Name and shame: Interior Minister Horst Seehofer of the conservative-authoritarian CSU. He and his party friends are who want this.
We have the chance to kick them out of office in 2021, it's time for the stranglehold of Conservative internet-printers (Internetausdrucker, a German word for tech illiterates) as Interior Ministers to end once and for all.
Let me guess, this word describes people who print out their emails?
By association Otto Schily wasn't a conservative and yet...
I agree on that one. There aren't many progressives in interior politics aside from Left and Greens, the rest is all authoritarian/law-and-order hardliners. Frankly, it's disgusting.
As for calling them Nazis... well, when one looks at the events regarding former Verfassungsschutz chef Maaßen, instituted by HP Friedrich and protected by successor Seehofer until it was no longer tenable, who is accused of having protected the AfD during his term: it's not that far to at least imply ideological support or tolerance toward far right political positions.
relevant?
Yet more proof that "Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit". And the speed limit seems to be rather generous in this case. But for some it's never high enough, they'd pull down all of Chesterton's fences at the merest whim.
Unfortunately, there's not much hope for this. As the article states: "The proposed law is already the result of lots of back and forth within the government and many expect it to pass when it is presented to Germany’s congressional body, the Bundestag, after next week."
I know for a fact that Chrome and Firefox have implemented this as standard behavior specifically to prevent this kind of man in the middle attack, and have explicitly come out against previous government attempts to subvert this guarantee of privacy.
The biggest problem isn't that your own government might swap that orange you wanted for an apple, it's that by making it possible they also make it possible for a foreign government to do so, and they're likely to replace the orange with cyanide.
The US government has tried and failed to push this kind of idiocy through every other year for the last 2 decades. Every major tech company tells them they will flat out refuse to compromise everyone's safety to accommodate idiocy and the attempt is ultimately dropped.
I am not quite sure how mandatory CT is at the moment though.
Our current government doesn't even know what that means.
This is why a VPN is indeed helpful, because now ISP are the primary attack vector.
> Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say
https://write.privacytools.io/freddy/why-privacy-matters-eve...
Humour aside, analogies are really important and I have never understood the disparagement of comparing one group or situation to another. Analogising is a tool to help understand one other and promote diversity.
And it’s all inevitably followed by an argument about the analogy itself.
I think there is a common false belief that only technical people can understand some concepts. I believe it’s more the case that as a society we often don’t have good pedagogical tools available to us in the public domain to help people become the critical thinkers our democratic society needs them to be.
I say this with the hope for a shift towards social production/Commons-based peer production, and a re-imagining of the (currently) rentier and extractive business models on digital assets, which make no sense anymore in a digital society where information is light.
Design global, make local.
Favorite authors on this: Aaron Swartz('s manifesto), Kevin Carson and Yochai Benkler.
Of course, you could always argue “for the gallery”, i.e. not try to persuade your opponent, but to merely use the debate as a platform to reach an audience. But this is not persuasion; this is rhetoric. Analogies can be used as rhetorical tools. But analogies won’t persuade your opponent.
Therefore, if you’re arguing with someone else one-on-one, and there is no one else to win over by rhetorical tricks, you should avoid using analogies, since analogies aren’t persuasive.
As for my reasoning why:
Analogies and other figurative speech is important, not just as conversational tools, but also in thinking. Language is a metaphorical tool we place on reality to manage and interpret it. This is true for human languages and programming languages. Take Python. This is a high level language which an interpreter uses to help a computer parse it into the needed lower language for its understanding. The language alone though does little on its own without the multiple layers computers use to apply given instructions. Human language is multiple levels higher than computer languages when it comes to interpreting reality. Pretty much all human language is a metaphor because it doesn't directly mean what we are referring to. It instead refers to our mental conception of what we are attempting to relate to in reality.
You have the right to seek out and eat an orange for your immune system and survival, and no government should have the right to interfere with that, at any time.
This law is a fundamental attack on basic quality of life and basic human rights for all Germans. Whoever proposed it should be ashamed of themselves. I hope the parliament outright rejects it for what it is.
The very fact it has been proposed is Orwellian and chilling. Internet giants like Google should resist this technology and tell us when a government has just tampered with our web browsing.