Intercontinental Brigading - Part XII - Lawfare to Cover Up Microsoft's Restricted Boot Calamity (Microsoft as Authority Over Linux), Garrett Wants to Talk About Penises Instead
A fortnight ago: German 'lawfare': When lawsuits become a political weapon
The GGG brigade ("Restricted Boot" Garrett, "Microsoft Plagiarism" Graveley & "Gas The Jews" Lozza) is hypersensitive about their connections, which lay bare for all to see because they're sloppy and reckless.
Previous Parts:
There's quite a lot of talk this week about CAs failing users and hence, by extension, the 'security' model not actually being trustworthy. Our Daily Links have included about a dozen articles covering this latest blunder, which we also commented on 2 days ago. This relates to our series about what Garrett did; he basically vandalised security along with other Microsofters. People like us, who cautioned against this all along (for nearly 15 years), are subjected to censorship by lawfare. The lawfare isn't domestic; it comes from America.
3 months ago I published "Litigants in Person (LIPs) [my wife and I] Handling American Lawfare Funded by Third Parties (About a Million Pounds for 100 Kilograms of Legal Papers)" and the pile of legal papers kept growing. We estimate that it's somewhere near 130 kilograms by now (some of that rests outside the front door where the hired guns left everything the last time).
The real issue at hand should be technical. As I put it a month ago: "The Court Needs to Also Look Into Microsoft-Controlled Restricted Boot Advanced by An American (Garrett) to Promote Monopoly and Back Doors Everywhere"
Today's article will be fairly technical without resorting to very technical jargon.
Before we get to that, as a bit of background to those who are just joining this series, remember that the vexatious litigants (GGG) would be evicted if not for third parties (maybe CFA also) and obscene recycling of text (no income sources). These are Americans who take on debt already use up resources in the UK's High Court (at least 9 judges so far, including two chief judges and two Masters) at the expense of a European couple, the British taxpayers, and the Court (also local taxpayers, not Americans). This is mean-spirited lawfare.
Two night ago I said that the CA-based 'security' model, where one checks for permission from a company like Microsoft, is not really security. I wanted to make this very clear "...and coherent enough to people like my parents."
This topic need not be "boring" or "difficult". There are ways to teach these things to laypeople.
A reader has since said that "a description the problem of restricted boot could be appended there" as there are many parallels.
What they mean by 'security' isn't really security; it's basically sort of like a "whitelist" or a large table (or chains, in practice) that says who's who. It uses encryption to make it harder to forge identities, but one is left overly reliant on some third parties, which are themselves untrustworthy. Why would GNU/Linux users trust Microsoft as the principal authority?
And "as I too often complain," we got told, an explanation of this key problem "needs to be in each one at some level because that might be the first post read by any given new visitor..."
We'll try to repeat the key points each time (also in future parts). It helps readers, it helps the Court, and it keeps us focused on what started this lawfare until it became SLAPPs in 2021.
In the technical article from 2 days ago I explained what happens "if you don't add HTTPS" or restricted boot (similar scenarios). They basically try to force or impose those things on all users. Not because of security but because of corporate agenda, wherein few corporations control everything. That's very evident on the Web already; as we got told, it's becoming anything but optional "and if you try to use certificates other than those provided by monopolies, then 'all the "Big Browsers" will literally block them..."
"The [above-mentioned] eMuhdra incident reminds us 1) how broken the certificate hierarchy is, and 2) that self-signed certificates are basically banned by all the major browsers..."
"3) Self-signing is in some ways *more* secure."
But it won't be permitted. When the Microsofters say people can sign their own restricted boot "bytes of data" it's just a tongue-in-cheek nonsense. They know people won't do it; even if they did, which is very difficult, what would be the point?
If people reject restricted boot, then that is a lot less security for the monopolies (like Microsoft); their financial security depends on being able to control sites, visitors of sites, consortia and so on. Also, their financial security depends on being able to brick GNU/Linux setups all around the world. This was foreseen all along.
And "indeed that's a 3rd point" (above) we're told, as "when Big Tech talk about security, they don't mean confidential, integrity, or confidentiality, they mean financial security and vendor lock-in..."
This is what Garrett is doing. He promotes back doors, kill switches, vendor lock-in and so on.
He wishes not to try to justify this (there's no way to justify this), so he talks about penises now - most likely as a distraction.
It's hardly shocking that Garrett talks about penises; that's just how he is, talking in public (in social control media) about what seems like sex toys in his luggage and talking about sex in FOSS conferences (in our IRC network). His mind is so obsessed with promiscuous sex that he even "joked" he would code for "Sexual Favours" (his words).
This is what his own spouse wrote about him this year:
Of course when Garrett talks about penises, as he did only hours ago, it is a distraction from restricted boot.
So we'll write more and more about restricted boot. █