France Will Not Ban Wi-Fi Or Tor, Prime Minister Says (dailydot.com) 89
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Vive la France
Re: (Score:1)
Vive la France
Politicians say A and do B. Be afraid, very afraid of what the government will really do.
If you think the US government is bad on transparecy issues you've never lived in France.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case afaict the politicians never said that public wifi was going to be banned. It was the police who requested public wifi to be banned, which isn't surprising since police always want these kinds of things shut down. The government initially didn't comment on their request, and now commented that it's not in favor.
Actions of a few.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Actions of a few.. (Score:5, Insightful)
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is - a soundbite sentence like that can have its goalposts moved to suit either side of the argument. Well all surrender a certain amount of freedom for security. If that wasn't the case you'd have anarchy and while that might appeal to a small group of posturing delusionals, the reality is you'd have murder, theft. rape , you name it, with true absolute freedom.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those shouting "Anarchy" in the face of Libertarians are simpleton binary choices. And because they cannot fathom liberty, they are on the side of the Statists (Socialists, Fascists, Nazis ...). Understanding that statism tends towards tyranny, I've chosen to side with liberty. Being free is messy. Fascists always run on a platform of order (at least the trains run on time).
Me, I would rather play in the mud than be afraid of tyrannical order.
Re:Actions of a few.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are constructs of the state. The exist only because the power supports their existence. All power is derived by those exerting it. Not all power is good, not all power is bad.
However, without a defined and meaningful limitation of power, tyranny will always creep into power.
Socialism is a power structure that depends on the state to support it. Taxation required and the forced confiscation of earnings of the workers needed to keep it functioning is the same power tyrants use. There is no difference. Socialism is a form of Statism. Your view that Socialism has no attachment to a state is simply incorrect, as it requires a state to tax the workers (forcibly take) in order to give to those that it chooses to support. Unless you can name a Socialist system that doesn't contain confiscatory taxation policy, your point is simply wrong.
People opposing Liberty are almost (if not) always statists, because they fear it.
Just so you know, I don't believe the government has any right to the earnings of the workers, especially via taxation. The fact that we have become accustomed to it speaks loudly to how far we've fallen in the last 120 years. My view is that ALL taxes are regressive, and I have tons of examples as evidence. Simply put, the rich and powerful will always be able to avoid taxes where the middle class cannot. Ultimately, the rich can move, pay people to avoid taxes, and otherwise simply not consume their wealth in support of the State.
I also don't believe in equality of outcome. Not everyone has equal ability. Giving trophies to everyone just devalues the trophies. There is only one Wimbledon Trophy, only one Heisman. It is what makes those valuable. It is also not possible for everyone to win one. Equal outcome is tyranny. Giving a Heisman to everyone negates its value.
I do believe in equal opportunity. Everyone should have a chance to win the Heisman, or Wimbledon, but those that work hard, have excellent athletic abilities and the willpower to achieve should be rewarded. Taxes are not a reward for success, it is a way for socialists to punish those that they think achieved unfairly. And if you listen closely, you can hear it in every taxation discussion "Unfair" "Fair Share" "Evil one percent".
I just don't buy into that form of jealousy.
Re: (Score:1)
You believe in an ideological world that has not, does not, nor will ever exist.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are constructs of the state.
Yes, but so are people, nowadays. You try getting anywhere in life without an official piece of paper proving who you are and what state you're affiliated with.
Socialism is a power structure that depends on the state to support it. Taxation required and the forced confiscation of earnings of the workers needed to keep it functioning is the same power tyrants use. There is no difference. Socialism is a form of Statism. Your view that Socialism has no attachment to a state is simply incorrect, as it requires a state to tax the workers (forcibly take) in order to give to those that it chooses to support. Unless you can name a Socialist system that doesn't contain confiscatory taxation policy, your point is simply wrong.
I can't name one which has actually operated in modern times, but there have been such systems in the distant past, and there are advocates for such systems in the future. The "socialism" advocated by Marx and Engels (a term they used interchangeably with "communism") was to be a world in which money and states had been abolished; without these the
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com]
Given all these companies executives also pay little to no personal tax and they pay their employees beneath the living wage, benefits are required for those individuals to survive. These benefits are indirectly being given to these so called 'constructs of the state', while the state is on it's hands and knees bef
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are constructs of the state. The exist only because the power supports their existence. All power is derived by those exerting it. Not all power is good, not all power is bad.
However, without a defined and meaningful limitation of power, tyranny will always creep into power.
Corporations are constructs of capitalism, given recognition and power by states. Reading the rest of what you wrote I'm not sure how you propose to define and limit the power of the corporations or the rich and super-rich without....society (the word society of course being very closely related to the word socialism).
Socialism is a power structure that depends on the state to support it. Taxation required and the forced confiscation of earnings of the workers needed to keep it functioning is the same power tyrants use. There is no difference. Socialism is a form of Statism.
States of every type are power structures that collect taxes and all forms of states are applicable to the same claims that you make for socialism. You cannot have a state without collecting
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing socialism with a socialist government. Of course a socialist government is going to have an attachment to the state.
You might want to brush up on your reading before showing everyone just how much you think of yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Clothes aren't trophies: they let me walk on the street without being causing lusty riots. Food isn't trophy: it fuel for my body. Education is not a trophy: it's a way to updating my abilities. A vacation is not a trophy: it's a way to unwind
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a white, well-off, adult male in a population that tends towards those people being in power (whether in politics or business) then you're not going to be hurt by a lack of oversight in the day to day operations of society.
If you're one of the groups sidelined by whatever the majority believes (whether that's racial supremacy, religious nuttery, etc) then having state protections can be good.
Making sure that the political machine has safeguards in place to prevent any group that ends up sidelined
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It can be argued that we do indeed have these freedoms. Since you are free to commit murder, theft and rape, nothing is stopping you for the most part. And indeed people obviously do that. However we enforce consequences to these acts after the fact.
The real trick is that you are free to do absolutely anything so long as you don't complain when others do the same right back to you. You want to go out and murder people? Fine, but don't complain when you receive a death sentence. You want to be a thief? Fine, but don't complain when others don't respect your property rights.
Where you find injustice and lack of freedom is when the "enforcement" involves a disproportionate response, doing to other people what they did not do to you. A death sentence for th
Re: (Score:1)
Odd for the French to not be surrendering. ;-)
Je blague, je blague ...
Re: (Score:2)
The quote is actually:
"They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety."
Benjamin Franklin is commenting on those who will give up the liberty to tax a rich family just because that rich family donates weapons to the ongoing war.
It is interesting that Benjamin Franklin considered government taxation not just a liberty, but an essential one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was in charge, the moment a senior level of a police or security service made such an utterance in public, he'd immediately fired and permanently blacklisted.
Re: (Score:1)
How's that freedom of speech working out for you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dereliction of duty is not protected by free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because you always know the right solution to any problem you encounter, right ?
Being wrong is absolutely ok if you are able to listen to what others say and change your opinion (that's called learning and this is good !). This is the only sane way to go. But politicians can hardly do this because the press (and the whole society) would only talk about how wrong their previous declaration was.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody really wants to discuss the real issue, out of political correctness and fear of becoming a "hater".
We have counter productive statements, nullifying each other, coming as a directive.
1) If you see something, say something
2) Don't be a racist,.
These two things are incompatible with each other, as we found out in San Bernadino, where a neighbor had suspicions but didn't want to be a racist (#2) so they didn't report them (#1) . So, the question is, which is worse, the killing of 14 people or being a r
Re: (Score:2)
Finely nuanced positions are useless. Directions need to be clear and simple for all the simple people out there.
Unfortunately, the real world isn't always simple, and finely nuanced positions are often the only sensible positions to adopt.
By the way, you forgot to mention the alternative ending to your "being a racist" story, where the totally innocent but coincidentally foreign/Muslim/shy neighbour gets shot when they panic in reaction to the unexpected, unjustified and violent intrusion into their home by the police and security services as a result of the racist/paranoid report.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in that case, it would have had a positive outcome if they had been reported. Good thing no-one else would ever make a mistake and report neighbours who weren't about to go on a killing spree, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's extremely ironic that you whine about "statists" [slashdot.org] when your own post reads like a Nazi propaganda guide.
Re: (Score:2)
He actually sounds more like a page or two from the Stasi handbook. They were all about reporting suspicions to the authorities. The irony is palpable, and totally lost on that muppet.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is worse, a world where 14 people out of 7 billion are killed occasionally or a world where everyone is instructed to inform on their neighbors whenever they have poorly supported suspicions? How long do you think geeks will last in a world where behavior that looks odd or scary or antisocial to the average person is reported? What if your garage project looks like a bomb to someone, or a rumor circulates that you're a hac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was good it was proposed, because it got people talking.
Too many people are probably thinking "those terrorists use the Internet. I don't use WiFi, or whatever this "tor" thing is. So ban it."
And as we all know from that famous quote, well, they'll take away everyone who isn't X until you're left and no one will defend you.
So gettin
It's the government, not the country (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop saying "[country] will/did do this ...". ...". Governments come and go.
Instead, say "The current government of [country] will/did do this
Re: (Score:2)
Governments represent the people in the country,
Unfortunately, that is often very far from the truth.
Much of what is wrong with the world today comes down to supposedly democratic electoral systems that quite blatantly do not lead to governments that represent the views of many/most of the electorate, combined with a feedback loop that makes the problem very hard to fix.
Re: (Score:1)
and the name of the land mass run and generally managed by the government is the name of the country they have chosen.
If the government changes, it could very well change their name.
and government can be topled (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You knew what it meant. I knew what it meant. Everyone knew what it meant.
What else could it have meant?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate synecdoche?
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop saying "[country] will/did do this ...". ...". Governments come and go.
Instead, say "The current government of [country] will/did do this
How in the world was this upvoted? The leader for a country talks for the country. This is especially true in France - in some ways they are more libertarian than the US (hint: when I was there 10 years ago they didn't even pre-pay their income taxes - if you don't give your 80% of estimated income to IRS in the US you get fined up the wazoo).
In other ways France is a lot more authoritarian - the leader speaks for the group. They talk in terms of consensus even in political realms. Where were you for
Hold up. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
This Prime Minister SHOULD be praised. When a politician does the right thing, he or she should get just as many hyperbolic e-mails as when they screw up. Yeah, yeah, I'm well aware I'm living in a dream world, but It's always been harder to build up than tear down.
We are being bred for slavery. (Score:1)
"...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 anni
Re: (Score:2)
Communications is also an anti-terror weapon (Score:2, Interesting)
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
The United States will. (Score:2)
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, t
Tor-n (Score:2)
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?
Opportunity (Score:2)
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.
Lots of WiFi (Score:2)
The largest number of WiFi nodes I have seen in one place was 34, right outside Le Châtelet Metro station in Paris.
U.S. beeds to follow suit as a "Free" country. (Score:1)
One of the oldest tricks in the book (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)