such as healthcare adding more competition is less efficient, also all assumptions are off when you realize many lost jobs will never be replaced. So it really becomes a means of labor arbitrage, pushing wages down. Thats not a good thing because who will buy the products of industry. In the neoliberals rush to shaft working people, ("everybody else is doing it") they are going to end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg, the middle class.
Globally.
Idiots!
-
I remember when companies would restrict users from exporting encryption products or software to other countries that were "enemies" of the USA:
http://www.cisco.com/wwl/export/faq.html
Or limit the length of encryption keys. But if the software is available in open source (like PGP) or you have the ability to learn, understand and code your own encryption, you can make it however length key you want. So what is the point? Will the police show up at your door if you make this software? Didn't someone rule that software was like writing... and it is part of "free speech" protection?
I don't know all the legal rules to all of this, but you have people also hacking firmware in Quadcopters to free up the GPS limitations. Do you remember that you could build a model helicopter or even an airplane and make it do whatever you want? If you are going to be a bad guy, there are many ways to do it.
Part of living in a free society is that we take the benefit from our own freedom and balance it with the risk of someone else's freedom possibly harming us. Some things make sense to limit, but others just don't and won't have the effect you want them to have. For example, banning encryption.
It seems that if someone encrypts their machine with TrueCrypt or has PGP app on their phone, they will automatically be suspected of criminal activity. Meanwhile, you can easily hide everything anyways in plain sight using any number of steganographic methods. Embed it in some photos, a video file, music, etc... You have countless ways to hide bits inside any of these media. Unless people know the algorithm you used, it would be hard to detect and decipher.
My point is, criminals don't need to abide by the rules so they will be able to circumvent all of this anyways while the lay average law-abiding person is vulnerable to getting hacked.
Part of the reason these companies went to using encryption methods that are end-to-end (without them holding any keys or master backdoors) is because they did not want to be responsible for constantly handing over keys to governments. Also, it would make their system more bulletproof to potential hacks by 3rd party criminal organizations which could compromise their userbase and cause mass exodus in case of a breach. As a messaging service, why would I put my company at risk by having users leave me in droves when (not if) there is a compromise in my backdoor, or my server master database containing all the keys? That's just stupid for business.
At the end of the day, even if the government manages to ban strong encryption, put in back doors in everything, and spy on all electronic communications, I don't think it will make a difference to those who really are intent in harming us. Seems like most of it is reactionary anyways, just to find co-conspirators if the person was sloppy covering their tracks... which is probably the best argument for why police want to get their hands on it. -
The European Union and the most European Country are against there own Population.
The situation turn into the orwils nightmare.
With Franco we lived better
That amuses me, because Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War.
His famous books as "Animal Farms" and "1984" were savage criticims versus the Stalin's communism, especially with his experience on the Republic Spain band. Speacially with the "Jornadas de Mayo*" event of 1937 , where the troops of the Spanish Republic(Stalinist) tried to assault the Anarchist and POUM(Troskist) headquarters on Barcelona. Eric Blair was freed nearly from terminating on a "checa".
And why do you believe that the higher General of the Spanish Republic Vicente Rojo said this: "All Catalonia already desired to Franco"?
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days -
1932 what better the unemployment rate was very low.
-
With Franco we lived better
Franco bombed more Madrid and Barcelona during years, see the response of the population.
Madrid
https://youtu.be/w6o5Sdeh_3E?t=5m35s
Barcelona
https://youtu.be/isA6OO4-nHE
https://youtu.be/75iTbWkb4kg -
Replace "mathematics" in his statement with "gravity" or "physics". I get the clear understanding that he had no clue what he was talking about.
Don't forget, Australia has already re-legislated gravity to keep everyone from falling off the bottom of the Earth.
-
Another spaniard here... XDThe European Union and the most European Country are against there own Population.
The situation turn into the orwils nightmare.
With Franco we lived better
Enviado desde mi Jolla mediante Tapatalk
-
Don't forget, Australia has already re-legislated gravity to keep everyone from falling off the bottom of the Earth.
They even tried to repeal Murphy's Law but something went wrong. -
He wouldn't be the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
-
You had your tinfoil hat custom made out of a solid block of CNCd aluminum, didn't you?
-
This guy explains what the Ausi government new potential law is up against:
-
In UK you have to give the Gov your Key if the want and if not the can put you to Jail until the crack the System.
Thats why I dont want fly to uk... -
In UK you have to give the Gov your Key if the want and if not the can put you to Jail until the crack the System.
We'll make you drink warm beer too. It's an awful place.
Thats why I dont want fly to uk...
-
In UK you have to give the Gov your Key if the want and if not the can put you to Jail until the crack the System.
Thats why I dont want fly to uk...
Wrong. The UK state's powers to demand decryption keys (they have no power to demand signing keys) are circumscribed by the same kind of law that protects you from other demands from the state. It's not "if they want" but once they have convinced a judge that there's enough evidence of probable wrongdoing to warrant forcing you to decrypt something (which they have to already have lawfully in their possession otherwise it would be pointless), that it's necessary, that it's proportionate etc etc. They can't just turn up and say "hand over you keys because we fancy having them", even if there's a faction in the Home Office who'd probably like to see laws like that.
To be more precise, the law can only demand that you decrypt something; if you are given such a demand there is nothing to stop you from keeping your keys as secret as you like, as long as you comply with a court order to produce plain text from encrypted material.
