whosthedadaist.bsky.social
Bearer of the mark of shame
Material/reality
1,019 posts
239 followers
2,194 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Absolutely, but the point that musk's efforts look kinda Cummings is decent
comment in response to
post
Maybe the price of avoiding 5Eyes or trident disaster/ humiliation.
How to extricate ourselves from those without catastrophe?
[Weeps]
comment in response to
post
Trunk has a track record of agreeing with whomever he last spoke on stuff he finds difficult
comment in response to
post
🎯
comment in response to
post
He was quoting Plato's Meditations, though
comment in response to
post
Which freedom of speech champion will publish it?
comment in response to
post
No
comment in response to
post
Then you will nobody needs the very highest end encryption, except states and criminals
comment in response to
post
If you think it's not already there, I can't help you.
You can't believe a word apple say about this
comment in response to
post
I first wrote about this stuff in the 90s, long before I did any law enforcement work.
I've been on a journey
comment in response to
post
When apple say they don't keep a back door, they are lying to you.
HMG demands reflect reality; apples answer does not
comment in response to
post
The fuck I am, we are against the Americans in Ukraine now, they are on Russia's side
comment in response to
post
I never said responsibilities were profitable
comment in response to
post
War is coming.
France and Germany will change their (peacetime, very much so) laws very soon.
Apple executives will have to learn not to leave themselves extremely vulnerable to blackmail and kidnap
comment in response to
post
Yes, absolutely it depends who is enforcing the law (if that is what's happening, or if there is meaningful rule of law in the requesting territory.
If anyone has the resources to decide this, it's Apple
comment in response to
post
Amnesty, yes they are clowns today, but i hoped you knew what i meant. It really wouldn't have to work like that.
And if you think apple aren't going to have at least one back door got their own purposes,I have a bridge to sell you
comment in response to
post
I love the way you talk as if strong encryption is not useful to organised crime
comment in response to
post
I don't think that adds anything to what I said.
No, you don't want keys to encryption in the hands of bad state actors. No, you don't want strong encryption in the hands of organised crime.
Apple is insisting on the right to treat all governments the same.
Pathetic from such a powerful company
comment in response to
post
Great, now let's have apple build a town where magistrates or judges can't grant warrants to search any properties or arrest anybody under any circumstances.
I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong
comment in response to
post
Depends who you give it to
comment in response to
post
Why? Why can't apple have some standards like the rest of us?
If they don't know whether a gift is good or bad (bless 'em), they can ask amnesty
comment in response to
post
I don't see why Apple or others should be allowed to be in the business of selling all comers unbreakable encryption, then refuse to help law enforcement
comment in response to
post
How does giving criminals and other bad actors virtually unbreakable encryption as of right make us all less safe?
comment in response to
post
Democracy or dictatorship, we would all be better off without butler's ideas, and certainly her execrable prose
comment in response to
post
BBC: Rise of the Nazis, with Gen Sir Mike Jackson Helena Kennedy and others is very good indeed
comment in response to
post
I think UK defence spending should proceed on the basis that Le Pen *will* win the 2027 French presidential election.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Not so much the budget itself as where the spending goes.
Compatibility and redundancy issues make for less than the sum of its parts
comment in response to
post
"Effectively"?
comment in response to
post
No, the rest of us kick the usa out of the 5 eyes
comment in response to
post
And now your memory's fantastic
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
It's on the basis of biological sex, mate.
Don't be obtuse
comment in response to
post
Who do you think would win a boxing match between a 6 foot man and a 6 foot woman?
comment in response to
post
Silly straw man stuff. Women are entitled to feel safe in their own spaces and from a safeguarding point of view, it's perfectly logical.
Nobody is saying anyone can't express themselves!
comment in response to
post
Is!
comment in response to
post
Can down and go to bed
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
No, not at all.
Your life is your own.
Nobody else's is the same.
So you shouldn't be making decisions for children on the basis of your own experience, you use objective facts and evidence
comment in response to
post
"uptick"? it's an increase by a factor of four. Are you really telling me that's not statistically significant?
Do you have an alternative theory?
Or just childish abuse?