October 2013 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[22] parameters
by brian carroll 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

--- overview --- a previous example of subjective mathematics was given related to how the calculation 5 x 2 could occur across a range of 7 through 9, if the decimal place was unaccounted for yet still existed in a hidden computation. using exponentials this range can be further demonstrated, and with enough mathematical know-how potentially any whole number sum could be produced 5^.1 + 2^.1 = 2 5^2 + 2^2 = 29 5^3 + 2^3 = 133 this indicates that what is outside the boundary of consideration could also have some effect on what is occurring inside of it, depending upon how it is modeled and how the data is accounted for or may exist without such evaluation or could have ambiguities or anomalies built-into it, which can be exploited to produce alternative results in another hidden framework [5] + [2] = [2|29|133] in other words, this 'extra information' exists beyond the boundary of the numbers 5 and 2, such that for example... [5]^2 + [2]^2 = 29 if only accounting for what is inside the boundary, the result is obvious: [5] + [2] = 7 and thus the sum could actually be variable, even while 'limited', which could be an issue of ~appearance or a facade calculation that obscures other processing that could be occurring simultaneously. [5] + [2] = [sum] in other words, depending upon how the calculation is observed, reviewed, and evaluated, extra information or details could exist beyond a threshold that hides relevant data about the calculation taking place, allowing two or more calculations to occur simultaneously. thus if only whole numbers are accounted for and yet there are floating decimal point operations and fractions involved or rounding, these could be areas for exploits or holes. the skewed ideological nature of relativism is such, that 2+2 could be said to sum up to 2.3, given an authority based viewpoint... [2]^.1 + [2]^.3= [2.3] and therefore if a student were to say 2+2=4, this could be denied because it is not the same framework a given privileged perspective uses, which then all must use to pass their 'subjective mathematics' course, a great many ~theory-based University professors relying on these tactics. therefore 2 + 2 = 2.3 could be standardized as a viewpoint and function outside of other checks and balances and simply be declared true, because the calculation can be made, even while its 'extra information' may not be accounted for within the shared situation itself, and instead become the dogmatic assumption required so as to obtain the only correct answer. [2] + [2] = 2.3 // CORRECT [2] + [2] = 4 // INCORRECT addressing the extra information could be made off-limits yet still be used and required to obtain the given result, and thus by default the actual non-tainted calculation can be ruled 'out of bounds' for not acknowledging or ceding to the default biased assumption, which skews the calculation. [pT] + [pT] = [range of pT] [T] + [T] = [empirical truth] it really matters where the boundaries are drawn and how they are accounted for, because it would be wrong to assume 2 + 2 = 2.3 without recognizing the role of exponential power in altering the whole number values. in this way, what is false can be equated with what is true, yet only because it is not resolving anomalies into a truth-only framework, and it is this leeway or skew, warping, distortion, and bias that can force false perspectives in this same way, computer modeling of society and issues of surveillance, where 'terror' may be mapped onto citizens en masse, via criteria that are beyond actual accounting or oversight -- if not due to issues of language and psychology that are allowed given a privatized corrupted worldview via the broken US Constitution, allowing private man to manipulate events in that finite, limited framework so it firstly benefits male-male historical relations. what if, for instance, a cabal developed whereby by privilege of this viewpoint, e.g. a hostile homosexual male point of view was the grounding of the surveillance state, and its associated politics as this relates to harassment of citizens or being blacklisted or even denied healthcare. that is the same issue of accountability and boundaries and how moving goalposts allows these types of abuses to exist within the system and systematically become the basis for oppressive institutionalized behavior. and thus, in the above example, what if sexual harassment were to occur via surveillance in that peculiar context- that the private male-gaze of the state is trying to out a citizen, and that type of extra data involved in calculations. it is perhaps absurd, though perhaps not, if unregulated and unaccounted for. the larger issue being that computer models can likewise be bounded and allow ~privileged ("royal") interpretations that are ungrounded or skewed by default of not accounting for binary biasing, subjective (A=B) evalautions, and relativistic framework that operate only or primarily in pseudo-truth and its evershifty onesided "reasoning" er ~processing, which can brute force a resulting false perspective that is presupposed to be shared by all because it can be thought and believed to exist, by fiat of everyday SIGN-BASED "computation" that is essentially saying: i see, i say, i believe myself. and this extends into: we agree, we believe, this is shared reality. the problem with this situation is life and reality are more complicated than this simplistic framework and yet if error-correction is not allowed or views outside the particular boundary or that question it are silenced, then it is a self-sustaining bubble environment of close-minded believers in a particular finite view of partial truth that is equated with universal truth, such that pT=T. yet also, a particular individual viewpoint takes precedent over all the others that have better information or do not rely on errors, which instead can just be ignored and denied as 'less than'. individual.pT > group.T the way this should ideally work is that the empirical truth of humanity would error-check and correct the individual partial truth, yet if the individual POV is ruling over humans, then it becomes 'the law' by way of power, 'the truth', albeit virtual, ungrounded, disconnected from reality. individual.T > group.pT the way democracy should work is that this feedback of individual viewpoint into the larger empirical framework should be embraced, welcomed and not shutdown by censorship or other means, yet this is instead what occurs in educational institutions and society at large via conformist 'true belief'. dictator.pT > citizens.T in this way, state cyberattacks against citizens could break equipment to force silence and enforce ideological boundaries, to make sure feedback cannot occur which challenges the ruling viewpoint, even though warped and reliant upon errors, false beliefs and incorrect assumptions dictator.power > citizens.truth (empirical) the idea then of accountability is that this process is reversed and held to account in a legal framework of constitutional law, else it is denied and the functioning state is illegal, beyond law, exploiting its citizens dictator.power < citizens.truth private.POV.pT < public.TRUTH relativistic.pT < empirical.TRUTH so a situation in a failed state could devolve to the point that a private police state is on the offensive against the public human state... private.police-state > public.human.state and this very situation can likewise be reversed... private.police-state < public.human.state thus, in terms of mass surveillance these various categories and boundaries can help shape the policies or lack of oversight or incapacity to reason about what is occurring in the terms it occurring within, due to illiteracy which may be inherent though also enforced, via silencing, censorship, and blacklisting and destruction of other viewpoints that challenge and seek to change the false perspective to a more accurate, accountable shared view private.mass.surveillance > human citizenry private.warped.politics.pT > human.TRUTH relativistic.power.pT > empirical.TRUTH evil.rogue.state.pT > human.state.TRUTH in this condition there is code, signage, language and algoritms, numbers flowing through equations said or believed to /represent/ the situation and peoples interests, yet what [people], how is this defined and accounted for and to what degree is this false, based on the surrounding evidence of a despoiled environment and broken civilization, from minds to products to institutions to ideas, a total and complete manufacturing of failure, and thus the centrality of the role of ILLITERACY in allowing and enabling this status quo, basically by going along with the existing outdated paradigm, incrementally improving upon ungrounded and biased assumptions, and so-on the big picture idea is that you would not want to limit or censor or skew or force a perspective upon reality that is inaccurate or limiting or false as that would bound what can be known and interpreted, yet this subversion could occur in a state computing or other scenario, such as with quantum all-seeing distributed networked supercomputing whereby 'the ambiguity' is forced into a narrow ideological framework and cherry-picked to get results or supporting data that allows actions to be justified via these corrupted models-- corrupted in their relation with ideas, the observation of signs as if 'the reality' versus referencing it elsewhere, conduits not things-in-themselves. such a confusion or idiocy could lead to citizens being perceived and treated as if potential terrorists, by default of a too limited onesided evaluation of the data, and its forced binarization into the same old relativistic private gaming that constitution 'history' allows the danger is that this is the *default* condition, the rules organizing and quasi-governing systems, the capacity to legitimize this activity via 'biased processing' of binary ideologues which force privatized reasoning into these false and error-ridden frameworks as if 'universal truth' by the very declaration of a shared perspective and denial of any other evidence that does not fit the model or challenges it or inconveniences that view, and this situation has been normalized, equated with 'public agenda' even and therefore the oppression exist within minds, and interpretations and this involves illiteracy if not malice and mendacity to the human project and its existing outside-the-lines is how it is allowed to continue, for the parallel activity is not being accounted for in the calculations, it can be sidestepped, and in doing so, takes on all the force of law-- as language, ungrounded sign-based communication substituted for truth itself. this then enshrined in technology, the operating system of the rogue state, and in individuals and society via institutional and mass media programming such that behavioral compliance is the first and ultimately the only choice (this possible because "logic" has been removed from calculations and thus the biased subjectivity of A=B observations the basis for such politics, uncorrected and uncorrectable relativism is the carte blanche powerplay) --- literacy and observation --- so rationalization can be in error and this is proposed the default situation with the flawed frameworks that exist that society malfunctions within, most especially issues of money and [economics], which relies so extremely on privately skewed pseudo-truth that it is the antithesis of the principle of economy, and yet unaccountable to this empirical reasoning. the rationalization of a finite viewpoint, a partial infinitesimal slice of larger situation by a particular observer/s and framework, then can reduce via CENSORSHIP what data is inside the model and held outside its boundary while also including other hidden data that remains unaccounted for, as bias and skew and warping and distortion, that is unable to be calculated in terms outside the perspective. it is disallowed, becomes faith-based, and an answered question- institutionalized. "this is true because it is good for us, etc. "if you do not accept our truth you are bad for us, etc. this reductionism is tied to a limited rationalization, which is based on observations by people who agree or share a particular framework or view, yet this is not inherently grounded and removed of falsity- instead it is inherently pseudo-truth and reliant on errors biasing and warped beliefs until corrected, removed of these-- which is where the societal short-circuiting occurs, the lack of any need or requirement to do this outside of a private framework and belief system or private POV or ID. say sex or gender or demographics or political party. there is no requirement to acknowledge 'truth' existing outside this private boundary, as per the US Constitution (!) and therefore, this choosing-truth becomes a RIGHT of private citizens, and this collapses a larger shared public framework by dividing and subdividing again and again across every issue and viewpoint until there is no shared perspective for issues -- only infantile babbling (this in a context of the internet as global adolescent playpen, likewise) so in this devolved condition, an unnatural state of illiteracy exists where the 'common framework' cannot be allowed or established, either by hostilities of others, including the state, manifested by private attacks via representatives of its ideology or by official state action itself, else the incapacity of people to communicate in empirical terms about the situation that exists, removed of biasing or boundaries and thresholds that create exceptions to everything outside a given viewpoint, which can either be incapable of acknowledging what exists to retain equilibrium in existing conditions, or also has no shared framework to communicate within, for the perspectives beyond a given specific limit. in that, the common structure is absent from social relations, the education system built around this division of thought and action, whereas what is needed is a generic or generalist viewpoint that transcends the finite specialist awareness and its limits to shared considerations within a given boundary. in other words, the ability to communicate and understand -across boundaries- has been lost in the very era when humanity is most connected by technological tools and yet there is SILENCE about the issues that exist in the terms they exist within, when instead the 'representative media estate' and its failed role as representers of public will themselves have collapsed, having no backbone for real questions, perhaps due to hidden dictatorship and real-world consequences of going against the prevailing private agenda. if people were able to logically reason beyond binary viewpoints the issues that exist could be dealt with forthrightly in a constitutional context, yet the very absence of this, due to forced illiteracy, prevents it. the very educational system that is supposed to uphold ideals of such feedback itself destroyed and disallowing viewpoints beyond the correct perspective within classes and thus formatting minds and manners and relations this way that results in total incapacitation of the population to deal with its own situation in the state, which leaves corporate citizens the only competent selfish actors ('virtual citizens'), legal entities which now basically are representers of a portion of a privatized public viewpoint, those whose careers align with the given agendas, whether health-care or high-tech or privatized state and federal bureaucracy itself -- against the citizenry. a cannibalistic exploitative self-defeating, oppressive ideological policy that stands-in for polity in a mass mediated internet-is-TV surrealism, everything moving lock-step in the same direction of a global wind-up watch, whether it is realized or not- it is a gigantic automated machine, and people are effectively and essentially enslaved, imprisoned within it and by default function against one another via these insane dynamics, unless accurately accounting for the situation beyond enronomic beliefs "truth itself" is not being accessed simply by communicating viewpoints within language, and yet this is the assumption that allows all this to occur without correction. instead, truth must be secured. and thus if it is trapped within ideology, that must be addressed, evaluated, transformed so that it is not a hidden limit and that such warped dynamics are neutralized and what is true can be freed from a constraining falsity. and to do this requires logic that goes beyond the prevailing binary ideology that is at this moment celebrated as a triumphant revelation of a friction-free life in a future-world, a religious-like transcendent experience -- "if only you fully and truly believe, then you can code your own reality, our reality" -- and this is outright fucking false. idiotic. it is an absolute scam. massive INSTITUTIONALIZED BULLSHIT. this is private religion that has taken over the educational system in the form of underachieving technology and associated 'agendas' that further inculcate the mindless drone roles for populations, outlawing questions beyond the given limits and boundaries. it is essentially an antihuman policy, removing human values, replacing these with machine values for a class that exploits and benefits most from this approach, yet remains hidden as a middle-managing elite. going along with this situation, you survive. questioning it, you are removed from the society, become a commodity, a natural resource, guinea pig, lab rat, etc. relativistic 'literacy' allows this, as long as you share the POV you can ignore the negatives and proceed and succeed within society, even though it is costing you your humanity as well as the humanity of others, who likely are heavily oppressed by the same activities some people need to survive, while others deal with the ecological or social or economic impacts of the few or some who survive at the expense of the many, including nature itself in that greed has destroyed the environment and living systems to the point that natural wealth has be obliterated via this same systematic processing beyond the boundary, then. the price of clean air or water that is not filled with chemicals. a world where breast milk is not laced with fire retardant or psychiatric drugs. these issues do not get accounted for nor are they corrected in the 'data processing' of civilization. it is instead allowed to continue as a ~normalized situation, ad absurdum ad infiniti so the issue of observation is directly tied to that of perspective, the framework that defines the viewpoint, what the parameters are for the observer and observation, and this conceptualization is critical yet also is lacking as an awareness. society while highly visual still consists of citizens without rudimentary skills for communicating ideas, especially in terms of diagramming at the level of cave people about what is going on. instead it is pushed into sign-based linear communication, versus a more pure and basic evaluation of hypotheses and recurring models of questions and situations that can be referenced again and again, versus writing a new viewpoint over and over, rewriting, resaying, trillions of times over the point being, the observer as an entity, a person or surveillance cam, is not conceptualized in an accurate grounded way by default, and instead relies upon a 'partial literacy' that is established in pseudo-truth, and this ungrounded condition itself involves boundaries related to viewpoint and ~perspective, limits to what is seen and unseen, what is allowed to exist as parameters or not allowed, and this [variables] of observation then are also involved in the issues they connect to and are reliant upon thus, the surveillance camera that peers into the world is not by default in a state of 'empirical truth' in terms of its operation, it is probable it exists in a partial-truth (pT) that involves skew and distortion and binary bias that influences its interpretation, and that this exists in a private framework via constitutional law, that can allow boundaries to be edited and crossed by its corrupted, relativistic (A=B) subjectivist POV, whereby some private citizens may surveil others for political advantage and there is nothing to stop this from proceeding in these same terms, if there is a breakdown in the language itself needed to correct the errors, because these issues are not calculated inside the box, instead they are hidden, parallel computations that involve psychologies and agendas, the realities of bullying behaviors of oppressors, the traits of domination needing display by those believing themselves more powerful, to prove to the oppressed their superiority via such aggression. it is an issue of limits, just as with people who may 'keep out' views or beliefs or truth they do not want to acknowledge because it negatively effects their own version of events which best suits their particular private conditions in other words, limits and boundaries and parameters are involved also in 'not seeing' and thus censoring what is seen or observed or related to, via how this is calculated, processed, considered, and in what logical terms thus, the surveillance camera can have a warped POV as it looks into the surrounding world, it can be interpreting situations in skewed frameworks that rely on errors or ignore facts and data and omit vital dynamics from the models used to evaluate situations. and yet they stand in judgement as do people, as if the action of observation is itself directly connected with -absolute truth- by default, which allows lies to be structuralized, beliefs to take over as understanding and shared awareness, the partialness the realm of exploit, the area of failure in approach and understanding, such that the ideology appears to be that "truth can be engineered", if not via simply forcing a perspective that is shared by the masses as if reality local and global, relative and empirical, many individual views of a larger shared truth - yet what if it is only partial, and censored, or limited or not calculated accurately and thus it does it not add, realistically, in that what is said and is believed to represent the situation actually is not capable of this, and in some sense, this representation is corrupted. what if these limits and shared frameworks are based in errors if not lies that are unaccountable to correction, even by ego-based beliefs such that an observer views themselves as infallible, this narcissism, and that the condition of relation is stuck in this broken dynamic and thus perspective cannot get beyond it or outside the skew and instead relies upon it, this to include organizations and ideological and individual belief systems, as if the global population is to some extent viable, certifiably crazy. then what? how do you get to shared observations in truth if the processing of events is skewed and strange calculations are normalized and shared as the collective abstraction, and yet this is inaccurate, untrue, false, bad even what if this condition of partial literacy of specialists is nested within a larger illiteracy of the shared condition, via set(subset) relations: society (individual) illiteracy (partial-literacy) if people were to try to communicate, most likely it would need to occur beyond their private boundary to get at what is going on -at scale- within the larger society, yet these views could likewise be contained within a warped, skewed relativistic framework of each person if ungrounded in their views, such that their right is to censor or limit external truth, even if partial, which then bounds this larger social connection to only subset relations in a shared language or viewpoint. thus, "classes" or shared sets of parameters that limit the macro-organism and prevent a supraorganism from ever existing at the level of the state, everything divided this way --- what is literacy --- vital basic knowledge and skills are missing from society today and this limits what connections people can have and in what terms, and this is the result of the way people are educated, in what frameworks and beliefs and via what methods and curricula, skillsets and pedagogy, and relationships literacy involves a human component and is assumed based within nature, though exists in a context of technology that "interprets" environments. most simply literacy seems to correspond with accurate observation and awareness, such that what is perceived corresponds to what actually exists, to some degree of fidelity, from partial to a more complete understanding as this involves limits and boundaries of perception, modeling of ideas thus if a person is near a bridge and they view a streetlamp, they may recognize a streetlamp and correctly observe it, via pattern matching based on previous experience. and perhaps they notice certain variables- that it is a particular type of streetlamp, its color, height, material, and then they are on to the next observation and so there may be some inherence in the groundedness of such observations in that, within particular limits- there could be empirical truth that is relativistically evaluated and this could be accurate and thus a basis for general observations could be considered 'literate' to some bounded extent another person could see the same streetlight in the context of a bridge and notice the wildgrass and embankment it is situated within, could notice the bugs and spiderwebs inside the glass case, know a little history of the infrastructure, consider the aesthetics of the concrete bridge versus steel or aluminum armature for the light, its brown color as camouflage to blend into environments as this relates to infrastructure (green transformers as if bushes, grey telephone switches as if rocks) and consider the poetry it may involve under the existing cloud cover and melancholy mood, whereby in its detached condition it is as if a statue watching over passersby, and perhaps is imagined as silent witness to the same day in the same moment a third person could exist who has access to all empirical knowledge of a common data model, and thus when observing this same streetlight scene they could access the history of the lighting type, the type of bridge span, the name of the bolts visible, and reference the street lighting system to then consider the name of the particular color of paint used on its surface, the composition of the particular metal, what the names of nearby plants are, the sound of a bird catalogued and identified to its specificity, and then to review the history of concrete- that any such observation would map to what is known about what is observed- whether by natural instance of the distributed yet entangled empirical mind or via technological apparatus that queries a database and then pattern matches against such parameters- and in this example it would be proposed unlimited, to a certain boundary that then is unknown or not yet modeled this way-- thus a threshold area where questions exist and hypotheses are actively interpreting the data the omniscient-like awareness of the third example is not different in its truth from the first, which is proposed to correlate with A=A awareness. though it may be more involved or function well beyond the particular limits of observation of a given observer, based on what parameters can be evaluated. someone who sees the paint and notices its color may do so to some degree, yet another observer may match this to an actual color sample and name via data query, or know of the molecular composition of the paint and consider this in relation to that of the metal used in the streetlight armature. so a limited view could become more comprehensive and yet there could be instances of literacy in all these cases, though some observation may be more knowledgeable or access more detail or contextual data or understanding and more accurately model the situation in the totality of the dimensions it exists, which could be a vast many, given what is being observed. and it is that question of the potential observation, what is the potential knowledge that could be yielded from a situation, as if via a live archaeological dig (yet interdisciplinary, across all disciplines in all their dimensions as a shared empirical framework)... such that a given plot of space-time could be accounted for in its entirety, conceptualized and empirically modeled... and what if such modeling could one day be remotely accessed via tools, to allow extended literacy of the group into individual situations, and what if technology helped this to occur versus became a limit for any such interactions with nature and ourselves beyond a warped configuration hell-bent on keeping this capacity away from humans you would need to have a common model for observations that society would be developed around, both in the way people think and consider ideas and communicate and in how tools allow access to this knowledge, which then becomes a basis for shared governance. what is a critical difference between the most basic pattern recognition (streetlamp = streetlamp) versus its N-dimensional consideration, is that limits may exist that bound a given observation to particular views or a particular interpretative framework, and thus the sliding scale of literacy as it relates to people seeing what they are able to see based on what they know and what they think about. thus an unthinking person may not see what is directly in front of them because they are not aware or are 'elsewhere' in their relation, whereas a person who observes what is in front of them in terms of physical artifacts may not have words or language to describe or define what they are seeing in the terms it exists, or it may be crude by comparison to someone with expert or specialist knowledge who knows the particular details a situation involves - thus the information of the utility person and gardener and structural engineers and maintenance crew and this could be an issue of parameters- what experience does a person have who is observing, as to what can be accounted for in the observation and thus, a person who knows chemistry or biology or particular ecosystems or city history would have a further expanded understanding of the context for what is observed in its given dimensions, as they may or may not apply directly to the streetlamp, in situ, as it is evaluated in given terms. literacy could be unbounded, or bounded and infinite, and could involve a *potential* such that observations of an event could cross various limits or categories of consideration, based upon the parameters of evaluation accessible and used by the observer. relational navigation of structural frameworks of the empirical model, as signs and systems interrelate and interconnect across various dimensions, this the ecology of nested sets dynamics, the interdisciplinary yet integrated empirical perspective. now an individual may have a limit upon what can be observed and known in their particular experience, yet questioning could exist beyond this limit and thus face that threshold condition of 'not knowing' and yet not having data to learn from either, perhaps comparable to a wall of illiteracy. and this could be rather immediate for most everyone to some degree or other. yet a transformed relation could exist, whether natural or augmented that allows such data to be queried and thus each person could reference such a shared empirical model and surpass these limits, answer and consider these questions, and build up a higher resolution model and understanding that is removed of errors or wrong assumptions, and thus operate in A=A fidelity, evaluated in terms of an error-corrected contingent modeling of truth, versus relying on a local particular view based in pseudotruth by default what is more, someone could have access to omniscient technological tools and yet have faulty modeling, ungrounded and skewed observations based on wrong assumptions that rely upon limits and false frameworks, and thus while they could access 'greater knowledge' they may be censoring or editing out data and only seeing certain views yet also biased, warped, distorted observations that are shared in this shared computational state; and thus to some extent in their inaccurate observations (A=B), even while having advanced technology, could be less literate than those without the same tools, because their modeling is wrong and limited and bounded by a certain ideological interpretation, thus preventing accurate observation to some limit or degree or within certain dimensions; pattern matching could for instance be crude in such an approach, yet not be accounted for in its error-reliance nor in its deviation from lawful existence with others who are in the same environment, yet may not be evaluated in these terms thus, a class or group of people could have such technology akin to highly advanced Google Glass that functions as technological eyeballs connected to databases, and they could be surveilling others via this covert capacity, yet the pattern-matching could itself be off, inaccurate, flawed, and thus false positives could exist, or 'truth' that may be inside that viewpoint may only be partial, yet believed absolute truth, for lack of any outside accountability for the error-rate it involves. and that could then lead to a false perspective for the surveillance cameras, who peer outward, in that what they are seeing may not be 'reality itself' and instead could involve and does involve warping, skew, and distortion by default of ideological biasing and relativistic frameworks, in the context of absolute truth, beyond that given boundary, to include all truth of the shared situation. such a technological viewpoint could be self-sustaining, not requiring an outside validation because it is 'above' or governing over the destruction of civilization- yet its presumption of superiority and correctness, as with assumptions that signs wrongly equal what they signify, could ignore external truth and operate within that threshold and limit and parameters that allow a onesided viewpoint to persist unchallenged and without regard to truth beyond that contained and managed boundary. say, all truth that exists that is not contained within the model, yet viewed subservient to it, such as the cosmos itself in its entirety and all that it involves. and thus to take a finite limited perspective and privilege it over all other truth, by denying or ignoring or oppressing and silencing it, then can also establish certain dynamics that are mediated in terms of relations, this is to include those that are perceived 'lower' when they are in fact 'higher' in the realm of knowledge and awareness and understanding of what is, yet the power relations in a corrupted society may exploit this and allow the partial view to manage and rule over the human viewpoint, instead, which replaces truth with its substitute, aka the global false perspective. in that corruption, technological tools for those in societal systems then seem to encourage incapacity to change these parameters and limits, and school systems actively censor and punish independent thought and ideas that do not conform to the limits and enforced boundaries, and it is these vary constraints that the machinery requires people to submit to in order to function as it does today. else everyone is a potential wrench thrown into the ideological works, and thus must be discarded as a threat to the maintenance and smooth operation of the warped wheelwork, biased gearing. a savagery and violence exists in the realm of stopping thought and ideas and human actions via these same viewpoints, stopping communications and basic relations, reference to the dimensions that exist via accurate modeling and portrayals, instead this brings on punishment, retaliation, aggressions those who defer to truth are connected with humans, yet though those who require truth to defer to their private viewpoints are not the same, they have given up something essential to get where they are, and they require the limits to be what they are, in order to succeed in that given approach, yet this is the same requirement of the broken tools and broken society, that it remains broken and this be normalized, for some to succeed within the system while all other humans fail and are subjugated by this agenda the binary computer is the artifact that maps directly to this same flawed modeling and the oppressive political ideology that rules over civilization as a state of disease, focused upon death and money and SHIT, to be honest, as its ethics and morality, as if fucking people over is a virtue somehow, and then this encoded into peoples minds, relations, activities, and into the code and software and hardware that subverts the tools and allows them to be exploited, broken, and crippled if their use is beyond the boundary or jeopardizes the feelings of the ideologues who just want to feel safe, and so activities and thoughts that they are threatened by become limits, as it does not serve their governing agenda, and so on, as this involves what is not accounted for in the given calculations in surveillance society the thing is, you could have the most advanced technology in the world, say a distributed network of quantum supercomputers -- yet if the modeling and viewpoint and interpretation inside the device is flawed and biased, in can instead serve tyranny and become the foundation for lawless oppression over a captive population. the way people think, their psychology and the limits and frameworks they rely upon matter, it influences and effects how the tools develop and who they serve -- some private subset or the human public and thus the minds that are managing the technological works cannot by default be assumed to have access to unfettered truth, nor should they be allowed to operate under the assumption of infallible decision-making that is reliant on binary views, a too simple simplicity for issues at stake, and instead accountability _must occur at this interior level in terms of A=A accuracy in a model of empirical truth, and not A=B or B=B inaccuracy that is normalized via biased relativism of a privatized hidden mindset that is assumed 'true' by default of being able to communicate via signs as if the signage itself is self-validating. that is madness, diagnostically. there is no reason to believe the interior perspective is actually either grounded or sane, given the standardization of mediocrity. it is far more likely it is corrupted like every other institutional system and operates in parameters that are inaccurately mapped to reality and decision-making occurs within those warped and skewed frameworks by default. it is highly probable and extremely unlikely spontaneous empirical truth is generated within existing binary, relativistic contexts, now matter how subtle. in this way, the same flaws inherent in the desktop and networked computer systems of today, yet at the core of the state, and likewise equally able to be fully exploited for a private onesided agenda unless brought under control and audited and answerable to the human public it supposedly serves in its mission. that is a notion that cannot be based on hidden trust and requires accountability and oversight and understanding of the processes and models by which these perspective-machines are tabulating citizens into state modeling and how private corporations are likewise exploiting these dynamics for profit, both political and monetary. the tools are inherently flawed unless removed of error. they do not start clean, especially if protected in their error-reliant processing. they must be held to a higher standard than personal evaluation and 'true belief'. such religious faith in technocracy has no place as a ruling ideology because its values - the parameters of its perspective - are machine-based and thus it is trivial to edit out human details and awareness and provide a false viewpoint by which to observe, peer into peoples lives and oppress them via this same infrastructure. the core problem is thinking, belief that is detached from its accountability to and service to greater truth. a subverted state that is attacking its own citizens via cyberwarfare is a state that is attacking itself, except the equation can be flipped... private.state > public.state private.state < public.state accountability can occur in reverse, the panoptic lens can force review of situations beyond account due to limits used to hide political agendas. the evidence of an offensive against citizens indicates corruption at the core and that these same tools are being exploited for private political gain and should not be allowed to continue under the existing management, as the continued operation of the surveillance infrastructure under the existing terms is a threat to citizen and the larger society for lack of accounting for a larger truth than what exists on the inside within a finite worldview the only basis for accountability will be empirical truth removed of lies and falsehoods and too highly constricted limits to what can be discussed about what the issue are and how they are modeled via code, programming, software and hardware tools. people have a right to know how they are being modeled and if these models are accurate. it is certain they are skewed and biased, given institutional and societal adherence to binary ideology, the lingua franca of today. something vital has been lost and needs to be recovered. truth needs to be secured, in peoples minds and within the core of the calculations in technological society. anything less is tyranny, and the basis for its legitimation, sustenance, and further antihuman extension (if the state is operating within a false perspective it is a threat to everybody and must be corrected. there is every indication this is the situation. if this false perspective is used to interpret surveillance, then the models themselves must be reviewed for their accuracy, it cannot be assumed as a preexisting condition simply due to sign-based beliefs.) icepick, sawmill, electric winch ☎ <---> ☎

1 0

<nettime> A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison.
by Eugen Leitl 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from nettime's avid reader <nettime(a)kein.org> ----- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:58:36 +0200 From: nettime's avid reader <nettime(a)kein.org> To: nettime-l(a)kein.org Subject: <nettime> A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. Reply-To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <nettime-l(a)mail.kein.org> A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. And he feels ‘vindicated’ by Snowden leaks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resi… By Andrea Peterson, Published: September 30 at 12:07 pmE-mail the writer Both Edward Snowden and Joseph Nacchio revealed details about some of the things that go on at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade. (REUTERS/NSA/Handout) Both Edward Snowden and Joseph Nacchio revealed details about some of the things that go on at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade. (NSA/Reuters) Just one major telecommunications company refused to participate in a legally dubious NSA surveillance program in 2001. A few years later, its CEO was indicted by federal prosecutors. He was convicted, served four and a half years of his sentence and was released this month. Prosecutors claim Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio was guilty of insider trading, and that his prosecution had nothing to do with his refusal to allow spying on his customers without the permission of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But to this day, Nacchio insists that his prosecution was retaliation for refusing to break the law on the NSA's behalf. After his release from custody Sept. 20, Nacchio told the Wall Street Journal that he feels "vindicated" by the content of the leaks that show that the agency was collecting American's phone records. Nacchio was convicted of selling of Qwest stock in early 2001, not long before the company hit financial troubles. However, he claimed in court documents that he was optimistic about the firm's ability to win classified government contracts — something they'd succeeded at in the past. And according to his timeline, in February 2001 — some six months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — he was approached by the NSA and asked to spy on customers during a meeting he thought was about a different contract. He reportedly refused because his lawyers believed such an action would be illegal and the NSA wouldn't go through the FISA Court. And then, he says, unrelated government contracts started to disappear. His narrative matches with the warrantless surveillance program reported by USA Today in 2006 which noted Qwest as the lone holdout from the program, hounded by the agency with hints that their refusal "might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government." But Nacchio was prevented from bringing up any of this defense during his jury trial — the evidence needed to support it was deemed classified and the judge in his case refused his requests to use it. And he still believes his prosecution was retaliatory for refusing the NSA requests for bulk access to customers' phone records. Some other observers share that opinion, and it seems consistent with evidence that has been made public, including some of the redacted court filings unsealed after his conviction. The NSA declined to comment on Nacchio, referring inquiries to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice did not respond to The Post's request for comment. Snowden leaked documents about NSA spying programs to the public and arguably broke the law in doing so. In contrast, Nacchio seems to have done what was in his power to limit an illegal government data collection program. Even during his own defense, he went through the legal channels he could to make relevant information available for his defense — albeit unsuccessfully. The programs that were revealed are also substantially different in nature, if not in content. The Bush-era warrantless surveillance programs and data collection programs were on shaky legal ground, based on little more than the president's say-so. That's why telecom companies sought and received legal immunity from Congress for their participation in 2008. But that same update also expanded government surveillance powers. Some observers argue that some of the NSA's spying programs are still unconstitutional. But at a minimum, these programs were authorized by the FISC and disclosed to congressional intelligence committees. Nacchio told the Wall Street Journal, "I never broke the law, and I never will." But he never got a chance to present to the jury his theory that his prosecution was politically motivated. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

16 23

[pfSense] not all backdoors are NSA backdoors
by Eugen Leitl 13 Oct '13

13 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from Jim Thompson <jim(a)netgate.com> ----- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:03:24 -0500 From: Jim Thompson <jim(a)netgate.com> To: List(a)lists.pfsense.org Subject: [pfSense] not all backdoors are NSA backdoors Message-Id: <8A9B7EB1-2D12-49EE-8FE9-70D2FF25BB0A(a)netgate.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812) Reply-To: pfSense support and discussion <list(a)lists.pfsense.org> It occurs to me that being more ‘conversational’ with the community might be a good thing. Describing what is happening with pfSense, and why, and engaging the pfsense community in the process could be a good thing. My first attempt is included herein. But first, on the tail of the recent thread that erupted here, consider this backdoor that someone (?) recently (?) discovered (?) in the firmware for certain D-link routers: http://www.devttys0.com/2013/10/reverse-engineering-a-d-link-backdoor/ If you read the article, the user agent string that bypasses authentication (according to the post) can be read backwards as "Edit by 04882 Joel Backdoor”. One possible Joel is Joel Liu, Senior Director-Chief Technology Office Alpha Networks: http://www.joesdata.com/executive/Joel_Liu_421313008.html Alpha Networks being a spin-off of D-Link. http://www.alphanetworks.com/_english/06_about/01_detail.php?appid=143&pid=… They have a GPL compliance office: http://www.alphanetworks.com/_english/10_gpl/gpl.php, but you can bet they won’t ship you >that< source code. [Normally, if one is going to hide secret strings inside the binary, one also obfuscates them. An example: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/502283/Strings-Obfuscation-System] ... In some respects, the recent thread was about fear of asymmetric information, that those inside ESF have information and access that the community does not. In contract theory and economics, information asymmetry deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. In contrast to neo-classical economics which assumes perfect information, this is about "What We Don't Know". This creates an imbalance of power in transactions which can sometimes cause the transactions to go awry, in the worst case a kind of market failure. Specific to the subject, the information asymmetry here is the community’s supposed inability to observe and/or verify ESF's actions. To the best of our ability so far, pfSense is both observable and verifiable. The source code is on github (https://github.com/pfsense/) and the build process is quasi-documented. Getting something like the ‘backdoor by Joel’ above into the codebase without detection would be difficult if not impossible. (There are more subversive means, which I touched on mid-thread, but they still fail in the presence of a public development process.) Frankly, (between you and I), the pfSense build process could be better documented. Truth be told: the build system for pfSense is archaic. Nobody associated with it (at this point) likes it. Simultaneously, everyone is afraid to replace it. “There be dragons…” An action-item post 2.2 (and it’s move to FreeBSD 10) is to clean-up the build system, possibly making it more like that which builds FreeBSD, rather than the mess of shell (and PHP) scripts that exists now. Having a cleaner build system could lead to better verification of the resultant bits. Another issue is the proliferation of pfSense mirrors. How do we (all) trust the bits on these mirrors, given that they’re run by parties entirely independent and remotely located from ESF? One possible solution: signed packages, and there was a bit of infrastructure put in-place just prior to the 2.1 release. We’ve yet to accomplish the rest of this, but.. it’s coming. As always, if you have ideas(*), bring them forward. Jim (*) that don’t involve re-incorporating as a non-US, non-profit company… _______________________________________________ List mailing list List(a)lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

SafeSlinger
by Gregory Foster 13 Oct '13

13 Oct '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 YouTube (Oct 11) - "SafeSlinger for Secure Communications" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFXL8fUqNKY > [Carnegie Mellon University] CyLab researchers have developed and > released a new smartphone app to provide users with a free and easy > to use means for secure messaging and file transfer. With > SafeSlinger, a user can establish secure communications directly > with trusted individuals and groups in ten seconds, with nothing > more than the smartphone in their hand. > > Learn more: http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/safeslinger Mobile: > http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/safeslinger/m.html ymmv, gf - -- Gregory Foster || gfoster(a)entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSWsguAAoJEMaAACmjGtgjQzoP/RNpnrU02UmIYd1Ac+VhOEa1 bedKKGpORAOu0FTFZTXEyRHgkA3Te5smB1kC1TEVtLWf/uyUT0EGUTrKjORZ71cL n09fVTkiYYeDIWB4h0Y9j/9y2gggRqZI78mTTAtb/3M5APcQAzc0CLYhKwD2l+Oj Ko1/bI6Y92I/TuHPKqruzcCFQuhyhdu4b8+79fsu8bBUhjVmPlk0oJrSWN6of6GO 9c/K+tu1Hr374Qyibcd1ZyYqAmrkVaWTQ1GRiA7Ek5Z8G1uipdRneCCMbW0jUIPI wZ8q0bIVibwkPhMLWvgo5VY6YBCr6dwves6Ec9N7h/Q+vg5yLJTytH5vBhX6oIub hFCt1ZzbwY2dTzQPxE5xvFSTCd7lKHoi13IsD1mfs//NsexktFxCJvHw9rEYB2HB 0wQx5hiSMfbIvsYBaxEW6b1a2pyF2dPEim5rBpkZudfRm+NG3SfIWHjRn82+gwVx dRV+i/e6RuphtO7sDn7wIKIQTJmbS3MQWNX99lKZvoDonpnxmgprsidRztEFcX7s eCUEYsrdlpl/b1Qu4LCbMD5daXX6CZ1i7UQ4U5EZT7cXo12Ear2f/pbwafAgNL03 Mr6joxd6sNnX8sN+kHJ/5C2693P5XCTMfhdmIVY6OW7H/pRA/vj9dyLwLtZJdY4+ 8QkOqbCGYQjul1wGld3I =0ho5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Cryptography] Plug for crypto.stackexchange.com
by Eugen Leitl 13 Oct '13

13 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from David Wagner <daw(a)cs.berkeley.edu> ----- Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:35:04 -0700 From: David Wagner <daw(a)cs.berkeley.edu> To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Subject: [Cryptography] Plug for crypto.stackexchange.com Message-Id: <1381631704.24985.33312825.0DBEAC1B(a)webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-ce174988 I've noticed quite a few questions on this list recently of the form "How do I do X?" "What is the right cryptographic primitive for goal X?" etc. I'd like to plug the following site: http://crypto.stackexchange.com/ Cryptography Stack Exchange It is an excellent place to post questions like that and get helpful answers. I encourage folks to give it a try, if they have questions like the ones I listed above. By posting there, you will not only get good answers, but those answers will also be documented in a form that's well-suited for others with the same problem to find and benefit from. I'm not trying to drive people away from this mailing list, just pointing out an additional resource that may be helpful. Or, if you're feeling helpful and community-minded, you can subscribe and help answer other people's questions there. (That site is like Stack Overflow, for those familiar with Stack Overflow, except that it is focused on cryptography. There is also a site on information security: http://security.stackexchange.com/ ) _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [tor-talk] What are some free and private email providers?
by Eugen Leitl 13 Oct '13

13 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from Johnny Carson <BM-2cWsmYXZ1wDRbXAriL1tFwmsm4mbCAqD9Q(a)bitmessage.ch> ----- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:30:39 +0000 From: Johnny Carson <BM-2cWsmYXZ1wDRbXAriL1tFwmsm4mbCAqD9Q(a)bitmessage.ch> To: tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] What are some free and private email providers? Message-ID: <5259F7BF.8060703(a)bitmessage.ch> Reply-To: tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org Joe Btfsplk: > On 10/12/2013 3:52 PM, Edgar S wrote: >> I was also left hanging when tormail shut down. I've found one that >> meets my needs. Based in Switzerland. It is Tor-friendly for both >> signups and webmail. Has both an onion hidden address, >> http://bitmailendavkbec.onion, and an open address, bitmessage.ch. Free. >> The only drawback is that you have to accept an assigned username that >> is a long string of random characters. >> >> Another possibility is URSSMail http://urssmail.org/ >> http://f3ljvgyyujmnfhvi.onion. Based in Russia and Brazil. Neither are >> very friendly to the NSA. It seems to have some problems currently. I >> thought I had created an account, but then I couldn't log into it. But >> it lets you assign your own username, and is free, although BTC >> donations are requested. As I write, the hidden service is down. > I guess you went thru part of the signup process to see it assigns a > random string as your acct username / email address? > It told me the registration was "having problems." How long was the > random assigned name? > > That'd be a bit tough sending mail to general people. But, if you want > privacy... > I wonder if there's an option to enter a name that goes in front of the > email user name, like most clients or even ISPs allow? > > I guess it'd be fine for typical mail, but the entire size per message > limit is 2 MB. I too use Bitmessage.ch by their hidden service address (SSL). I use Torbirdy with Thunderbird. When I send emails to people I just enter a name into Thunderbird and that's the name a recipient sees. The email address of course is long, but I haven't found anyone that seemed to care. I dont send big files though, the 2 mb limit is low. A trace of an email sent through Tor and then Bitmessage and then to the recipient shows Tor exit node IP address, without usable metadata AFAIU what Bitmessage.ch does for metadata. There's a new Tor Mail Gateway coming online and it sounds bad ass: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Special:AWCforum/sp/id429 https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2013-August/thread.html#294… https://github.com/moba/tor2mail -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

[15] perimeter observat!ons
by brian carroll 13 Oct '13

13 Oct '13

--- code characteristics --- i was going to attempt a real-world example though it is too complicated without computer tools and lack of mathematical skills to provide a deep enough reference for real world crypto requirements. there are several ideas for using HIOX as calculus and set theory permutations that could have direct relevance yet to actually get into it this functionality is more than email provides as a communications medium. thus, in considering this possibility a generic example was considered in the typical approach, to introduce a programming language. yet even this is limited and tends to the computational enigma or knotted condition inherent in the dynamics it involves. and thus, instead of providing one of likely thousands of approaches, it was instead decided that a limit of trying to approach this situation would be provided, to get at the unique existing conditions of considering the mathematic of language and vice versa. HELLO WORLD if considering the above statement, what is interesting to me about their combined signage is that 7 of the 10 letters can be resolved in within the numeral '8' which also is the seven-segment LED display. thus the letters (H, E, L, L, O, O, L) can all be compressed into a single symbol and in its partial capacity to represent specific alphabetic patterns -not all- the domain for potentially mapped letters into a mystery word has less than 26 options of the alphabet itself: 88888 W8R8D this assumes the rectilinear seven-segment LED display or other rectilinear alphanumeric character is the basis for a common typographic standard. it has a Wheel of Fortune gameshow aspect to it, certainly. consider then a general wildcard condition, any letter number or symbol, in comparison: ***** W*R*D what does it mean. well, if it was known that there are two words, and the number count of a shared symbol containing the necessary letter is 7, then it narrows down this potential for 26+ letters +10 numbers +other symbols into a realm tending towards a limited alphabet, focused on letters alone. and if this was a known structure, then evaluation could proceed based on what is most likely within these given parameters. 88888 W8R8D for the second word ('WORLD') the more intense HIOX or Union Jack 16 segment LED display symbol would be necessary to map the remaining letters (W, R, D). thus consider that two different patterns potentially exist that could map the two words in a permutive range, such that: 88888 *8*8* in this example the asterisk would actually be the Union Jack or 16 segment display, while the '8' would be equivalent to a 7 segment display. a number sign is going to be substituted instead, to not mistake it for a general wildcard existing beyond the alphanumeric framework... 88888 #8#8# so imagine that the number sign above equates with the HIOX symbol for the remaining letters W, R, D. while the first word and several letters of the second are contained in the generic 7 segment display and its alphabet, it begins in a minimal condition already compared to the more elaborate 16 segment display. yet if considering the letters W, R, D within that context those letters when overlaid in its structure do not require the full symbol for their combined representation, that can be compressed in a shared state of superposition. please look at the following mapping of the 'segments' as annoted at from the website of a 16 segment display manufacturer... APPLICATION NOTE 1131 http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1131 each of the sixteeen segments has its own specific letter or letter-number combination to help describe what parts of the LED are turned on and off, to help map this to pin-out diagrams and programming instructions for an IC display driver else microcontroller. considering that the remaining letters in the second word (W, R, D) do not require all sixteen segments to be illuminated at once to contain all of these three letters as a potential query reply, a specific symbol could be mapped out of this 16 segment display that is closer to a 7 segment LED display ('8') with some extra detailing, equivalent to a connection from the upper left to lower right, and from lower left to middle center. yet as the 16 segment display is wider and bifurcated down the centerline (to allow letters such as W to exist, as a mirroring of two letters V|V), this comparison is only descriptive and would require the 16 segment display to start with, as the 7 segment has no diagonals or centerline to reference. alot of description that evaporates into abstraction, potentially- yet the specific idea of this is that a minimal number of segments can establish a referenceable symbol for the remaining letters W,R,D and that this is essentially a symbol 8' with a diagonal from top left to lower right, and from lower left to the middle, approximately. in the technical terms as it relates to the annotated segments from the url above: a1, a2, b, c, d1, d2, e, f, g1, g2, (which creates the equivalent to an 8 or letter B) -and- h, k, (first diagonal), m (second diagonal). this mapping of letters onto a minimized common symbol demonstates that the 16 segment display can be minimized to a smaller format 13 segments, that then limits the potential letters that could exist and be autogenerated via bit set evaluation of the placeholder symbol (#) so in other words, HELLO WORLD could be reduced to two symbols: 8,#, whereby the first contains 7 letters and the second, which is a stand-in for a 13 active segments of a sixteen segment LED display, is a custom symbol for the remaining three letters. it is important to make clear that a single symbol (HIOX, or Union Jack, equivalent to the 16 segment LED display) could render the entire statement HELLO WORLD via one symbol and yet that would look like this, to start: ##### ##### and thus the odds are much better with the following, where only a limited amount of letters are possible for a majority of the unknown characters... 88888 #8#8# the issue of structure is what is involved in this evaluation, as a hint or clue or patterning that can help consider ways that alphanumerics already relate in terms of their own internal structuring, as a display format. in case it is not readily evident what this implies, it is that those letters represented by the stand-in symbol '8' can only render a limited amount of letters, given specific rules. thus a 'W' cannot be rendered within that form, nor a letter 'V', etc. so it narrows down what letters could exist there. and likewise for the 13 segment custom symbol, an 'X' could not be rendered nor a 'T' or other letters. and thus while the probabilities for letter combinations are probably enormous (and this is provided as a test case for computer experiment, to gauge the numbers involved in a most simple display of words) there are many fewer options that exist between a combined 7-segment and 13-segment symbol permutation than a 7-segment and 16-segment display combined, given dictionaries that could find words that may fit the given criteria. so a kind of compression or packing and unpacking could exist in relation to words and symbols, and it is a question of how this is approach and how it is dealt with. if you have one symbol for both words the approach is moot, the patterns are structureless. whereas if a sequence occurs whereby an evaluation of text considers the structure of a statement, and then explores how this may be minimized into a smaller format, given rules, it would be possible to reduce the quantity of letters via such compression, into particular or peculiar symbols, that are mapped into or back onto sentences, that may have additional numeric or other instructions as a guide for this (perhaps a shared key even). in this way, the symbol 8# with 2,5 could carry the compressed statement though lacks arrangement or sequence information to where the 7-segment letters and 13-segment letters would be placed, such that various combinations could exist in two words of five letters each... 88888 #8888 8###8 88888 these are essentially impossible computations in terms of hundreds and thousands if not many more combinations of potential words and meanings, it could easily involve tens of thousands of [word1] [word2] sequences. instruction for two words, five letters each (2,5) requires an additional set of arrangement data, such that there are seven places for '8' and three for '#'... in other words, 7('8') and 3('#') 8888# ##888 #88#8 8888# the arbitrary examples shown demonstrate the variability for this mapping and thus the original words would not be possible given the sequence if it is not capable of regenerating the correct origional pattern (HELLO WORLD) so now this is getting complicated for a simple statement, such that 7('8'), 3('#') and (2,5) remain wihtin a realm of untethered abstraction. a further structure for symbol placement within words is required, to make sure that they are correctly placed or mapped into the linear arrangement. one way of doing this would be '8'{1-5,7,9} and '#'{6-10}, whereby: 2,5 ('8'{1-5,7,9}; '#'{6-10} ) the instructions: two words, five letters each, symbol '8' for letters 1-5 (first word), 7 and 9; symbol '#' for letters 6-10 (second word) 88888 #8#8# given these dynamics, and the geometrical structure inherent in letters and numbers, it would be possible to de|con-struct words and sentences into a more abstracted format that would not be readily decipherable, if the key to unpacking the data was not shared or available. this could be as simple as a minimal superposition of letters, say a J or L that are mirror-images in a given display font that could equate with a capital letter U. and thus the placement of the 'U' could stand for both of these letters. in this way it is a question of what structures are referenced and under what specific conditions, and this need not be limited by a particular display and could instead become an issue of dots and diagonals and vertical and horizontal bars that are detached from alphanumeric signs, if an algorithm exists to process statement into this abstraction and back out again. there are several ways to approach the original situation and this is only one partial approach. another would be to take the common letters of HELLO WORLD, and address the three common letters L and two letters O, such that: L,O (HE WRD) and then perhaps again the 'H' and 'E' could easily fit into a 7-segement LED display format ('8') and the WRD as before into the 13 segments ('#') of a Union Jack LED display... L,O ('8,#') and so it goes, such that the L,O, could be L,7 and yet combine into letter O, and whatever rules may exist or be applied in a given ruleset approach. the point is about existing patterns within language as a common structure or scaffolding that has geometrical attributes that can be harnessed and that has inherent meaning in the interrelational meanings between SIGNs, in that signs can exist within other signs, embedded and-or in superposition, and that these typographic or display characteristics can be harnessed, used, adapted, in terms of their transformative ability and capacity. perhaps the above example indicates that the algorithms would be larger than the statements, yet what if the distribution was offset somehow such that data could be compressed within a Menger sponge via superset(set(subset)) nesting via Fibonacci series, or some other approach. it may involve another consideration yet somewhere they could also be connected if a means of placing data was mapped similar to rules of a chess board and the arrangement of its pieces, yet with letters and numbers and symbols. the aspect of the puzzle, such that it there is a limit to its brute-force computation yet with the correct key can be deciphered or decrypted via computation, eventually to make its way into clear text. this could be an issue of manual analysis or involve many sequenced steps, where brute-force could never break the patterns down from their abstract condition because the particular perspective for the given instance is beyond the threshold needed to allow viable computational decypting- it is basically infinite. this generic abstraction is not particularly helpful yet it provides basic context for evaluation of beginning considerations, as simple as it gets in a larger realm of computers and algorithms. and perhaps this is nothing yet though if it is not an existing approach, it potentially offers something beyond the existing interpretation or limits for how data is considered in terms of its inherent signage, and whether this is hollow represetnation or filled with symbolism and meaning by default- and thus grounded in a deeper way in terms of its actual truth or floating in a subjective confined limit that contains interpretation and allows codes to be easily conceptualized within particular parameters and conventions that are already established. the short way of conveying the same idea is that the role of TYPOGRAPHY in relation to cryptography is vital in this approach, whereas its absence in crypto calculations would also signify a lack of depth in the language and calculations used, to those of iconic signs, not within their structures. in this way the calculative aspects of mathesis, of math-language dynamics within geometrical interrelation, via trans-formational and -mutational patterning, could within its abstraction, allow estoteric computations to occur beyond the known or perceivable or modeled boundary of cryptography, for those with the keys. and perhaps this is entirely of the traditional approach, the issues of compressing statements into another secret format, yet has this occured 'infra-letter' and 'infra-number' or has it remained bounded by letters and numbers, and thus not dealing with the structural segments that de|con-struct the entirety of language into smaller bits. and so that is the question and challenge and the insanity of the probabilities in computing what an ordinary sentence could be, even having the code and potentially even the key, and yet not the perspective to view it within. in other words, how is it known what plain text viewpoint is the correct one. and thus the crucial role of aesthetics and thresholds of shared literacy. (note: the above example does not consider what would be assumed involved missing steps, such as substitutions, mirroring, and other transformative approaches implicit in this calculability and hiding information within other information or altering its signage and default interpretation. it may not require computation for SMS conveyances though for twitter-level likely would involve significant processing, though potentially massive processing if trying to brute-force crack messages and it is proposed and hypothesized this could be made impossible, quite easily (via bit sets)) (one way to conceptualize it is expansion of a bit set in a bounded range, say uncompressing a bit.set string for between 3-10 letter words, and then the key would be an algorithm that hunts and pecks data out of the expanded field via particular algorithm, in this way gathering puzzle pieces within the noise field and reassembling them locally, else locating and mapping relations within the expanded interiority as a constellation or given viewpoint which could potentially shift given what key is activated, say for instance a superposition condition of mirroring, where meaning shifts given directionality and thus ambiguity is retained by default even if an observer has some of the puzzle, they may not have the right interpretation and thus multiple boundaries or mazes within labyrinths within funhouses with trapdoors leading to dungeons within castles, false perspectives, etc. the voyeur observer or surveiller not realizing they are trapped, if ever, until it is too late and their actions are bounded, further limited, led into closed rooms that get smaller and smaller with no escape possible. the danger here for the uninitiated and opponents would be following and trying to decipher the situation. this is bamboo spear jungle trap cryptography. once they think or believe they understand- it is over. as if a reverse-form of nihilism even. the transformation of one-point perspective that is ungrounded, focused on falsity and nothingness, as everything splays out the further it is approached, nothing relates to anything, everything relates with everything. madness. loss of coherence. pure paranoia. and then the clanking and sharpening of metal, ever louder, evermore near...) --- anomaly --- for sake of completeness in the previous HELLO WORLD example, it was also discovered that it is possible to compact everything into the 7-segment LED display or rectilinear number '8', if the ruleset and instructions allow for the rotation and upper- and lower-case variability. in this way... H E L L O 3 O r L d the number 3 stands-in for the letter W rotated sideways. and thus the way that this statement could be evaluated differs from the previous approach and involves different specific instructions, as would other methods. not mentioned in this approach would be the breakdown of letters into the corresponding segments and mapping these to particular letters in their various states of potential, whether mutation or transformed. and this could even be numerical, so that no words are visible in the messaging. --- note on equality --- all observations are not equal. nor are all observers equal in their POVs. the vavlue of the observations must be grounded within truth and related within an empirical structuring to evaluate views of a given perspective. and the views that are functioning in a minor truth or pseudo-truth or partial-truth are not -equal- to those that have removed falsity from the frameworks used to model and mediate and communicate this shared truth. it may not be a possible condition today, given tools and issues of literacy, and yet, those who defer to truth are not the same as those who deny it and use it to their onesided advantage to exploit reasoning via power politics. it is an important distinction that truth does not equal pseudo-truth, it does not equate with 'allowable falsity' as part of the shared relation. that is heresy as far as ideas go. errors should not be normalized yet those relying on errors could tend to believe they are equals with those who do not. the difference is that the people whose ideas are based within truth, built upon its foundation, are capable of debating the ideas and having them challenged - for the strength of the ideas is their truth, and thus the logical reasoning of hypotheses and conceptualization of reality in this condition -- removed of known warping, skew, distortion -- is the way of strengthening the ideas, which become robust through their fitness for accurately modeling a situation, and they can withstand critique and can be altered and improved, which is the obligation. whereas those who do not allow 'their ideas' to be evaluated are weak-minded and have weak-ideas that cannot withstand critique and falsification is disallowed, and thus the viewpoint is made infallible-- and yet this ungrounded relativism may still assume an equality with truth that is vetted beyond its boundary. this is an act of egotism and a conceit and form of narcissism. such views can be entirely defeated, the minor truth salvaged, yet the false worldview itself collapsed and utterly abolished for the false perspective it is. and thus "debate" within a non-binary logical framework is the threshold for the accountability and testing of the limits of a given pseudo-truth POV. in that, when reasoned outside the binary viewpoint and not allowed to rely on ideological opinions and 'true beliefs', the ones and zeros of the ideas themselves and the arguments can be dismantled and the minor truth (1) can be separated from the majority falsity (0) including lies, deception, and bad faith of intellectual posturing, and thus what is shared is truth (1) yet what is unshared and differentiated is the opponents reliance on lies and falsehoods and manipulating this truth to a onesided agenda, and that cannot simply be erased or equated with a more pure and honest pursuit in service to truth and its vital role in developing civilization, including morally and ethically. versus its corruption, bringing about its demise. these are not equal agendas or equal goals- they are antagonistic relations and thus those who serve falsity are not the same as those who serve truth. those who surveill and oppress those in service to truth, however relative their viewpoint is legitimized, are essentially enemies and opponents of this truth and are not equals are observers, thinkers, or doers. if someone does not recognize truth beyond their limited viewpoint they cannot be reasoned with, the only reasoning they recognize is power itself as truth, in that power determines what is real, what is true, what is good, etc. so this is to make a distinction between those who 'believe' things without the need for external verification of these same beliefs, as different from those who require this as a necessary process of self-auditing and accounting. in this way, when someone is pointing a cellphone to monitor you on the street, and tallying such data, they operate in a particular framework that is oppressive to others in the society, and their actions are not invisible nor without consequence. it is not simply a mistake or misinterpretation, yet this would be the relativists argument, trying to retain a shared set evaluation as if in-group when actively and parasitically hostile. (whats next- electroshock dog collars and invisible fencing for bad citizens?)these people are scum. there are leagues of citizen surveillers sustaining the embubbled false reality that cellphones and monitoring apps allow, as if subconscious to the surveillers even, as if a dream-state, as if no one notices them pointing their cellphone at people walking by, data paparazzi for the evil dictatorial takeover, these cyborg and mindless zombie the latest ground troops of successive invasions, large populations of drones that are pointing and clicking their binary ideology into existence, they are not 'traditional' citizens nor constitutionally constrained in their activities. nor should they be defended by these parameters either, for involvement in illegal offensive operations and cattle chute coordination of citizenry mapped to the warped and SUPERSECRET "encrypted" masterplan. T =/= pT empirical truth =/= relativistic pseudo-truth grounded observation =/= ungrounded observation truth =/= partial truth + massive falsehood honesty =/= lies, distortions, onesidedness MEDIOCRITY IS TYRANNY ---- Scholars in Bondage Dogma dominates studies of kink http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-in-Bondage/139251/ Paprika, Babette's Feast, Koyaanisqatsi ¿ ç ñ

1 0

The Great Firewall of Belgium
by Laurens Vets 12 Oct '13

12 Oct '13

Hello, The major ISPs of Belgium were forced to block certain sites starting in 2009. The list of blocked websites is secret (except for the gambling sites blocked due to regulatory issues with the Belgian gaming commission). The blocked sites can be categorized as: - websits containing child porn - child porn whistleblowing sites (long story) - Regulatory issues with the gaming commission (this list is public) - Piracy related (The Pirate Bay amongst others) - Webshops selling illegal medicine and other forbidden products I've been trying to uncover this list here: http://www.randomstuff.be/your-government-is-lying-to-you-and-something-abo… Basically, DNS requests for those websites are redirected to a government controlled webserver. What other techniques are there (besides checking every site on the internet) to try and uncover whether sites are blocked in Belgium? -Laurens

2 1

<nettime> Milton Mueller: Core Internet institutions abandon the US Government
by Eugen Leitl 12 Oct '13

12 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from nettime's_roving_reporter <nettime(a)kein.org> ----- Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 23:53:37 -0100 From: nettime's_roving_reporter <nettime(a)kein.org> To: nettime-l(a)kein.org Subject: <nettime> Milton Mueller: Core Internet institutions abandon the US Government Reply-To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <nettime-l(a)mail.kein.org> < http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions… > The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government [Milton Mueller] October 11, 2013 In Montevideo, Uruguay this week, the Directors of all the major Internet organizations - ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, all five of the regional Internet address registries - turned their back on the US government. With striking unanimity, the organizations that actually develop and administer Internet standards and resources initiated a break with 3 decades of U.S. dominance of Internet governance. [15]A statement released by this group called for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." That part of the statement constituted an explicit rejection of the US Commerce Department's unilateral oversight of ICANN through the IANA contract. It also indirectly attacks the US unilateral approach to the Affirmation of Commitments, the pact between the US and ICANN which provides for periodic reviews of its activities by the GAC and other members of the ICANN community. (The Affirmation was conceived as an agreement between ICANN and the US exclusively - it would not have been difficult to allow other states to sign on as well.) 15. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm Underscoring the global significance and the determination of the group to have a global impact, the Montevideo statement was released in English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Russian and Chinese. In conversations with some of the participants of the Montevideo meeting, it became clear that they were thinking of new forms of multistakeholder oversight as a substitute for US oversight, although no detailed blueprint exists. But that was only the beginning. A day after the Montevideo declaration, the President and CEO of ICANN, Fadi Chehadi - the man vetted by the US government to lead its keystone Internet governance institution - met with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. And at this meeting, Chehade engaged in some audacious private Internet diplomacy. He asked "the president [of Brazil] to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal." A press release from the Brazilian government said that President Rousseff [16]wanted the event to be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. The President of ICANN thus not only allied himself with a political figure who has been intensely critical of the US government and the NSA spying program, he conspired with her to convene a global meeting to begin forging a new system of Internet governance that would move beyond the old world of US hegemony. 16. http://www.news24.com/Technology/News/Brazil-to-host-internet-governance-su… Make no mistake about it: this is important. It is the latest, and one of the most significant manifestations of the fallout from the Snowden revelations about NSA spying on the global Internet. It's one thing when the government of Brazil, a longtime antagonist regarding the US role in Internet governance, gets indignant and makes threats because of the revelations. And of course, the gloating of representatives of the International Telecommunication Union could be expected. But this is different. Brazil's state is now allied with the spokespersons for all of the organically evolved Internet institutions, the representatives of the very "multi-stakeholder model" the US purports to defend. You know you've made a big mistake, a life-changing mistake, when even your own children abandon you en masse. Here at the Internet Governance Project we take only a grim satisfaction in this latest turn of events. We have been urging the USG to end its privileged role and complete the privatization of the DNS management for nearly ten years. The proper substitute for unilateral Commerce Department oversight, we argued, was not multilateral "political oversight" but[17] an international agreement articulating clear rules regarding what ICANN can and cannot do, an agreement that explicitly protects freedom of expression and other individual rights and liberal Internet governance principles. We have heard every argument imaginable about why this did not have to happen: no one really cared about the governance of the DNS root; there was no better alternative; the rest of the world secretly wanted the US to do this; etc., etc. A combination of arrogance, complacency and domestic political pressure prevented any action. 17. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2009/06/08/igp-calls-for-us-led-internati… Had that advice been heeded, had the US sought to divest itself of its unilateral oversight on its own initiative, it could have exercised some control over the transition and advanced its cherished values of freedom and democracy. It could have ensured, for example, that an independent ICANN was subject to clear limits on its authority and to new forms of accountability, which it badly needs. Now the U.S. has lost the initiative, irretrievably. The future evolution of Internet # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
by Eugen Leitl 12 Oct '13

12 Oct '13

----- Forwarded message from Jim Thompson <jim(a)netgate.com> ----- Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:36:47 -0500 From: Jim Thompson <jim(a)netgate.com> To: pfSense support and discussion <list(a)lists.pfsense.org> Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws Message-Id: <9BD42070-7086-41C6-8E52-C5DB49C500ED(a)netgate.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812) Reply-To: pfSense support and discussion <list(a)lists.pfsense.org> On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Chris L <cjl(a)viptalk.net> wrote: > >> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. > > Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. Sigh. As much as this doesn’t belong on the pfsense list… I actually know Alex, or did, 13 year ago. I got friendly enough with him back in the mid-late 90s that we had each other’s cell phone numbers. Back then Jamie and I were involved with Fringeware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FringeWare_Review http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue26/screens.fringeware.html Fringeware became an advertiser on Alex Jones' radio show (on KLBJ, before he got booted). On the front-end, I was a respected advertiser. Meanwhile, others associated with Fringeware were culture-jamming him on the back-end. the result: #discordia Oh, the memories this brings back. (As you’ll see, the FBI showed up to demand something, didn’t have a warrant, and was shown the sidewalk.) http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/jarhead.html http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-07-14/77932/ Clayton, btw is a dear friend. Easily one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever known. I hope he speaks at my funeral. Other fun was had at Fringeware. We supported the Yes Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men) We actually hosted their website, as well as that of RTmark for a period in the late 90s on the same machine used for smallworks.com (which was originally the corporation behind the firewall named “Netgate”), fringeware.com, etc. One of their pranks was that they setup a website named www.gwbush.com. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men#George_W._Bush http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/gwbush http://www.rtmark.com/bush.html) which resulted in Bush’s famous "There ought to be limits to freedom,” quote. http://www.rtmark.com/bushpr2.html The great untold story on this is that all these websites were hosted in a shitty office building on Shoal Creek Blvd, one floor up from the then offices of "Karl Rove & Associates” even as they fought to shutdown gwbush.com. The #irony was delicious, and they never succeeded. :-) Anyway, you might want to study up on STRATFOR, or Mary Maroney, who was the editor and chief of Infowars magazine until earlier this year. Maroney formerly worked for Stratfor and Parker Media here in Austin. If you don’t know who they are, then I suggest more research on your part. Have fun, but be careful when you enter the rabbit hole. Snowden and Manning are both late-comers to the party: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPa… http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519661/nsas-own-hardware-backdoors-may… http://cryptome.org/nsa-ssl-email.htm http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20017671-281.html http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/15-shumow.pdf (see also: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/?p=85661) http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/secret-backdoors-found-in-firewall-… http://dl.packetstormsecurity.net/papers/general/my_research1.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.154.825 / http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~czou/research/Chipset%20Backdoor-AsiaCCS09.pdf (now consider all the cheerleading for Intel Ethernet chips on the various pfSense lists…) Jim _______________________________________________ List mailing list List(a)lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

1 0