The Orwellian Bill, has been passed and Eris Industries have left the UK Eris Industries Leaves UK After Orwellian Bill Reintroduced
Does this have any affect on Maidsafe??
thanks
Good thing Maidsafe isn’t a company and is a non profit foundation instead. Oh and moving to North America isn’t all that bright given the U.S. has it’s patriot act and Canada has C-51.
3 Likes
Maidsafe is a company, but whether it’s a company or non-profit would seem irrelevant in any case. If this Bill passes before launch, then it appears to be a straight choice to me - break the law or comply. This is the nightmare scenario as far as I can see. Somebody please tell me I’m wrong.
Edit:
All seems very vague at the moment, appearing to mainly focus on 2 areas - ISP’s and “encryption” (very vague). We should have further info in a few days but I can’t see this Bill passing any time soon given all the opposition from Civil liberties groups. It also will have to get through the House of Lords which will be another hurdle.
3 Likes
THIS BILL HAS NOT PASSED
Op is a jackass, change the title, rtfa.
The police and intelligence agencies want to maintain the status quo in their ability to spy on suspects and persons of interest in the face of new technology that makes it much easier for all people to hide their communications and online activities. Maidsafe is that technology.
All UK people should fight this bill as hard as they can. Backdoors for law enforcement means a broken communications system that criminals and hackers can exploit. If UK cops can spy, so can anyone and everyone that has technological know-how. The true cost of the bill, if it is passed, will be in stolen trade secrets, stolen identities, stolen financial information, and a cowed populace that thinks like slaves and doesn’t innovate anymore.
6 Likes
Op is a jackass, change the title, rtfa.
Name calling is not acceptable on this forum, please don’t do this again.
8 Likes
I changed the title, but civility, please.
6 Likes
I liked the post but not the first sentence…just for clarity… 
1 Like
The bill has not been published, though it is believed to be stronger than the original “snooper’s charter” I doubt it will attempt to ban encryption our mandate backdoors. To do so would be both very difficult and very damaging to the UK.
We can be sure it means providers will have to store our internet activity and electronic communications for at least two years, but it seems that a warrant will be be required to read them. It also increases the powers of security services, and who knows what other measures will attempt to be sneaked in. The House of Lords may yet derail it though, especially if we (and those providers) all complain enough.
3 Likes
Can you guys pull up accurate info on this bill? I’m a bit fuzzy on UK politics however between Canadian, American and now UK censorship bills there’s a definite pattern here and it’s good to stay up to date. Also given the international nature of the net it’s also good to know what the laws are where and the security risks of communication and storing data.
Also for what it counts I vote for non complience, regardless of the law passed. Maidsafe is an open source and international project after all and I doubt the community at large would tolerate security holes in order to placate government officials. i know I wouldn’t.
1 Like
And France (already passed)…definite pattern, indeed.
I am hoping that (as usual) Human Rights legislation is going to come to the rescue and trump all this snooping nonsense. This really should be a wake up call to all detractors of Human Rights, who fall for the ridiculous arguments against them.
Here is the UN’s position:
Whilst I’m on about it, could I just say that this is exactly why David Cameron wants a diluted “British Bill of Rights” and to pull out of the European Convention. He tries to convince people that some Rights are daft and not needed, or hinder justice - I can think of 2 of his arguments off the top of my head that appeal to the public, but on closer inspection are specious and dangerous. The first would be the giving prisoners the right to vote argument, which is there for a very good reason - to stop the mass imprisonment of political opponents as Hitler did. I mean just think about it for a second - how on Earth does it detriment anybody whatsoever to allow prisoners to vote? It is playing on people’s desire to punish,when in fact it is removing an important right.
The second one would be the Abu qatada case in which he claimed Human Rights were preventing the UK extraditing him to Jordan. The actual Human Right was the right to not be tortured, hence he couldn’t be extradited to a country that used torture. Now, I’m sorry but I have no desire to get rid of this particular right, however much it inconveniences Govts. It just makes me sick all the specious, playing to the gallery arguments that are made to strip us of our basic Human Rights…so I’ll stop before I go into a rant.
2 Likes
Just like human rights has trumpted the existence of guantamino or the war crimes committed under both bushes and Obama? You notice there aren’t any presidents going to jail any time soon.
1 Like
Well, no problem there since SAFE never deletes data… 
Not much fear about Warrants either – Who are they going to serve them to? You would have to find the computers running the vaults holding the data, and not even the network knows where those are…
Governments are going to do what governments are going to do but they mandating that technologies be un-invented will be about as effective as the governments proclaiming that rivers should flow uphill from now on… There is a higher power that trumps governments…
3 Likes
Is that another “argument” against having Human Rights? If so, then the same reasoning can be used to get rid of laws against Murder or Rape etc. Your point only highlights the shameful behaviour of the US if anything. Flouting International HR law has deeply harmed the US’ reputation globally Being a signatory to HR and adhering to them “says something” about a Nation - it affects it’s reputation, global standing and “soft power”. The US may think it is getting away with stuff but it deeply affects its global standing and reputation.
This is a big part of the reason why the UK should not pull out of the European Convention. To be honest I don’t even see how having a “British Bill of Rights” is going to change anything legally as far as EU law is concerned. The EU Court of Justice gives “special significance” to the Convention and uses it as it’s guiding principles, so the Court can still over-rule any British interpretations - so not sure where it gets us.
I take it you mean the electorate?
1 Like
Actually I was illistrating how it’s rather naive to believe that just because you say it’s a human right it’ll be granted and enforced as a human right. First of all rights are not granted by governments, be they agreed to via signitories or otherwise, anything granted by government is a PRIVILAGE not a right. Rights come from within, one could say they come from the divine, from God, but it’s enough to say they come from what you yourself belive in and that you believe all humans have a right to from birth. An inalienable right cannot be given or taken away by government. The only challenge is gettting a government to respect and acknowledge said right. However rights must be actively defended if they are to be kept as values otherwise someone else, who believes something different, will assert their values and/or will simply trample on or forget your rights. I’m not debating the value of human rights here I’m saying it’s naive of you to think a psychopath in a high level of political office is going to give up power or put themselves at risk in order to respect those rights without good reason. Furthermore I used the U.S. as an example because I’m familiar with the politics however pretty much the same kind of thing happens in every country around the world. If you’re looking for human rights violations it’s not that difficult to find that. So please don’t think your own shit doesn’t stink. Canada, the U.S. the UK, China, the Middle East or wherever else it doesn’t matter. Giving everyone free speech, real uncensored free speech, would radically undermine any politician’s powerbase. You’d have to take down all the censorship in China to respect human rights for that by itself. Educating the masses? First of all we could really debate the definition of what actual education would be but that aside such things cost money and/or granting the populace independence. Food and water? Neste has outright stated they don’t believe every human being even has a right to access to water so you’ve got multinational corporate opposition there, and don’t think that’s just one company because there are a lot of corps that sell water and make a profit on it’s trade. Food? You’d have every biotech company trying to take over your food and then make you addicted to their GMO crap. Again no right to food but it sure is profitable. f As for racial bigotry how the hell are you going to prevent that on the ground? Half of that is perpetuated by economic class groupings. Jobs going to perceived race A so grace B feels slighted and racism emerges OR race A feels threatened by race B and bigotry emerges. YES I agree it’s stupid and comes down to fear and ignorance but it’s not going to be solved by some declaration of human rights it’ll be solved by people talking to one another. The only way human rights will work is if people actually BELIEVE in these rights, each and every one, and act on them on the ground. It will NOT work if some high muckity muck in the UN or some other poltical office makes some declaration. And quite frankly I think it’s been proven that people don’t universily agree on all the “human rights” or at least not in the same way.
Yes I agree censorship and the inability to encrypt violates human rights and free speech. Yes I agree it should be stopped. My point is that someone in a high level of power is not going to give up power just because the UN or advocates of human rights say they’re violating human rights because really why should they care? Why should they let the UN dictate terms to them? Let’s take this to a smaller scale. If the city came to me and told me how to live in my house I’d tell them to **** off, it’s my house. And short of having some way to force me I’d do as I pleased in my own house and on my own land. If the UN believes that not being able to encrypt violates human rights then how are they going to enforce that and/or defend people’s rights to encrypt? Saying you believe in something is just a lot of hot air unless you’re willing to back it up with action.
1 Like
The International Human Rights we are talking about are protections agreed by Humans and codified into International law by Govts representing the people. They are certainly NOT a privilege.
You could say that, but you’d be talking gobbledegook. If you are referring to the “god” of the Abrahamic religions,then this particular deity has absolutely no regard for Human Rights whatsoever, as the following description (backed by Biblical text) by a certain mild mannered Evolutionary Biologist and respected Oxford Don points out:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
You appear to be contradicting yourself here.
When exactly did I display this naivete?
For some reason,I can’t quote you anymore as it doesn’t work, so I’ll have to leave it there.
Actually, reading the rest of your post which appears to be the argument that it is pointless to codify Human Rights into law, does not really warrant any further reply.
It is indeed frightening what is happening in France.
The end is nigh when these powers are granted. It is still unclear to me the status of this bill as far as becoming law goes. There was a flurry of news articles May 4-6 when it passed the lower house, but the president hasn’t signed it into law yet and there is talk of a constitutional court hearing prior to its introduction. French Surveillance Law Passes National Assembly, But It’s Not the Last Word
Already France has succumbed to socialism, and suffered its natural consequences, experiencing mass civil unrest during the financial crisis. Now it seems a full “polite totalitarianism” police state is in the works. The next financial crisis, a general currency crisis for the Euro, is coming soon enough, and with it a general debt crisis for the French state, with its 90% public debt to GDP ratio.
Preparing for the potential mass civil unrest and risks this poses to continuity of government that many elites foresee as the natural progression from the currency and debt crises in the next few years, France has instituted required reporting of any use of cash for transactions over $1000. You see, people tend to not pay tax to a grasping failing state since they know that all the tax collectors and police are about to go on strike for lack of pay, and only suckers would pay tax in that situation, so you move to cash, gold, silver, and hopefully bitcoin and safecoin.
Now the French bureaucrats wish to know all about their citizens. This way when their socialist state collapses under the weight of its unrealistic entitlement spending obligations, they know which social hubs people to put under close watch to minimize the organization of resistance to the martial law that will be required to quell the unrest.
1 Like
How is it not a privilege? You just said yourself they’re the result of codified law by governments. That is by definition a privilege. They were granted by an authority and therefore a privilege not an inalienable right. I find nigh impossible to believe any kind of democratic process can be achieved on an international level without being grossly corrupted. I think we’ve already proven that there isn’t a uniform agreement going on.
Frankly for the most part I wouldn’t have that much argument with you at your criticism of Christianity. Personally I wouldn’t go that extreme but it wouldn’t be out of the ballpark of the vibe I’d get. But as for my position on natural law and inalienable rights I wasn’t referring to Christianity in particular. I was referring to the divine in a general sense and as I said even if one doesn’t believe in the divine, as you obviously don’t, it’s enough that one understands that an inalienable right comes from oneself and that one is born with those rights. If you believe you have the right to free speech, the inalienable right to free speech, as does every other human being then that means you were born with that right and no one can take that right from you nor do they have the right to grant it to you because it doesn’t stem from an authority outside of yourself. It’s part of you, part of your being. Inalienable rights stem from one’s creation, austensively from one’s creator but for you atheists out there, from one’s core nature.
Oh? How so? I was pointing out that the U.S. government wasn’t respecting the rights of the prisonors in guantomono. Just because you say they have rights, even if the prisonors agree they have those rights, doesn’t mean those in authority will respect those rights. That doesn’t mean those rights are taken away it just means one is being abused. For example I believe in my right to free speech. If someone censors me that doesn’t mean they are taking away my right to free speech they are merely abusing and surpressing my ability to excercise it. Now this example also demonstrates why one has to DEFEND one’s rights: to prevent such abuses and to ensure one can exercise one’s rights.
That is is where you show your naivete.
It’s pointless to codify human rights at an international level and expect it to effect change at a local level. The UN means NOTHING to me. In fact I’m quite resentfal of some external force trying to dictate rules of any kind upon my country, my province, my town and my life. They’re outsiders, they’re from other countries far away and have no place in my life, my province’s life, or my country’s life. Whether the UN has something good or bad to say that’s not the point the UN’s authority is moot because it’s FAR AWAY and they are extreme streangers. If the UN or anyone else wants to promote human rights it needs to be done at the local level. There needs to be someone in town you can go to when you see human right’s violations. There needs to someone at the state/provincial level you can go to with such issues. And there needs to be someone at the national level. It can’t just be some UN agreement somewhere or some group you mail about issues somewhere. It needs to be someone you can talk to face to face. If you can’t get immediate local help with issues then there isn’t any hope in hell of making any change. Haven’t you read Machaleveli’s “The Prince” and read about how if you’re going to rule you need to be close to the populace you’re planning to rule? Proximity matters.
If it’s all but impossible to have national laws that are not riddled with corruption how can we have international laws that are not riddled with corruption? I barely trust law on a state level. On a federal level? Pah good luck. On an international level? Yeah right. You want human rights? Put something local in place.
You say it’s just codifying what people agree on? Then getting a local group should be easy.
1 Like
I agree with a lot of what you say, however I think you wrongly ascribe the problem to “Socialism”, rather than “Capitalism.”.All the protests are (as with the rest of Europe) against “Austerity” measures which have been introduced due to the failure of Capitalism (Bankers/Corps etc) and the wealth being concentrated in the elite 1% - the 99% are kicking off.
The “unrealistic entitlement spending obligations” are unrealistic purely because of the debt and coming collapse of the debt based Capitalist system - not because of Socialism I would suggest.
Seriously, I seem to manage to get my points across without resorting to personal attack or constantly punctuating my arguments with the “F” word, which you seem singularly incapable of doing. So your reference to god and divine meant what exactly? BTW "Abrahamic religions are not restricted to Christianity - they include Islam and Judaism - just to further your education.
I did no such thing, however writing in caps (shouting) would indeed be ranting.