1337shadow

Exactly my question.

This article fails to explain the reasons for which proponents believe that marriage with Palestinians would threaten security or Jewish character of the country, failing the supposed neutrality of the article or compromising the supposed quality of journalists in charge of investigating this.

Right, and then, the EU needs new taxes.

The coping skill is simple and works with everything: "just don't think about it / just think about something else".

Concerning the nuclear treat, there is one country that has used nuclear bombing, spreading nuclear bombs around the world expanding nearer of countries it is hostile to, and which has started many wars.

Citizen of this country must vote better, you are free to partake in political activism for a party which you think is more able to keep world stability.

So if I'm renting a dedicated server just like I'd be renting a taxi, am I also "serverless"?

Which don't even link to original contents to look like their content is actually original... Do something about it google please!

It's PyInstaller: https://pyinstaller.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

Or containers.

If you don't then a less competent developer might do it, increasing risks even moreso.

Feliz Navidad!

Well, that's nice because drug sellers are armed with AK-47s here.

And crime is not limited to selling drugs and stealing credit card numbers (which is actually not a thriving business anymore ...), example:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-abuse-idUSKCN1GO1...

Of course, in many cases, we're talking about Belgium here.

Actually, my opinion is not the cattle opinion here.

These are the typical use cases for key revocation yes? The key should not be installed on non suspected user devices anyway in my opinion.

I don't think I need to retract it because I don't think it's incompatible. I'm positive people won't vote for a party that makes them illegal unless they have decided to change.

Relative majority is still majority, >50% of casted votes gets you elected.

50 years ago, the left was all over the place advocating for pedophilia, and here they are today, advocating for privacy of pedophiles and other criminals because they are scared to compromise their own.

My communications will be safer but my streets won't, and I don't only live online.

And why would that be?

Well join the police then.

Now we've got NSA in Belgium that's interesting!

Encryption protects criminals and terrorists who might as well have guns so in reality it's related because we're talking about protecting society.

This is not what I read.

Technical matters to me.

Maybe that's not what was claim, I beg to interpret this law differently, and anyway I disagree with the response that has been given here.

And ... I'm not the only one who interprets the law in question this way:

https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en...

https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-be...

So, you've been under the influence of fake news.

Sorry.

You can still have a hunting permit, you can still practice at shooting clubs.

But that's how investigation works.

It's illegal because we don't want to increase consumption because it's not good for society.

Because here we're talking about a european country, where we have very different problems from USA.

Don't grow in front of your neighbours. The police here will not search you if they can't justify a suspicion.

You don't believe then do you want the links to my private youtube video? You will see a guy that looks like a nazi without any teeth that he lost consuming crack saying he's the real father of my son, that I shouldn't be trans, and that he's going to fuck me up in front of the police. Is this something you want to see to believe it? Because you believe we're in a world of good guys maybe?

It wasn't stressful, my lawyer wiped the floor with them. What are you talking about, we're talking about Belgium and France, there are all ethnicities in the police and the justice and all, there is no racism there like there is (apparently) in the USA.

This article is propaganda making our states weaker which does not benefit any of us. Quit thinking we have the same problems as the US because that's not the case.

Maybe that's the problem.

It's still encryption on both ends how do you call it

It's like if you're asking "what would prevent us from burning heretics alive again" or "what would prevent us from going back into the middle age again", or even "what would prevent us from buying slaves again". I'm not an expert of McCarthyism, I'm not even American and as such have not studied it a lot (barely read a wikipedia article about it and a couple of movies), I'd be more confortable answering "what would prevent us from going back into nazism"? Because I could there build an answer based on the current state construct and history.

But, I wouldn't construct my answer about "one thing specifically", instead, on a whole context of things, such as: evolution, experience, education...

It's a vague but extremely interesting question, I'm sorry I'm too tired to disgress as much as I'd love to but I suppose my answer would boil down to "we've made a long road since McCarthyism, we've learned to appreciate confronting ideas", it would be constructed about exactly why it's important to study history, keep a memory, and keep debating so that every single argument can be studied and refutated by anyone.

Again, I'm not fearing hypothetical realities that look like scifi, but instead, I'm trying to solve problems we actually have right here in our shared present reality, such as criminality. It's fine if you don't want to help me, that doesn't make you a criminal, but it would be great if someone like you with your talent would like to help.

For me there's a lot of contradiction within your own comment, but don't worry, I'll give you more than merely talk about its own contradictions.

> We can't go whole hog on security. Nobody can make you safe. Danger is an innate part of life that can only be partially controlled.

We can improve our security, the state has to make us safer, it is possible because danger can be partially controlled, which is exactly what you say.

You also that laundering has never been crushed, and can only be reduced. I also agree with that, and because we can reduce it: it is our moral duty to do what we can to reduce it, giving up "because we can't crush it" is not an option for a person of honor.

If this was just a quick trick to get me to tell my opinion about refugees in general, let me cut it short: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640944 And let me add to that: we can't keep on taking 400k a year in our little 67m inhabitants country, we already have enough troubble with those we have here (please don't ask me for solid evidence, or if you do, please do so in a dedicated comment)

Anyway, very interesting comment indeed, I'll gladly discuss off-topic as I already have: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640299

Of course, I could just burry it by calling it a syllogism, "cheese has holes, holes are air and not cheese, as such, the more cheese you have the less cheese you have", but as you have figured, I'd rather face the game and risk myself than hide, in the worst case I will have learned something which is positive for my own development, more than whatever shame it can bring on me: it's a basic cost/benefit analysis.

As a matter of fact, I found your comment so interesting that I've been discussing it with left leaning friends I met back when I was into AML, who are still active in it, the discussion being over I'm back to reply (an hour ago, I'm proof reading myself for once).

First things first: AML's impact is transversal, it has a lot more impact than you might think. It's the basic tool we have against corruption. And because it prevents crimes, "I will not take this shady deal because it won't bring me useful money", it's impossible to prove that crimes would have happened without it. While you can still measure it's impact on corruption, you'll say it's very hard to measure corruption, fine, that's true.

But it turns out there is actually a lot of documentation about crimes that AML targets, the O'Mecanismo series describes what enormous corruption systems it fights, but you can read about how useful it is against THB (Trafficking in Human Beings) in the OSCE paper https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/8/121125.pdf or the Arachnys case study if you're more into videos https://www.arachnys.com/webinar-identifying-human-trafficki...

Mind you, there's more I want to disagree on in your comment. You're saying it "makes it hard for refugees to get bank accounts", I don't see this, at least, not in France which takes 400k so-called "refugees" per year, which is the equivalent of a city like Paris every 5 years, which corresponds to the president mandate.

I will just quote the law here: "Every person living in France, without a bank account, has the right to the opening of such an account in the bank of his choice or in our service", this is article L.312-1 of the Monetary and financial code of law. Even they can't, indeed, open a "normal" bank account, because they have burnt their own papers, say, because they are wanted by the police and want to go incognito, they can still open a "Livret A" where the minimal deposit and withdrawal is 1.5€ https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/migrants/demandeurs-d-asil...

Then, the state (we, tax payers) even gives them 426€/month, or, ~850€/month if they are old enough, as stated by left leaning media: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/12/01/est-il-vrai-q...

I'd like to conclude by "sorry", I'm sorry that it's a problem for your friends making "large donations" to be inspected by the state, but that's how it's going to be because we know now for a fact that it does happen that "activists" turn out to actually be human traffickers, a traffik that is worth ~10 billion USD per year, well, not all of them of course, there are also true activists, but these are in bed with the traffickers who tell them exactly when a boat leaves the coast, who knows if they don't get their share ? https://www.cnews.fr/monde/2021-03-15/migrants-un-rapport-po...

And of course ... perdon my french! And thank you for the respectful discussion, always appreciated!

The law was maybe saying that, but that doesn't change what I'm saying. Which boils down to "I disagree with the response we have given, we should have been negociating rather than just saying no". Should I go ahead with a disclamer that says which open source encryption products used by governments that I'm involved into? Not sure, my point is: we have their attention, why use it to just say no when we could negociate and make outdoors security a feature in addition too online security.

That's a really interesting ethical question. It's what the right wight asks: most immigrants are fine, but 1/20 will be radicalized, even commit terrorism acts such as mass murder, do we take the bargain? French president Francois Hollande testified in court that he knew and took the bargain, then, we had Bataclan, Samuel Paty, and so on (please don't make me do the exhaustive list).

Now the question is, what would make one decide to apply whatever answer they give here, but not there? Definitely food for thought!

Thanks, I understand your arguments and have held them for ~15 years, I have changed my mind: I don't believe "any investigation is one day inevitably going to be a malicious actor", that could happen with any kind of evidence anyway, encrypted evidence is no exception, I also don't believe about retroactive laws like that, and I do want something to be done about the thriving criminality, because I don't want protection from what could happen if reality became scifi, I want protection from the threats we are actually facing in the present reality. That said, your comment reflects an above standard kindness which I deeply appreciate.

Actually, they kind of are. I mean, if you have a gun and use it to shoot cans in your backyard, or that you take drugs and stay home, or go out but don't drive, don't attract attention on you, don't cause any problem, are you even going to be arrested? You have no idea how busy the police is with actual criminals.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do illegal things that don't harm others, I'm saying we should catch criminals who actually do harm.