News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by duncan_bayne on Thursday December 03, 2015 @12:08AM (#10667874)
Whereas I'd say the problem was forced nationalisation.
Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by ta0o0o0 on Thursday December 03, 2015 @11:15AM (#10670379)
That does not justify overthrowing another country's government. Most countries, including the United States, recognize the state's eminent domain over its land and its natural resources. Besides which, the Iranians tried to negotiate, the British refused, so the Iranians nationalized in response.
Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by lhopki01 on Thursday December 03, 2015 @08:58AM (#10669545)
A foreign coup is a valid response to nationalisation?
Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by duncan_bayne on Thursday December 03, 2015 @04:20PM (#10672725)
I'm not sure. But nationalisation is certainly a violation of rights.

Of course, I'd be interested to see how those assets were set up in the first place - my bet would be during a non-rights-respecting period of colonialism.

How far back do you go? (Serious question).

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by lhopki01 on Friday December 11, 2015 @11:50AM (#10718129)
You go to when the country got a democratically elected government.

As for nationalisation is certainly a violation of rights do you hold that all eminent domain is a violation of rights? IE if the government wants to build a road and uses compulsory purchase orders it's a violation of rights?

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by duncan_bayne on Friday December 11, 2015 @03:39PM (#10719818)
Yes. It's possible to do such things in non rights violating ways. For example, buying options on properties and exercising them when a route is made.