ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

"Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator" ??!

(1/3) > >>


After some thought, this one ended up in the Living Room. A couple of notes why at the top:

- I'm not mis-firing inflammatory language. A judge did that!
- This creates a legal-advice quandary for any tech users in Spain!


Slashdot's summary:
Spanish Judge Cites Use of Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator

Is it possible that using secure email services can be construed as an indicator of being a terrorist? Although it's a ridiculous notion that using secure email implies criminal activities, a judge cited that reason to partially justify arrests in Spain. In December, as part of "an anti-terrorist initiative" Operation Pandora, over 400 cops raided 14 houses and social centers in Spain. They seized computers, books, and leaflets and arrested 11 people. Four were released under surveillance, but seven were "accused of undefined terrorism" and held in a Madrid prison. This led to "tens of thousands" participating in protests. As terrorism is alleged "without specifying concrete criminal acts," the attorney for those seven "anarchists" denounced the lack of transparency.

Something that jumped at me:

"over 400 cops raided 14 houses and social centers in Spain".

That's in the range of 30 cops per house! I can't even recall the last time I saw thirty cops in one place!

Meanwhile, for the entire premise of "Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator", well my ??! comes from modified chess annotation punctuation, and approximately means "platypus-$hit crazy, but usually you can laugh that kind of thing off in the Basement if it bothers you, but this time it's in a legal ruling from a judge, and judges are more difficult to laugh off!!"

When you see the world as your little circle vs everybody else - anything other than your little circle is either the The Enemy - or has the potential to become one with a certainty approaching 99.999%.

That's because these paranoids are right. Everybody IS out to get them.

(Who, in their right mind, would ever want to be their friend?)

See New Scientist leader Free speech has to be for everyone, or not at all and comment Mass surveillance not effective for finding terrorists.

One thing that I've found amusing (slash infuriating) is how the politicians/pundits/pope come out all lovey-dovey for free speech, and then condemn it.

"Free speech is a basic human right, but..."

Once they say "but", they don't believe in free speech at all.

It's pretty simple. Either you support the right of others to disagree with you, or you don't.

There really is no inbetween, gray area, compromise -- you either (want to) censor people that you don't agree with, or you don't. This means that every now and then you may need to ignore some pretty crazy/nasty/vile people/opinions/ideas, e.g. the people at the Westboro Baptist Church or Charlie Hebdo or Stormfront or Anita Sarkeesian or Chanty Binx or Marc Potok or the Flat Earth Society or whoever.

I know people hate black/white answers a lot of the time, but... if it fits...

Encryption is merely a way to have a private conversation. Which is really nice because then we don't need to listen to some things that we might not like, and we automagically get to ignore it! It's a win-win situation! ;D  :Thmbsup:

That this came out of Spain only makes it funnier when I remember that they tax the sun there. :)

I know people hate black/white answers a lot of the time, but...
-Renegade (January 17, 2015, 08:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

I'm all for Black and White Answers, but ...



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version