That page seems pretty... unscientific. Sensitivity to coarse language, for example, is a social issue that has nothing to do with sensory sensitivity.
That's really confusing cause and effect. For some sectors we rely on 'Europe' but the cause is that talented individuals are often discouraged from training or staying in the UK. Nurses are a prime example of this issue
I understand your intent but please don't find this satisfying. Many who voted 'out' did so simply because they felt they had no other method of getting their voice heard. They used the referendum as a way to express their loss of faith in UK politics, answering a different question to the one asked. It's a complete failure of the democratic process. Regrettably, those same people will likely be by far the worst effected by the result.
In principle, since both the Signal client and server are FLOSS, it should be possible to resist a block in some ways that might not be so easy with for example Whatsapp, but as far as I can tell, as things stand right now there is no built-in way to switch server, and asking millions of regular people to make changes to the source code of their cellphone software, recompile and manually reinstall does not seem like a recipe for success.
I wonder if one might sensibly work around these things by fallback/optional connection to the server through Tor if Tor is available on the device?
No it doesn't. If you're going to wave this flag, you should be complaining about the management controller inside of your CPU (presuming you are already running an open source OS).
>you should be complaining about the management controller inside of your CPU
And I am! I can't wait for Novena! Also notice a difference. Having a close-sourced CPU is different than having a close-source browser which has much more possibilities to compromise you. It can start camera, microphone, read disk files, locate you and transmit everything to "cloud".
I listened to an interview with the Home Secretary, Theresa May, yesterday. She explicitly stated several times that she had no say in the Miranda's detention as it was a police matter. Odd, then, that she is responsible for the secret services and it is MI5, not the police, who are the primary in all anti-terrorism investigations.
The police in the UK do have sufficient independence to arrest against the Home Secretarry's wishes and MI5 have no arrest powers they normally get the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police to do the arresting I believe. However I think that if she had politely suggested that they be careful not to stretch anti-terror laws to far that they would have probably listened.
The Press Regulation Scheme is in no way similar to the use of MI5 and police resources to interrogate an individual who ,for all in intents and purposes, seems innocent of any terrorism related crime. I see no conflict here with the Guardian's stance on these issues.
As a European I feel very sad that many national governments are so much under the thumb of US. To divert the plane of another nation's leader without due legal justification is a big statement about the lengths our governments will go to satisfy US government policy. I know a great number of US citizens also disagree with these policies. Another sad day for democracy.
That's only true if the voters have visibility of what they're voting for. That's wht is so bad about this situation, the secracy negates the foundation of democracy
Being in receipt of tax revenue is no measure of being a useful department. And how does it work when other countries are found spying on the US or UK? presumably this is also perfectly acceptable.
Well, yeah. If the U.S. was that concerned about spying as a rule, we wouldn't treat with Israel, China or Russia... ever. Undoubtedly there are other nations with an interest in U.S. secrets that simply don't hit the news that often.
Obama, "you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy." OK, I agree. So how about you and your "security" agencies are a lot less private about what you're doing. Be completely open about your intentions and let your voters decide if they want to spend billions on it and citizens of other countries decide if they want to use US-based services.
> you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy.
This is a strange quote to me. We DON'T have 100% security. We'll NEVER have 100% security. But they're more than willing to take all 100% of your privacy.
The fact that they'll try to sell us an illusion of 100% security in exchange for 100% of our privacy is a terrible tradeoff to anyone who actually understands risks/security.
