That’s a huge rant in proportion to a single generalized comment about the divine in reference to natural law and inalienable rights.
See links I provided concerning inalienable rights and natural law vs possitive law.
Also here
http://lisaleaks.com/2013/07/28/natural-law-theory-vs-positive-law-theory/
Yes I know which is why I don’t care for Zoriastrian religions. I’m more inclined towards he nature based spirituality paths myself.
I see absolutely no point in following your links as they have no relevance to the OP. They only serve to highlight your confusion and conflation of “Morality” with “Rights”
The only useful interpretation of a “Right” to my mind is if it is codified into law - otherwise it is not a “Right” in any meaningful sense.
Yes you could argue you have a “moral Right” to do something, but as this would be subjective opinion, then we could argue till the cows come home about that - especially if you are going to introduce “divine” or “God-given” Rights.
The OP is clearly concerned with transgressions of agreed and codified “Human Rights” - not subjective ideas about morality.
You said that the UN would come in and save the day for those wanting to encrypt. I’m saying that kind of thinking is naive. As for your criticizing the links I posted they ARE relevant as they refer to actual LAW.
Then perhaps it would be wise of you to stop flapping your gums and read the links I’ve sent you and learn about inalienable rights and natural law as that IS codified into law and is the basis for much of our common law, both in the UK, Canada and U.S. Please stop talking bullshit and ignoring the valid information I send you. You claim to want to have a rational discussion but you ignore information provided and do not educate yourself.
Since you are refusing to educate yourself let me break this down for you. Natural law is based on the laws of nature, that law is not valid or just unless it’s for the common good and universal happiness. If you attack someone it’s to be expected they will defend themselves. Ergo under natural law one has the right to defend oneself if attacked. It is naturally one’s right to own one’s own property. And therefore naturally one’s right to defend one’s property. From there we get all kinds of other laws but the point is the laws are based on nature and what one can actually do and what will logically happen as you interact with people. Possitive law is based on power. A possitive law is just so long as it’s passed down through the proper channels and down from the correct authority or power. In a democracy that would either be an elected offcial or you might trace that back to “the people” but if you were one to believe in possitive law you could still argue for it under a democracy.
I don’t know how I can have a rational debate with you if you refuse to read the links I provide you. Indeed how do you know what is or is not relevent to the discusion if you don’t read the links. You only prove your own ignorence when you do so. Do you know nothing of real law?
"What is NATURAL LAW?
A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations
of human beings, established by the Creator, and existing prior to any
positive precept Webster. The foundation of this law is placed by the
best writers in the will of God, discovered by right reason, and aided
by divine revelation ; and its principles, when applicable, apply with
equal obligation to individuals and to nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 2, note; Id 4, note. See Jus NATURALE.
The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or
moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or
unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This
expression, “natural law,”
or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of
the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a
system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which,
independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one
people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and
would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that
word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution.
The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a
life ordered “according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the
purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a “state of
nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were
governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs,
impulses, aud promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet
undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence
of the baser passions. See Maine, Anc. Law, 50, et seq. We understand
all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God
for their author; and divine laws
are of two kinds, that is to say: (1) Natural laws; (2) positive or
revealed laws. A natural law is defined by Burlamaqui to be “a rule
which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that,
without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can
never be preserved.” And he says that these are called “natural NATURALE
EST QUIDLIBET 805
Law Dictionary: What is NATURAL LAW? definition of NATURAL LAW (Black’s Law Dictionary) "
"What is POSITIVE LAW?
Legislature that consists of guidelines, statutes and codes which are imposed upon a country. It is dissimilar to natural law.
Law Dictionary: What is POSITIVE LAW? definition of POSITIVE LAW (Black’s Law Dictionary) "
Look, the links you give basically show how we come to have codified Human Rights into law - what is the relevance to the OP and what exactly are you contesting? You assume (wrongly) that I know nothing of this -I’m asking what the relevance is and what exactly you disagree with?
Why are you telling me all this…for what purpose?
Why is it naïve to believe Human Rights legislation will be a massive hurdle for the proposed Snooper’s Charters? You have not explained your position whatsoever.
I thought that was obvious. The UN has no teeth to enforce said “human rights law.” More to the point just as in the U.S. or Canada it is very unlikely politicians, military, law enforcement or anyone else in power is going to going to give up that power unless it is forcibly torn from their grasp. And finally by stating all this about human rights and the UN you are undermining national sovereignty which is a discussion all it’s own and a reason for a country to resist any efforts by the UN all by itself. Human rights will not be enforced because to enforce them would be to violate national sovereignty. It will not be enforced because no one in power would willingly give up that power. And it finally will not be put into effect because it’s not practical. It’s a beautiful dream but it’s NOT something that can be done from the top down. And THEREFORE encryption will not be defended without significant backing . The UN’s position that encryption is a human right would be more useful to put pot political preasure on those in power rather than rely on the UN directly to actually enforce the law.
No, I mean math – And the tendency of the human mind to be immune from amnesia…
All the King’s horses and all the kings men cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again… Nor can the uninvent SAFE…
Ok, now I can see where you are going with this…sort of. 
Just to clarify, I was not suggesting the UN would use its “teeth” to enforce anything nor forcibly grasp power from Govts - it would be more to do with the knock on effects to International reputation.etc, as I outlined.
I live in the UK and you live in the US I think? It was Eleanor Roosevelt who signed the International Human Rights Covenant I believe, shortly after the 2nd World War, recognising the importance of codifying certain basic fundamental Rights into law. Human Rights do not undermine the sovereignty of the US or any other Nation - it is voluntary and nobody is forced into signing and agreeing to abide by them. It is just plain wrong to claim it undermines a Nation’s sovereignty, therefore your further conclusions are based on a false premise…
“The UN’s position that encryption is a human right would be more useful to put pot political preasure on those in power rather than rely on the UN directly to actually enforce the law.”
Exactly… 
The quote thing’s not working again…so I’m being naive again because of what?
The UN is mostly just a propangada producing machine.
I give up…
Hi, I really shouldn’t get involved here, I am out of my league and maybe going to regret this but, I just want to say, I have yet to see any kind of [political] machine that is not propaganda producing.
Ooooo…you’ve done it now…lol
I can’t say anything whatsoever on any topic without becoming embroiled in some massively contentious debate…lol
I am going to have to re-read all this and try to understand how the thread relates to the OP. I have respect for you and @Blindsite2k for expressing your differences. It is through all this I (and I hope others) learn.
I tend to always feel ignorant on this forum but I always come back because I believe in David’s vision.
I find it awesomely interesting what type of people MaidSafe has attracted, from all different walks of life with so many opinions. It is so great how at the end of the day we can mutually shake hands because of the vision and hope David has given us.
Please don’t feel ignorant and just jump in if you want to say anything - I’m totally ignorant of all things technical and get the same feeling when people talk about tech stuff. It’s all about getting different perspectives and everyone has their own particular interests and things they are knowledgeable about.
You really need to rexamine your assumptions about the nature of Capitalism and Socialism. Government spying on its own subjects is necessary for Socialism to function, as is Government harming its own subjects, taking away their liberties. Allow me to explain, first by what Capitalism is and how project MAIDSAFE is Capitalistic in nature.
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of freedom from government. Legally it is a system of objective laws. Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.
Maidsafe is building a free market engine where people have rights guaranteed by technological means. It is the epitome of Capitalism. No government taxation or regulation of transactions will be possible because both buyer and seller will be able to remain anonymous, and the units of currency will be untraceable. This anonymity will also make it impossible/difficult for the government to capture, imprison, steal from, and otherwise coerce its subjects.
There really is no separating Socialism and Socialists from the debate about nations’ governments’ spying on their citizens.
Socialism is defined by “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need”. For this goal to be achieved requires two things, one is a lack of financial privacy. The other is coercive force.
If people have financial privacy, then those who have the ability to produce will keep the extent of their production (their income) a secret, so that it cannot be taken from them by force to be given over based on some “need” analysis performed by a bureacrat. Similarly, if the government has no coercive measures to employ, then subjects can simply refuse to pay the tax, and it cannot therefore be given over to those who claim need.
See!..lol
OK…I’ll allow you… please do
Right…OK, I have no major issues with anything you’ve said (except the coercive bit which has been debated extensively already and please just take me at my word that it is pure tedium as to why I’m not going to get into all the tax/theft thing any more). So,the answer is to not tax anybody, have no infra-structure or social welfare provision - then the Govt has no reason to spy?..brilliant
We were talking about France and the fact that you ascribe any civil unrest to Socialism, rather than Capitalism. Maybe just tell all the French protesters to change all their banners to “No to Socialism” instead of “No to Austerity/Capitalism” so it will fit better with your analysis?
How do you figure? There was infra-structure in the states before they introduced taxation. They had roads, schools, the army, the works. all without taxation. You’re assumption that you need taxation in order to have public infrastruction is completely false and can be proven so if you look at history and different cultures around the world.
Capitalism doesn’t cause austerity. Basing your currency on debt and buying it from private banks at compounded interest causes austerity. Restricting what people can use as currency so that your debt based and very expensive fiat currency has no competition causes austerity. Much like any other kind of regulation.
Sorry don’t want to interrupt, but @jreighly gov suppresses tech all the time and is quite righteous about it. US cites ns and econ for doing so. Also you can erase the data in your private vault if you’ve not shared it then its probably gone from SAFE.
Right, they are dead wrong about a lot of things. They have fallen into the age-old trap: blame government policies for economic failures, then demand government policies correct them. The fact that the government is interfering and meddling is the cause of the problem to begin with. It’s as if the fire brigade shows up at a fire and starts hosing it down with fuel.
How do you propose the US government will shut down SAFE?
There is a degree to which they can prevent new technologies from coming to the marketplace, but it is darn hard to get the cat back in the bag.
The powers that be have been trying to interrupt Bittorrent for years now – To very little avail.
I don’t, or at least I hope very much for a launch with quick critical mass. But I don’t think the USG likes truely disruptive tech and will attempt to come up with excuses and propaganda. Also the SAFE community will need to sprout a matching app ecosystem and hardware ecosystem. SAFE must be a rapidly moving target to safe. SAFE is a seed that must somehow quickly grow into an Oak.