1,037 karma · joined June 6, 2016
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
This can take literally days and the first thing they are told is don’t listen to music they enjoy while doing it, because they will never again be able to listen to that music.
Bambu make excellent machines. There is nothing comparable out of the box, especially at their price points.
The AI is trying to grasp nothing.
Also slightly easier to get hold of!
The other side sees the tariffing government making capital available along with other assistance in order to grow the local industry of the thing being tariffed.
What you have done is engaged in a trade war for no readily apparent reason other than the fact that the shit businessman in the White House doesn't understand that a deal doesn't have to have winners and losers in order for it to be a good deal.
Individually, the people of the UK are generally kind, thoughtful and considerate. As a mob, they're an absolute nightmare especially when wankers like Fox and Corbyn get involved.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has never had to tell people 'no'.
>Lastly, it's funny to hear you admit this pandemic wasn't lethal because people don't actually comply the way you want, which means that the actions were theater and unneeded
This pandemic was lethal, but it wasn't bubonic plague lethal. When we get something that cuts like a knife through hot butter, you'll soon be holed up inside screaming at strangers through the letterbox.
The problem with covid is that we weren't totalitarian enough. Regulations you could drive a coach & horses through and no way to enforce is a sop.
The first lock down needed to be a proper 'papers, please' affair. When we get a properly lethal pandemic, we're fucked. Hopefully Laurence Fox and Piers Corbyn will catch it quickly and expire in a painful and televised way, it's the only hope of people complying with actual quarantine measures.
There has never, in the history of humanity, been a time where a criminal can communicate with other criminals with absolute immunity as they can today.
You are being governed by someone with dementia who has surrounded himself with people who appear unable to say 'no'.
My stance is that if you're about to ask co-pilot, or whatever, to respond to me, then just send me the prompt you're about to enter as that will probably answer the question!
Your post was easy to open, your phone easy to tap. The use of surveillance equipment was basically unregulated.
You may not have had transaction level monitoring but you certainly had no expectation of privacy at the bank.
Do you people not read? You're harking back to some bucolic, pastoral existence that never existed.
USDT is the money launderer’s dream. If they can get it into crypto (and there are a number of firms who are barely disguised criminal finance portals), the world is very much their oyster.
The issue of provenance is an issue regardless of the type of funds.
In most jurisdictions the burden of proof is civil, so more likely than not.
Wiretaps, postal interference.
None of it was routine, but the tactic for dealing with serious criminality was still there.
>Historically, you and I have always had options and methods of keeping our personal info and our private comms out of the reach of police, govs and other powerful actors. It was good for us and promoted a healthy society.
No you haven't. It is only until very recently that iPhones (less so android devices) have been basically uncrackable (notwithstanding NSA/GCHQ level tactics that aren't going to be used for criminal investigations) and, coupled with end to end encryption, you have a communications system for which their is no practical method of compromise.
It is very good for the citizen, but you cannot argue for it without also acknowledging that it is incredibly advantageous for the criminal. It is without precedent in human history.
I'm not saying that the police should be able to backdoor everything useful, because that's nonsense. What I'm pointing out is that once you realise that your suspects understand how to use signal and how to use a VPN and how to maintain some sort of operational discipline (and this isn't a high threshold), then your crimes become incredibly hard to solve even with a perfectly executed investigation and this is reflected in the clear-up rate.
No, it hasn’t. Criminals haven’t always had access to literally uncrackable encryption, both messaging and voice, in a manner that is impossible to attribute to an individual handset or terminal.
Regardless of whether you’re for or against it, you have to admit that this is a boon for criminals as much as it is for everyone else.
Encro failed because the Dutch got all up in their servers (and the owners, who I suspect are now dead as a result, pretended it hadn’t happened) - e2e encryption bypasses that vulnerability.
England & Wales (because policing is a devolved matter in the UK) have very robust crime recording rules. Consequently, the detection rates are low because you record and close crimes where there is literally no prospect of a conviction.
You compare this to, say, Japan, where an investigation only starts if it’s likely that the crime will be solved, and you have an explanation for why detections seem comparatively poor.
There is also the fact that, despite TVs assertion to the contrary, that solving crime is not easy and it is also true that being able to operate a fully encrypted communication system makes it harder as you rely on mistakes.
As we saw with Encro, criminal groups with Signal and modern iPhones can communicate with gay abandon if they maintain decent opsec.