[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: UK gov says new Home Sec will have powers to ban end-to-end encryption
Peter, there is absofuckinglutely NO way I will EVER accept your desire
for me to cow before your authority of interpretation of this despotic
You seriously lack self awareness of how I hear the words that you keep
writing, in particular the words in your email below.
You may live in the UK in a circle of folks who accept your authority.
I am not one of them.
Your attempt to impose your authority will succeed with many of the
people, most of the time, because most Western humans are extremely
schooled, and almost exclusively externalise their authority! This is a
And even the folks on THIS list struggle with the conversation!!!! We
are the fringe so-called "anarchists" who bash all governments at every
opportunity, crave a world where individual authority ("sovereignty") is
respected above most other things!
And here you come, to a crypto, anarchist, email mailing list, and say
the things you say below, and the things you say in your other emails.
You, Peter Fairbrother, are either seriously messed up and intensely
lacking in self awareness, bombastic in your expectation that others
submit to/ accept your authority by fiat of your own words (so who the
fuck are you?!??),
or you are intentionally trolling us!
Either take a deep breath and go learn to code and read a pschology
primer, or if you can't take the hint, leave this list. Leave us the
hell alone since your words are very dangerous to onlookers such as a
potential future whistleblower who actually needs to come to grips with
the UK jurisdiction and how to cope inside the physical boundaries of
The useful part of the discussion is you quote which apparently (I hope
you are accurate) assembles the relevant bits from the act, which we and
other security minded folks DO need to know about. That's useful and
thanks. Other than that, you don't know what you're talking about.
So take your presumption of authority, and try to put that to a
constructive use. You are presently a fair way away from being
constructive in this conversation.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 04:08:41PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> On 17/07/16 12:48, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >Please, if you want to contribute to comprehending this new UK act, you
> >will need to slow it waaay down, because you are writing conclusions,
> >assumptions, with minimal quotes from the act, and making assertions
> >based on these foundation things, and these foundation things are
> >contradictory, and your conclusions are contradictory.
> >Perhaps it's the British way, or perhaps the intention behind the
> >passing of this Act is so nefarious, that the only way they could pass
> >it was to be as obtuse, opaque and contradictory as it is, so that,
> >ultimately, they (the parliament and those behind it - "the Lords
> >spiritual and the Lords temporal") can wreak their mischief on the
> >'unsuspecting' people.
> Being kind, you might say they put a good face on it. Being more
> realistic, they try and mostly succeed in slipping it through with the
> nastier parts unnoticed.
> That's what they did with RIPA, the previous act.
> Oh, and afaict there are no contradictions anywhere in what I have said.
> >Peter, if your intention be genuinely "pro" the people and "pro" human
> >rights or at least "pro" understanding/comprehending, my assessment is
> >that so far, you are diving into the trap this Act sets and intends for
> >you - i.e. that you be "unsuspecting" of evil intentions behind it,
> >trusting in the government, trusting in those who drafted it, trusting
> >in your "Lords temporal" -
> If you think I trust any of them, you are sadly mistaken.
> The Lords however are slightly better than the Home Office, who write
> the bills and tell their patsies in the Lords and Commons what to say
> the bills mean - which is frequently quite different to what they
> actually mean.
> However I am expert - repeat expert - in reading the actual damn Bills,
> and working out what they actually say.
> Better than the members of the Lords or Commons, better than the
> politicians who tell the Home Office cunts what to put in the Bills,
> better than the DPPs who apply them - most of whom don't read the actual
> Bills, just summaries, because the Bills are so complicated - and I am
> approaching as good as the people who write the damn things.
> If I don't go through all the details here it's just because the bills
> are so obscure and complex it would take megabytes and days of arguments.
> Then you would have to know the general legal framework behind the
> wording of a Bill, and the general legal framework of the UK, before
> knowing what it meant. And even then you might occasionally be surprised
> by a decision, some Judges just make stuff up as they go along, and not
> everything which should be appealed is.
> But you are welcome to read it yourself, it is available at:
> -- Peter F
Free Australia: www.UPMART.org
Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.