Tag Archives: government

“I am afraid of the police, not the protesters”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s it, in a nutshell.  That’s the worry of a resident of Mong Kok, a major shopping and residential neighborhood on the mainland side of Hong Kong, as she prepared to join a protest last weekend.

That worry comes against the backdrop of Hong Kong police using tear gas and truncheons in attempts to break up peaceful protests throughout Hong Kong as those protests have grown over the last several weeks, with those police using isolated incidents of protestor violence as their excuse.  Keep in mind, too, that these protests originated as a response to the Hong Kong government’s attempt to pass a law demanded by People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and his Communist Party of China, a law that would have allowed any accused Hong Kong citizen or visitor to be seized and shipped into the PRC proper for trial.

That worry comes against the backdrop of Hong Kong police standing by, keeping watch, while criminals beat protestors in a subway station in an earlier protest in this sequence of protests.

That worry comes against the backdrop of violent suppression attempts by the PRC Hong Kong police against protests in Mong Kok in 2014 and 2016.

That worry comes against Xi’s sub rosa threats of military intervention in Hong Kong:

Chinese officials have said its military, which has a garrison in Hong Kong, could restore order if called upon by Hong Kong’s leadership.
The military recently released a propaganda video depicting Chinese soldiers practicing to do just that.

It’s a valid worry as Hong Kong’s legitimate leadership is in the streets protesting the actions of the PRC’s government-in-residence in Hong Kong.

It’s a valid worry as the Xi presses his government’s disregard of the transfer agreement the UK and the PRC signed 22 years ago and increases his government’s direct control over and destruction of the semi-autonomy of Hong Kong and his direct attacks on the freedoms of the Hong Kong people.

Warrant-Proof Encryption

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General William Barr, in front of the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University, said that

“warrant-proof” encryption was “enabling dangerous criminals to cloak their communications and activities behind an essentially impenetrable digital shield.”

Of course.  And the FBI, in the aftermath of a mass-shooting in California a while back, (in)famously said that it needed Apple to crack the lock on one of the murderer’s smartphone so they could read it, insisting they were helpless without Apple’s cracking (and they demanded then, too, that Apple install encryption backdoors on its commercial cell phones).  Then the FBI hired a third party, which cracked the encryption forthwith.

And before that, crime investigations were hindered by lack of fingerprints because the crooks wore gloves.  Until DNA technology and testing opened other avenues of identification.  With search warrants required before that DNA could be sought out from individuals so that crime scene deposits could be matched.

And before that wired messaging, done privately, hindered crime investigations until wire tapping technology opened that for investigation.   With search warrants required before wire tapping could be done.

It’s always an arms race between the bad guys and the good guys.  And the good guys always win in the end, because they’re always able to get the better technology.

This time, The Wall Street Journal says, is different, though, via its subheadline at the link:

[Barr] offers no clear path forward

Of course, there is a clear path forward: get a warrant.  Do old-fashioned detective work.

And: hold onto that communications device. There’s no such thing as unbreakable (and so warrant-proof) encryption, there’s only encryption that can’t be broken today.

Gun Registration (Control)

Posted on by
Reply

The New Zealand government, enthusiastically led in this by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, intends to create a law requiring New Zealanders to register with the government the gun licenses they have and the guns they have.  This new…law…also is intended to make it harder to get, and keep, a gun license.

Other provisions of the thing include

  • establishment of new licensing for around 260 shooting clubs and ranges
  • expansion police authority to confiscate weapons if an individual shows (government defined) warning signs
  • require a separate license to purchase ammunition

Ardern, et al., claim that this thing is intended solely to “stop weapons falling into the wrong hands.”

Right.  Today, the “wrong hands” is terrorists and mass-shooters.  Sadly, “wrong hands” works out to whatever Government decides is wrong.

But, wait—this is New Zealand.  No worries.  No.  This is New Zealand today.  What about tomorrow’s government? Or the government the day after tomorrow?

These folks choose not to say what their limiting principle is.

PRC, “Armored Weapons,” and Hong Kong

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China’s use of tanks to suppress the Tiananmen Square protests that resulted in some 2,000 civilian deaths.

Here’s the PRC’s new anti-protest armor: truncheons.  With the official police standing around, watching:

Media in Hong Kong have released footage of masked men in white shirts beating black-clad protesters with steel pipes and wooden poles in a subway station and on public transit. The protesters attempted to defend themselves with umbrellas.
Passengers said police did not intervene in Sunday’s attacks by the men, which left 45 people injured.

Forty-five injured by those truncheon-wielders.  Notice, too, that the thugs were masked, but the protestors were not afraid to show their faces.

Were the masks to conceal their Beijing origin?  The opposition party in Hong Kong, the Democratic Party, is taking (publicly, at least) a more generous position.  It’s investigating

the attacks amid suspicion that they involved the triad, a Chinese organized crime group.

I’m not so sanguine; although I don’t discount the idea that, rather than being sent by PRC President Xi Jinping’s supporters from the mainland, Xi caused the triad to be hired for the strong-arming.

Hypocrisy of the British Left

Posted on by
2

Yes, ex-Prime Minister John Major claims himself a Conservative, but he’s acting more and more Left.  Boris Johnson, British Prime Minister wannabe and front-runner to replace the resigned Theresa May, has said that if needs be, he’ll prorogue Parliament to block an anti-no-deal Brexit vote, if a no-deal departure is necessary.

Prorogue: a temporary suspension of Parliament following petition of the Queen by her first minister—the Prime Minister—for permission to suspend Parliament and her granting that permission.  This use is unusual; prorogation is normally used for normal terminations of Parliamentary sessions; the term also describes the interval between that termination and the normal opening of the next session.

The former British Prime Minister John Major on Wednesday warned he would personally take legal action to stop any leader using a suspension of parliament to deliver a “no-deal” Brexit.

And yet, he threatens:

In order to close down parliament the prime minister would have to go to her Majesty the Queen and ask for her permission to prorogue. If her first minister asks for that permission, it is almost inconceivable that the queen will do anything other than grant it.
She is then in the midst of a constitutional controversy that no serious politician should put the queen in the middle of[.]

Thus, the hypocrisy: Major says he personally will precipitate that constitutional crisis with his own lawsuit to stop the process.

I for one would be prepared to go and seek judicial review.

Never mind that his case can only lose: as part of the Queen’s (any British monarch’s) Royal Prerogative, the power and the authority to prorogue belongs only to the monarch.  No British court can overrule her.

Hmm….