On 06.02.23 16:16, Mark Rousell wrote:

> The legislation (and other forthcoming legislation such as the Cyber
> Resilience Act) are not ostensibly intended to ban Linux or open source
> but, depending on interpretation, could be, and thus probably will be in
> some place and at some time, used to do something along those lines.
> Control, rather than ban, is how these things tend to play out.

The intention is to massively increase power over the IT infrastructures
and drive out any competitors that don't play along with their
"great reset" agenda.

But they're on the path of destroying themselves.


> Yes. But deniably so by passing legislation that is ostensibly intended
> for innocent or beneficial purposes but whose wording allows for
> draconian control, meddling and micro-management, guaranteeing that it
> will be used in such a manner at some point in the future to the
> detriment of the people as a whole.

This abuse is part of the plan. It's a feature, not a bug. But probably
most of the cardboard figures called "politicians" are far too stupid
and ignorant to recognize that they're doing and what their masters
are planning to do with them later.


--mtx


--
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@??? -- +49-151-27565287