fact that Law Enforcement's been beating people up to squeal for centuries now, Well actually, in general, in the real world as opposed to tv/film, they don't do that because it doesn't work - and even if it does it is unlikely that the evidence would be usable in court.
The possibility of secure encryption exists within mathematical logic and ways to achieve it are in the public domain.
Any terrorist organisation capable of being a serious threat has to be presumed to be capable of making use of secure encryption - regardless of whether it is in fact built in to commonly used systems.
Any terrorist or organisation that is not capable of creating its own version of well know secure encryption algorithms and hence only uses the most common public platforms will certainly make enough mistakes to be caught anyway - even if those platforms are secure - (or not be capable of any real threat),
It follows that these protestations from the FBI etc are not really about anything other than budget and feelings of importance/control. With the added bonus of being able to spy on your enemies (in the political sense of the word)
As if small commercially available drones (AKA rc model aircraft) which have no practical offensive purpose and where the worst typical accident is something like this is even remotely comparable to guns - the main purpose of which is to injure or kill, where over 10,000 are killed one way or another each year in the US - including typically 100 children under the age of 15.
Droneys, please resist the urge to act like a spazz. Go visit your local EAA chapter, or flight school. Bring donuts, introduce yourself, and get enlightened.
Better go to your local AMA affiliated club (if in the US - here in the UK it's BMFA). They know about RC model aircraft ("drone" just being a fashionable word used by those who have only become aware of these things recently). Fullsize pilots are often fairly ignorant of the ins and outs of RC operation.
Model aircraft have operated over the world with radio control for over 50 years without much in the way of problems with the fullsize. Negotiation over the years between FAA and AMA (BMFA and CAA in the UK) have resulted in sensible rules and conventions that avoid trouble.
Unfortunately recent low cost(Chinese) production and ill advised marketing has made the hobby (and some casual commercial applications) attractive/accessible to people who don't see the need to make contact with existing, experienced, users. Consequently there have been a few incidents - but really - looked at rationally- nothing that ought to be really worrying.
Add into the mix Amazon's downright ridiculous hyping of the "delivery drone" idea and a few politicians who think that some grandstanding in this space will help them and you get the current stupid storm in a teacup.
And the man is right by the way; it IS hypocrisy, plain and simple. You don't hear politicians condemning mass surveillance until it turns out that they too might be targeted.
Actually that is not true. Quite a few British politicians have been actively trying to stop the general surveillance - the issue of MP's surveillance as given them a lever to raise the issue with more of their fellows.
Also the issue of MP 's surveillance is also important for ordinary people too - because for most MP's it is their communications with their constituents that are the issue.
Having said that I do agree with the general thrust of what you have been saying - I just think that it is ultimately counter poductive to tar them all with the same brush. MP's like Tom Watson, Nick Clegg and David Davis have all done good and significant things in this space. However I agree that the British party system makes it difficult to know who to vote for.
Re: Some good, mostly bad- The Myth and the Reality
Personally I blame the Film/TV Cop dramas for this situation. For so long we have had films and TV where some of the protagonists are "the good guys" with the implicit assumption that any corner cutting that they do is justified. With this assumption it makes perfect sense to accept that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want - because it means they will catch more criminals.
The reality however is that there is no such thing as a good guy (or a bad guy for that matter). There are good actions and bad actions. The whole concept of the rule of law is that rules are better than people as a way of telling the difference.
If the police are not constrained by this type of rule then they are free to pursue personal vendettas and the road to tyranny is open.
Without the requirement of warrants we have no rul
They believe that because they're no specific historical incident (in a time that is actually called the Dark Ages due to a dearth of historians who prided accuracy)
A time that is inaccurately caricatured as dark.
From Wikipedia: "Historians who use the term usually flag it as incorrect. A recently published history of German literature describes "the dark ages" as "a popular if ignorant manner of speaking" about "the mediaeval period","
If you're going to take the love your neighbor as you do yourself thing to heart, you have to accept that it applies to even to those of us that you most despise, regardless of what they did to your mom. That includes not just Muslims, but hostile Muslims that one might regard as terrorists. The very worst and most violent of Muslims. We have to invite them to the party too.
Yep - that's what Canon White "the vicar of Bagdad" said "we have to talk to some very bad people - and we have to be nice to them" That's what "love your enemies" means.
But that doesn't mean that we have to go along with their ideology.
Here is an INdonesian, former muslim now Christian (Orthodox) priest:
"Recently, I was invited to a radical Muslim madrasa—an Islamic boarding school. It has 6,000 students. They are planning to make an Islamic country out of Indonesia. I was surprised that I was invited to explain the Trinity in that place. Of course with them I had to use the primary sources—the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Arabic. By God’s grace I know those three languages. I also used the pattern of Islamic theological thought to explain to them. I was perhaps the first Christian clergyman to talk in that situation. When we went there, forty-five Protestant pastors escorted me, because they wanted to know what would happen. We went by bus, together. They wanted to protect me also—that is the fruit of my friendship with them. So to my surprise, after I finished my lecture, these Muslim clerics—one or two hundred of them, maybe more—gave me a long, standing ovation. They came to shake my hand, to embrace me, thanking me for explaining the Trinity in a way they understood. And they told the people that we have a guest of another religion, but it should not be another religion because they believe in one God! So that is an example of how I communicate with the Muslims. I do not take a confrontational approach, but one of friendship and dialogue. "
Can i first challenge you to find an incident in history in which data scooped up bt the NSA was used to identify and accuse a citizen of the US for a crime?
But there is plenty of evidence that the information is collected. You don't even have that.
I'm supposing it happened because the means and motives were there. You're supposing otherwise based on the integrity of every man of the cloth, and an institution known for using surreptitious means to protect its own interests. How could it not have happened?
But if it happened enough to be a significant factor in the lives of ordinary people how come you can't find even ONE incident where it came out?
There are recorded incidents where civil authorities tried to force priests to break confidentiality but the priest refused and was imprisoned/tortured/killed as a result.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The middle ages were a pretty grim time, and no-one had the moral high ground.
No, I was saying that western civilization failed to recognize human rights and their applicability to all of homo-sapiens until (at earliest) the 20th century, so it's hypocritical of those of us in the west to pass judgment on other civilizations for failing to figure it out sooner.
I would say that the Greek/Roman/Jewish/Christian civilisation of which what you call "western civilisation" is but a part recognised the concept of universal rights very early. IN fact the Roman empire was successful precisely because of this. It has however failed to implement it consistently at any time - including now.
I think we are foolish to assume that we are better at it now than people were in the 7th century for any reason other than the fact that we have a bigger economic surplus than earlier times and hence it is more affordable now.
Having said that I also think that it has actually been in retreat since the election s of Thatcher and Reagan in 1979/80.