Recent: James Bottomley Has Promoted Microsoft-Controlled Restricted (‘Secure’) Boot, His Blog Has Just Been Cracked
oday, or very early in the morning, I published a somewhat chronological explanation regarding things that went on and have gone on for 15 years.
“One goal there is to associate UEFI and restricted boot with other crimes,” a community member told me, “via crazy matt [Garrett] among other connections.”
Some of these connections are full-time Microsoft staff. Some of the assisting actors are ‘former’ Microsoft staff that was arrested for strangling women and had done corrupt things. A further connection said illegal things and committed Hate Crimes against my wife and I (already registered with police for years). Two of them already got arrested.
“I’ll go as far as to say it is strategically (and politically) dangerous to keep omitting mention of Garrett’s connection to Restricted Boot,” the community member remarked. “The omission makes it look exclusively like a personal spat and that REALLY hurts TR and TM in the near term and might damage standing with the courts eventually.”
I disagreed on the basis that the Court needs to also be able to assess the character of the people, as it does not easily understand technical mechanisms such as UEFI.
It’s not outlandish to all (universally), but it would not draw the attention when dealing with lawyers.
The community member pointed to an article which said Garrett had “…many problems. Serious problems. Real problems.”
Yes, interpersonal also. His own spouse accuses him of very serious things and those things are in the UK’s National Archives. Garrett’s solicitors were required by the judge to type down what the spouse had said.
“Above and beyond having boosted code to afflict systems with Restricted Boot on behalf of Microsoft” would be the more accurate or important thing to note about Garrett, but some deaf ears it would fall on do not understand what that technically means and why it’s so important.
It’s a question of what audience it targets or a matter of tailoring one’s message based on one’s knowledge.
“If that “on behalf of” should be included or not,” I was told, “I cannot recall the details,” but they’re all in this together (the law firm as well; it doesn’t understand and never comments on anything technical).
I separately said that the threat the solicitors send my way have “…no actual legal grounds”.
It could be mentioned that the threats are “due to criticism over his helping Microsoft get let off the hook about Restricted Boot.”
But again, the judges would not relate to that aspect without me shifting focus to technical matters. The case is not about technical matters.
“By turning it / presenting it as a personal spat it allows s–tholes like social control media an easy out,” a reader remarked, adding that “social control media is a throwaway and not worth the effort but I remain firm on the above otherwise…”
When I write about these legal disputes I ensure that if read by judges they will get across the key message/s as comprehended by a person without a Computer Science background.
It’s never of any concern what a bunch of trolls say in social control media. What they say does not matter, they’re there to provoke and even make stuff up for “likes” and groupthink/affirmation.
Filed under: 
EY, yo! Mr. Green!