<story><title>France looking at banning Tor, blocking public Wi-Fi</title><url>http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/12/france-looking-at-banning-tor-blocking-public-wi-fi/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jacquesm</author><text>The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. Politicians like these are just opportunists and would use any hot button issue to get their way because they know that&amp;#x27;s the easiest way to railroad through their pet laws. It&amp;#x27;s easy to get people to vote against their own interest, all you need is fear.&lt;p&gt;There are many such tricks, another is to bring the important stuff up for vote in the last little bit before a session closes and to waste as much of the session prior to that by debating some inane point of some un-important issue at great length leaving insufficient time to debate the important stuff.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s all tricks and psychology, reason has little to do with it.</text></item><item><author>reacweb</author><text>I think we should really investigate the writers of these two new pieces of legislation. These people are a bigger threat for all our values than all the terrorists of the world. The only good answer to terrorism is to not surrender freedom.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>laotzu</author><text>&amp;gt;It’s true that many governments have been set up during
such storms; but in those cases it was the governments
themselves that destroyed the state. Usurpers always create
or select times of disturbance and public fear to get destructive laws passed—laws that the people would never have adopted when they were thinking coolly. One of the surest ways of distinguishing a legislator’s work from a tyrant’s is through the question: When did he choose to act?&lt;p&gt;-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.earlymoderntexts.com&amp;#x2F;assets&amp;#x2F;pdfs&amp;#x2F;rousseau1762.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.earlymoderntexts.com&amp;#x2F;assets&amp;#x2F;pdfs&amp;#x2F;rousseau1762.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>France looking at banning Tor, blocking public Wi-Fi</title><url>http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/12/france-looking-at-banning-tor-blocking-public-wi-fi/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jacquesm</author><text>The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. Politicians like these are just opportunists and would use any hot button issue to get their way because they know that&amp;#x27;s the easiest way to railroad through their pet laws. It&amp;#x27;s easy to get people to vote against their own interest, all you need is fear.&lt;p&gt;There are many such tricks, another is to bring the important stuff up for vote in the last little bit before a session closes and to waste as much of the session prior to that by debating some inane point of some un-important issue at great length leaving insufficient time to debate the important stuff.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s all tricks and psychology, reason has little to do with it.</text></item><item><author>reacweb</author><text>I think we should really investigate the writers of these two new pieces of legislation. These people are a bigger threat for all our values than all the terrorists of the world. The only good answer to terrorism is to not surrender freedom.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>s_q_b</author><text>&lt;i&gt;The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else.&lt;p&gt;In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive&amp;#x27;s law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish list that they repeatedly ask the legislature to enact, because it would make their jobs easier. The legislature, under tremendous pressure to do &lt;i&gt;anything&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;fast&lt;/i&gt;, does not attempt to really analyze the legislation, but rather uses every parliamentary trick to rush it through.&lt;p&gt;The executive uses these expanded powers to check off national security goals it already had in mind (see e.g. the hundreds of arrests during the French state of emergency.)&lt;p&gt;The end result is threefold:&lt;p&gt;First the executive is emboldened to at least look like they&amp;#x27;re increasing security at home and abroad. At its worst, it either draws the nation into a war &lt;i&gt;on territory chosen by the terrorists&lt;/i&gt; (see e.g. Afghanistan, the rock upon which the Soviet military machine shattered), or needless wars of choice which drain economic and military effectiveness (see e.g. Iraq)&lt;p&gt;Second, the country experiences an economic shock far out proportion to the actual attack, due to the fear of the populace, which directly and indirectly depresses multiple sectors of the economy.&lt;p&gt;Third, the country produces highly visible, although not necessarily highly effective, responses at the expense of sacrifice of civil liberties and personal convenience.&lt;p&gt;What&amp;#x27;s more is that &lt;i&gt;terrorists count on this reaction.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;They know that the costs of the response will  vastly outweigh the actual damage of the attack.These particular non-state actors are deemed &amp;quot;terrorists&amp;quot; for a reason. Because their most powerful weapons are not airliners, or bombs, or assault rifles.&lt;p&gt;Their most powerful weapon is fear.&lt;p&gt;They use that fear to cause nations to make poor decisions, then exploit those decisions to advance their causes. The only solution which I can devise is simply not let fear arbitrate our decisions.&lt;p&gt;We must announce, as one voice, that we are no longer afraid.</text></comment>