Thread

Lyn, this is too pragmatic for government 😄 It is logical and reasonable.

Solving more than 60% of murders would be a good start.

April 10, 2024. "What we have learned is that the IRS has been using AI to access bank accounts of American citizens without any kind of a search warrant, or even without any specific claim that they have committed a crime." "They have access to every single person's bank account...

We all know they use “security” as a political tool with zero intention of providing actual security

Hi sorry! please check out my Geyser 🙏🏻 it’s for my son 🙏🏻 thanks so much View quoted note →

“If they were actually serious about security more-so than control, they’d make sure that basic stuff is sorted out first.” They most certainly are NOT 🤡🔫 (As Lyn implies) View quoted note →

I was just in the airport yesterday and getting through security was annoying. I wish that if they’d take my rights, they’d at least provide a seamless experience

Isn’t this exactly what Trump et al are trying to do? Starting with trains and streets, but get fierce resistance from ”anti fascist” democrats as a response?

Nostr is the only place where they have no power.

Absolutely agree. Canada is rolling out online harms and cybersecurity legislation that risks fundamental rights under the banner of “security". The bills introduce sweeping government powers to monitor communications and potentially sanction platforms, but the definitions of harm and scope of surveillance remain dangerously vague. Instead of focusing on physical safety in our communities and basic public infrastructure, lawmakers are prioritizing digital oversight, often at the expense of privacy and free expression. Any legitimate security policy should start with transparency, judicial accountability, and respect for rights—not by handing unchecked authority to regulators.

I'll tell you an three easy solutions to make streets and trains more secure: 1. Repeal the Civil Rights Act 2. Privatize all public roads and public transportation 3. Allow open carry everywhere

Well put Lyn. You have such an ability to explain finance and government in a way that most people understand. You also helped me Orange pill my buddy Ted. I’ll never forget the first time I saw you was on London Real. I was blown away by your simple explanations on Bitcoin and finance.

They never seem to fix the real problems, just use them as excuses to grab more power

Bingo!

GM government is at it again View quoted note →

Don't give them ideas. Too much CCTV as is.

the kind of policies government implements dictate how society will operate grant trust by default and a good people will blossom assume guilt by default and ask your people to suspect the worst unless verified by the government and you will breed the kingdom of suspicion and fear

Interestingly, the rate and forcefulness they say it also seems to correlate with how badly they have fucked the country's finances.

GM ☕

Haha, who wouldn't love to be stabbed on a public train for no reason while some government jerk-off is listening to the phone call you're having at that moment.

The brits are learning it the hard way

So true. In the UK, if you have something stolen and you inform the police, all they will do is give you a crime number for your insurance claim. If you have a tracker on your stolen phone and you tell them exactly where it is, they won't even go and try to recover it. But if you write some hurty words on Twitter and someone complains, then the police will be at your door in numbers ready to you record you as an offender, even if no crime has been committed. You will forever be listed as someone who has committed a 'non-crime hate incident'. You may be going for a job in the future where they run a police check on your details and you might not get the job. The record will not show what you did, just that you have offended someone! I don't know for sure the reason for this situation, but it is likely the result of a bad incentive system. The police have quotas they they have to meet in order to measure their effectiveness. Going round to someone's house in order to reprimand them for exercising their right to free speech is much less likely to result in a violent situation against the police, than by trying to confront any real criminals. The incentive system needs to change.

In the UK, if you have something stolen and you inform the police, all they will do is give you a crime number for your insurance claim. If you have a tracker on your stolen phone and you tell them exactly where it is, they won't even go and try to recover it. But if you write some hurty words on Twitter and someone complains, then the police will be at your door in numbers ready to you record you as an offender, even if no crime has been committed. You will forever be listed as someone who has committed a 'non-crime hate incident'. You may be going for a job in the future where they run a police check on your details and you might not get the job. The record will not show what you did, just that you have offended someone! I don't know for sure the reason for this situation, but it is likely the result of a bad incentive system. The police have quotas they they have to meet in order to measure their effectiveness. Going round to someone's house in order to reprimand them for exercising their right to free speech is much less likely to result in a violent situation against the police, than by trying to confront any real criminals. The incentive system needs to change. View quoted note →

Because surveillience is cheaper, surely.

Old institutions must adapt or die. View quoted note →

stfu weirdo, what is your website you rely on youtube loser

Will there be a sequel to broken money? Very much enjoy your nonfiction.

*Their security They are worried about their security.

Facts

First it was terrorism and 9/11, then it was women's rights and protecting children, then it was to eradicate rapists and pedophiles, now it is for eliminating ANTIFA. We have to acknowledge that we are also contributing to this cycle, most of the time for ego and an ill-intended purpose. People think that if they give the government power, they will recieve victory against their enemies. Sure for a short time, but that's exactly what they are looking for. Unfortunately, while technology has the capacity to enable, it has also allowed people to become more decadent and ignorant as to the most fundamental laws of nature we have obeyed even before the industrial revolution. These laws are still here, we are just about to enter the "find out" phase.

Personally Id rather they create the whole social economic conditions that prevent people slipping into crime in the first place. Cause streets and trains are like corrective and not preventive

Honestly, I stopped believing that governments care that much about security. They mostly want to keep people in fear so that they can be somewhat under control. Especially now that communication bandwitldth is free and quasi infinite. It doesn't matter what the fear is and if it is actually real or not or even purposely made up. Viruses, Russians, robbers, migrants, terrorists, it's all good. Also, fighting those fears allows to legally funnel public money to the friends of those in power. 1984, Covid, once you see the constant psyops, you can't unsee it.

@Lyn Alden is right, of course. But what if we turn this argument on its head? What if we use the cause of security to inject privacy back into the system? The fact is that security REQUIRES privacy. And the system itself has real security problems. If we, by some sly means, gave the system an irresistible way to secure itself... and enabled privacy for all in the process... wouldn't that be the greatest reverse trojan horse of all? View quoted note →