On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 01:22:17 +0900 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2015-06-25 21:44 GMT+09:00 z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh@gmail.com>:
this is absolutely tremendous, original, and insightful. in my opinion.
This is exceedingly strange coming from an In-Q-Tel security officer.
L, perhaps you are not yet appreciating the true nature of american oligarchy. "Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another!"
In-Q-Tel basically invests in anything performing more collections in the US. Does Dan Geer worry for the future, and effectively betray In-Q-Tel?
In a parallel universe in which we're overdosing on LSD, maybe he does. But in the real world... http://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm That's pure terrorist talk. 'Official' terrorism of course. Bottom line being : because of microsoft, NATIONAL SECURITY is at risk. Curiously enough, they don't bother to mention that microsoft is a monopoly thanks to the state granted privileges of 'patents' and 'copyright'. ----------------------------- Cartman: I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too." Randy: He's right. The strength of this country is the ability to do one thing and say another.
Does he want to prevent anyone *else* from getting the nice intel? What exactly does he want to make information processors liable for?
How can law prevent third parties associating freely available information?