Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/public/wp-config.php on line 27
Define The Terms — Why Now?
On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Define The Terms

by Bryan

French MPs outlaw paying for sex. What is the definition of ‘paying for sex’? Is it strictly a quid pro quo cash transaction? What about jewelry, a car, an apartment? How about dinner and a movie, a few drinks in a nice bar, a few beers at a beach?

I realize that politicians believe that the cash and presents should always flow in their direction, but they need to be careful. People might stop sending wedding presents based on uncertainty about the law. A law like this could be the death of St. Valentines Day, but is there any other benefit to society?

5 comments

1 Shirt { 04.07.16 at 11:35 pm }

So if you go “Dutch” you get laid? Is that what they’re proposing? If so, it’s far to late to do me any good!

2 Bryan { 04.08.16 at 2:12 pm }

I’m not sure how marriage would work under a law like this 😉

3 Kryten42 { 04.09.16 at 7:03 am }

Umm… yeah. 😐

Twitter is all over Iceland’s government scrambling to avoid elections because they fear the Pirate Party would win! LOL And they probably would! 😉 😀

Appropriate to the title of this thread, this: THE SENATE’S DRAFT ENCRYPTION BILL IS ‘LUDICROUS, DANGEROUS, TECHNICALLY ILLITERATE’

…
Kevin Bankston, the director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, goes even further: “I gotta say in my nearly 20 years of work in tech policy this is easily the most ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate proposal I’ve ever seen,” he says.
…

One of my favorite comments is: “The Feinstein Burr encryption bill is what happens when people who can’t send emails try to regulate advanced tech!” and this “If Grandpa Simpson was a Senator who was afraid of and confused by encryption, I think he’d write something like the Feinstein/Burr bill.” LOL

They can’t tie their own shoelaces either IMNSHO! 👿

4 Kryten42 { 04.09.16 at 7:12 am }

Oh, and of course… this:

FORGET APPLE VS. THE FBI: WHATSAPP JUST SWITCHED ON ENCRYPTION FOR A BILLION PEOPLE

…
This means that if any group of people uses the latest version of WhatsApp—whether that group spans two people or ten—the service will encrypt all messages, phone calls, photos, and videos moving among them. And that’s true on any phone that runs the app, from iPhones to Android phones to Windows phones to old school Nokia flip phones. With end-to-end encryption in place, not even WhatsApp’s employees can read the data that’s sent across its network. In other words, WhatsApp has no way of complying with a court order demanding access to the content of any message, phone call, photo, or video traveling through its service. Like Apple, WhatsApp is, in practice, stonewalling the federal government, but it’s doing so on a larger front—one that spans roughly a billion devices.

“Building secure products actually makes for a safer world, (though) many people in law enforcement may not agree with that,” says Acton, who was employee number forty-four at Internet giant Yahoo before co-founding WhatsApp in 2009 alongside Koum, one of his old Yahoo colleagues. With encryption, Acton explains, anyone can conduct business or talk to a doctor without worrying about eavesdroppers. With encryption, he says, you can even be a whistleblower—and not worry.
…

Oops! 😉 🙂

5 Bryan { 04.09.16 at 9:08 pm }

They just don’t get it. People want their private business to remain private. Business has to have its secrets kept to do business. Governments want their secrets kept. People all over the world face death for telling the truth every day. It is the height of hypocrisy to say that you support the right of people to protest against dictatorships and then demand that all means of communications be in open text.

Maybe the government should have a group that can decrypt messages when presented with a valid order from a court of jurisdiction. 😈