Re: Whitehouse "dissident" web site monitoring?
I strongly agree with the views of Phill Hallam-Baker and Brian Davis, and perhaps others who make the same points, that access by the White House to the various Web sites is NO BIG DEAL. I go further: I have no concerns about the NSA reading _this_ list! After all, it's a public list, so all are free to read it. Also, it may be very useful for the Feds to be seeing what we are arguing. We don't believe in "security through obscurity," do we? The notion that we are "safe" if the White House, or (horrors!) Janet Reno herself, are not reading our list or the Web sites on various issues, is the same kind of security the ostrich thinks he has with his head in the sand and his butt in the air. If you want to be unheard by the Feds, and the White House, and the FBI, and GCHQ, and Mossad, etc., then don't post publically. If you want your own access to Web sites kept private, push for the development of Web proxies ("Web remailers"). And so forth. Security is in our own hands, as it should be (and as "complex mathematics" has made it). (In the U.S. and most Western countries--actually, an increasing number of countries, worldwide--it is not easy to prosecute and convict a citizen for mere views expressed, or for reading preferences, etc.. Although I am thought of as a "crypto anarchist," and basically am such a thing, the fact is that there aren't a lot of trials for thoughtcrime in this country. I have some doubts about the circumstances surrounding Danny Casolaro's death, though, so I don't say all is rosy and perfect. I just say that paranoia that the White House or the FBI is reading public items is unwarranted.) --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
TCM:
Although I am thought of as a "crypto anarchist," and basically am such a thing, the fact is that there aren't a lot of trials for thoughtcrime in this country. I have some doubts about the circumstances surrounding Danny Casolaro's death, though, so I don't say all is rosy and perfect.
amusingly, on one of those web sites, the death of Casolaro is indeed tied in with the conspiracy that "touched" (to say the least <g>) Vince Foster. the Whitehouse web hits are potentially interesting. I agree they don't imply any "dissident web monitoring program". the question of how high a staffer hit those pages and for what reasons is still unanswered. if it was indeed just Joe Sixpack on a presidential tour, playing with the machines, not even employed with the whitehouse, or perhaps some bored college intern, then I agree that nothing significant is going on. but it is fun to fantasize about Hillary or Bill getting an eyeful and thinking that *pornography* on the internet pales in comparison to *this* little problem!! <g> now, those "dissident" web sites are not as innocuous as you might think. they are not run-of-the mill "I hate the president and republicans too" sites. one of them is the absolute master repository on the internet for all the rampant, hardcore Foster conspiracy theories talking about NSA bank spying, whitewater, etc. these are *not* something you would find in a library, or expect anyone without an interest in conspiracy theories to be reading. and from what the article suggests, the browsing was pretty thorough. it would be interesting to ask the site maintainer, something I might do. I suspect that a lot of this Foster stuff is going to hit the media big time when the mud starts to sling during the presidential election, when it really counts. I think that someone is sitting on a lot of anti-clinton ammo. the 3rd candidate possibilities are very strong in 96, because of all the junk coating the Republicrats and Demopublicans. recall that the "october surprise" suspicions regarding Reagan really hit the media big time, and supposedly that was a highly secret intelligence operation. so I think that there is a kind of rough government accountability, it's just that it only happens about every 4 years or so and is *awfully* messy.. <g> --Vlad Nuri
I suspect that a lot of this Foster stuff is going to hit the media big time when the mud starts to sling during the presidential election, when it really counts. I think that someone is sitting on a lot of anti-clinton ammo. the 3rd candidate possibilities are very strong in 96, because of all the junk coating the Republicrats and Demopublicans.
I don't think that there will be anything on Foster, if anyone had anything they would have used it. All that has come up is that some of Fosters files marked secret were placed in a safe after he committed suicide. What is going to happen is that a lot of the mud is going to get rebutted, on both sides. Take the Hillary Clinton Cattle deals for example, the media claim was that Hillary invested $1,000 and made $100,000. This is not true. She was asked to put up $1,000 as margin by her broker. Margin is not invested, it is simply a down payment on risk capital. Her broker knew that Hilary could cover very much more if there was a margin call. Hillary was selling options not buying them. In the selling game you have unlimited liability but can only make a fixed profit. If you lose selling an option the money is only due at the end of the contract. So Hillary did not invest $1000, in fact she invested nothing, but she did put up her entire assets as risk capital just as a Lloyds name does in the insurance market. The key question is whether the kooks win and the net just degenerates into conspiracy theories and so nobody takes any notice of really heinous stuff or whether the net injects some facts into the political debate. The net can be used for both allegations and rebuttal. That type of environment would constitute a genuine information democracy.
the Whitehouse web hits are potentially interesting. I agree they don't imply any "dissident web monitoring program". the question of how high a staffer hit those pages and for what reasons is still unanswered.
High ups have better things to do with their time than watch conspiracy theorists blather on. Underlings as not net.enabled. If you think thats bad check out the Congress, they have a limit on the number of Internet enabled staffers per senator and congressbeing. I keep trying to get the message across about T3 lines but they don't seem to get the message. Ever wondered why these poor folks can't use email for their organisations..? If you are wondering about the cypherpunkness of all this I think that these guys should all be using PGP. I'm very carefull to give them the url for the European distribution site however :-) Adam writes:
That said, why should I respect the privacy of government employees? There is a substantial difference between government and private companies, in that I am not compelled in any way to do business any private company.
Like I have a choice of going to Comonwealth gas or not having any lights in the appartment... Phill H-B Not speaking for anyone else.
participants (3)
-
hallam＠w3.org -
tcmay＠got.net -
Vladimir Z. Nuri