February 2015 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [tor-talk] Fwd: I Encourage Everyone, Right Here And Now, To Donate Money To His Three Main Security Programs, Which He Uses The Most!
by grarpamp 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Lara <lara.tor(a)emails.veryspeedy.net> wrote: >> when2plus2is5(a)riseup.net: >> In addition, Facebook and the online payment processor Stripe each >> pledged to donate $50,000 a year to Koch’s project. Useful. > So Facebook is not that evil after all. But on balance, merely a political photo op. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2015/02/facebook-will-soon-be-ab… http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5-terrifying-ways-google-facebook-are-us… http://www.businessinsider.com/10-reasons-to-delete-your-facebook-account-2… https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline/ http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/facebook-evil-stock/ http://pitweston.com/facebookevil/

2 2

Calyx institute announces canarywatch.org web site
by Seth 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

"Warrant canaries rely upon the legal theory of compelled speech. Compelled speech happens when a person is forced by the government to make expressive statements they do not want to make. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects against compelled speech in most circumstances. In fact, we’re not aware of any case where a court has upheld compelled false speech. Thus, a service provider could argue that, when its statement about the legal process received is no longer true, it cannot be compelled to reissue the now false statement, and can, instead, remain silent. So far, no court has addressed this issue." https://canarywatch.org/

4 6

Re: Tox.im
by Markus Ottela 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

On 03.02.2015 20:38, rysiek wrote: >> yet the source of randomness and crypto implementation are not explained >> properly. The wiki talks about public keys and PFS without explaining >> the relation between the two. >> https://github.com/irungentoo/toxcore/blob/master/docs/updates/Crypto.md > ACK. So, the PDF I linked to goes a *bit* further (just a wee bit). Go > have a > look at the "Crypto" section: > https://jenkins.libtoxcore.so/job/Technical_Report/lastSuccessfulBuild/arti… > > > So, at least not a "we hold your keys -- FOR SAFETY!!1!" kind of > snakeooil. > Half of an "AOK" from me here. > Just because it could be worse doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Thanks for the whitepaper, I'll have a look when I've the time. >> *5. There is no threat model* >> "/With the rise of government monitoring programs/" implies it's >> designed to be secure against state surveillance. >> "Tox does not cloak IP addresses when communicating with other users" >> In disclaimer it is also just stated that >> "/Tox prevents message contents from being read or altered by third >> parties, or anyone else other than the intended recipient/", yet it >> doesn't even bother to evaluate the system against HSAs or MSAs. > True. One has to consider their own threat model and assess if Tox is the > answer. Tox does *not* provide anonymity, it at least *tries* to > provide OTR- > like features (encryption, integrity, etc.). > IIRC the DH signing keys are bound the the account ID. Appelbaum recommended in his 31c3 talk 'Reconstructing Narratives' that users rotate their OTR keys often and verify the hash using off-band channel. I'm not sure it's a convenient thing users have to re-add their contacts every time the DH signing key needs to be refreshed. It's sort of good thing users are immediately using the public signing key (Tox ID) but the issue is, while the Tox ID doesn't have to be secret, it must be authentic: so users unaware of this can be subjected to MITM attack. >> *7. Neglects general sad state of host security * >> > Well, yes, and my beef with Tox is also that the private keys do not > require a > passpharse to unlock. So that's a no-no in my book. This only changes the type of attack: a keylogger has to be used along the private key exfiltration tool. > Still, this doesn't look like snakeoil; rather like a good idea with > not-so- > stellar execution, which *might* get better. > > Am I missing anything? > I would argue the current OTR/PGP/ZRTP implementation has limited lifespan regardless of execution, given the fact intelligence community is expanding end-point exploitation to mass surveillance levels: methodology is changing, not the scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FScSpFZjFf0&t=37m35s There's a lot of misconception on 0-days being expensive 'one-time-hacks' that must be used only when necessary. How many anti-virus programs detect and report these? What percentage of users are running some sort of IDS? How many users assume sudden system crash is due to malfunctioning exploit/payload? A 0-day is more like a master key for given OS with average lifespan of 300 days ( http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~tdumitra/public_documents/bilge12_zero_day.pdf ) > Could we have a *separate* thread for it? I'm really interested in > having a > more in-depth discussion of Tox and this could potentially hi-jack this > thread. Much obliged. > I agree it should be separate. I tried to keep that section short and the intention was to provide contrast and show each of these can be addressed simultaneously.

8 20

Re: Pixel Dust Is Futile like FOIPA
by coderman 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

On 2/5/15, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote: > Peter Gutmann's pixel dust protection of privacy works as > an update for faith in elaborately futile shenanigans to evade > and to nab evaders inherently implanted in fetuses then re-implanted > in corpses: dust to dust... speaking of pixel dust futility, US Marshals sent back a tracking pixel nope, need vetting. ''' We sent you a form to have you certify your identification. You have not replied to this certification. We also ask you to clarify the information you were seeking as you were unclear in your request. See highlighted portion of our email below. << insert honeytoken >> '''' - https://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_files/WRD000_630.jpg [ or was it muckrock failing protectively? or both? or one as cover for the latter? ... *grin* ] --- request to DHS rejected on specificity grounds, cycle continues, , hey John, want to file FOIPAs through MuckRock like the fucking mad you are? :P

1 1

Pixel Dust Is Futile
by John Young 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

Peter Gutmann's pixel dust protection of privacy works as an update for faith in elaborately futile shenanigans to evade and to nab evaders inherently implanted in fetuses then re-implanted in corpses: dust to dust. Logs are as deceptive and who, what and how they log. Machine designers and sysadmins artfully possessive documentaries inherently evasive and capturing. At 12:04 AM 2/5/2015, coderman wrote: >On 2/4/15, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote: > > Darknet is hardly dark, or no more than Tor anonymizes, > > ... > >true; perhaps best quantified as: "no ISP asshattery". > but fails like all earth human technology in face of capable attacker >with significant resources. > >[ specifically, onion overlay avoids TCP RST, DNS redir, local network >ARP poisoning, IPv4/IPv6 BGP route jacking, transport privacy and >authenticity** attacks (rewrite proxy) ] > >** key management, someone has to do it. and it is always cumbersome... > >but that is nary a sliver in the sky of surface exposed, in typical >"rich web service" context, full of javascript and media handlers and >plug-ins, oh my! > > >tell us John, do your server logs show mostly complete or incomplete >downloads of Cfour? :P

1 0

REAL-ID Internet Access Coming Soon
by grarpamp 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2476275,00.asp Do not underestimate the precedence of the Chinese, Facebook and the rumblings in the UK/US/etc. Code all you want, but unless you start acting now in realworld politics to prevent this type of stuff (ID/names, anti-crypto, etc), you will very soon be kissing any rights to freedom and self managed privacy you now enjoy on the internet goodbye forever. Grabbers gonna grab and you'll be sorry. Don't try to claim people didn't warn you (you'll be censored by then anyways).

2 1

Re: Tox.im
by Ryan Carboni 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

In an enemy of the state scenario, don't think any amount of OPSEC will help you. Unless you literally live in a cave without running water or electricity. Personally: don't trust anything you can't program yourself, don't trust anything you wouldn't understand

2 1

Re: www.nsa-observer.net
by John Young 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

Darknet is hardly dark, or no more than Tor anonymizes, PKC protects, official secrecy keeps secrets. What they are are seductive lures that siren sailors to blindly pursue lustful comforts of heroic Greek mythology espoused by temple maidens turned to stone by inhaling excess incense. Still, the monuments of folly lure tourists to fatten pigeons and bloat architects of incensed vengeance, aka spies and warfighters who, with complicit elected officials, are the world's shrewdest mythologists. >Moving 10G/day/node to or from clearnet is possible. Posting in the >darknet might find you parallel armies of sympathetic nodes willing >to help with task.

2 1

q: security model
by brian carroll 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

third and last observation: the other day i was considering how 'security' seems to be achievable only by putting someone in a secure area or box, and keeping the world outside this box, and how absurd that seems to be because it requires removing the world in order to try to attain security, if indeed this is an accurate assessment. the thing that struck me about this is that the world changes outside the box, and so this could either force detachment from the world, which then increasingly becomes out of touch with the external realm not included in the box, or that only people who are inside the same box can safely communicate, as long as they are modeled or entirely known in their parameters. in other words, if a person is all alone in the box they may be secured, yet the moment anything changes, or the world itself changes, this situation could be effected within this supposedly safe and secure zone. in that, if the person is inhabit or engage with the world they need to be able to interface and interact with the world. and thus perhaps the boundary or threshold issue, of entropic balancing, should anything change or the two realms somehow begin to crossover into one another. in this way, interaction beyond the box of security then potentially allows vulnerabilities into this secure zone, via the unknowability or inaccurate accounting for how these external relations exist, both outside and inside the once secure box. so too, any persons that are also included in the safe zone of the box inherently carry with them unknowns if not modeled and accounted for accurately that potentially jeapordize this internal condition, presumably more secure than no security, though with more interaction and access to 'the outside world' the more vulnerable in various dimensions, parameters, dynamics, known and unknown. so it just seemed like security itself would be impossible to achieve if the idea involves keeping out the world, or not accounting for things within a security context, yet having this be a hive of activity likewise, unless security accounting were happening to the Nth-degree beyond what may be external signifiers of security, 'the sign of security' versus its indepth practice in undocumented terms that may not even be mentioned or perceivable, given the advanced context that could exist in certain scenarios. it is somewhat like the scenario: a person walks into a bar... except that it is a supposedly secure box where they exchange secret messages and meet at conferences and function in industries (boxes within boxes) where various vulnerabilities are interwoven with activities and how could this occur in a real context of actual security unless much more was happening than meets the eye or ear. maybe this leads back to the idea of unknowability as the threshold for security, beyond a realm of awareness, where it cannot be deducted because things do not add up beyond a threshold condition and sensory awareness fails to provide a framework to evaluate what conditions feasibly need to exist for security to exist, which tends towards the metaphysical, the invisible, the utterly alien, etc.

2 2

q: cryptoanalytic processor
by brian carroll 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

2nd observation. a few months ago i realized the close parallel between the needs for a new computational paradigm for the IoT if it were to succeed and issues of breaking cryptography, wherein the ideal processing framework could be that used in cryptanalysis, and yet I am only imagining how such a processor likely would have to function in order to successfully approach & crack unknown codes, which tends towards AI most likely, with human guidance or continuous interaction and input, revised or new modeling, etc. strangely, in the mundane realm of the everyday, it seems to relate to how IoT and home-automation technology exists in a Wi-Fi based model, at least in the non-integrated off the shelf choices for consumers, as if everything is plug-n-play via Wi-Fi capability when this instead relies upon a continuous broadcast of otherwise unnecessary radiation (if wired ethernet exists as an option, in wall) and in general is the least elegant, most pollutive approach to information exchange, in terms of what is required versus what is actually needed or useful. in that, to get a refrigerator to link with the WiFi wireless router and internet connection then requires a _broadband connection that is most suited to audio-visual streams of information or data, perhaps only useful if appliances and other gear is either AV-based or covertly audiovisual, where hidden streams of microphone data are sent or other diagnostics via this broadband which otherwise is extreme overkill. say for a controlling a wi-fi lightbulb or switch or simple robot. So the thing is, it seems quite obvious that Wi-Fi as a universal solution is a dead-end approach, and a failure in terms of strategy for what kind of small-data sharing is required in appliances that could be handled with a less energy intensive, lower data rate solution, which tends towards Zigbee [0], aka 802.15.4, which is normally used in distributed sensor networks, within limited information exchange (though plenty to sustain and manage IoT device interactions that are non-multimedia or requiring broadband throughput, such as a network harddrive, NAS, etc.) Thus it seems quite commonsense to question the 40+ year old model to data management that WiFi is providing bandwidth to and further securing as a universalized, dumb approach to issues of interaction and device management, en group. In that the entire model is centered on the PC and its binary processing and files and folders and existing techniques to segment or sector activities into their own sectors and domains and that a larger rationale cannot be established beyond existing ideological constraints, to, say, suddenly have everything operating together in new terms from bottom-up relations, based on various game-of-life efficiencies as devices interact and develop relationships and survive and optimize in the general model (as if Spore lifeforms in some sense). the thing about Zigbee, [1] in contrast, or at least it seems, is that it provides an opportunity for an open framework of relations between devices (each device akin to a sensor-platform in concept, perhaps, or mars spirit rover, mars opportunity rover, etc, or refrigerator, hdtv, playstation, lighting, etc). what if certain parameters involving home automation or device interaction existed outside the single device parameters in a business sense, and industry to industry or sector to sector likewise, such that activity of an individual life is fragmented within devices, not united and combined, based on the given computational/processing approach yet where a /data potential/ exists within each device likewise, such that if it were more accurately and openly modeled in terms of device functionality, could perhaps interact in other parameters and dimensions, in a micro-data sense, where the parts benefit the whole and together function in meta-ways, that cannot be determined by a single device and instead requires a new system and way of considering these interactions. and from my view it seems the limit to this is the PC model itself as a hub, because people turn their computers off usually, and the personal computer is supposedly supposed to be processing this meta-condition via its hub, via Wi-Fi maximal radiation that is always-on to support these minimal benefits and interactions at the cost of, well, unnecessary electromagnetic pollution at the least, though also, non-broadband requiring data rates for what is actually going on or should be going on, with device interactions. so this leads to the presumption that the computer server (for me i once thought this would be Xserve [2] from Apple) in the home, where a utility closet or server room/closet would be dedicated for household computing, people would host their own websites, etc, not realizing at that time the larger dynamics and limits involved, which today are quite evidently neither secure nor effective in terms of data management beyond an inherent bureaucratic inefficiency, which would lead to home sysadmins visiting domiciles as if plumbers, yet on a probably weekly basis to keep the messy works functional or at least the appearance that everything is wound up and functioning correctly, instead of this being an impossible to maintain state, given the existing approaches/system. in other words this is to question taking potentially novel information, a realm of 'unknowns' occurring at a meta-level between various devices, in which some parameters are accounted for or modeled effectively and others in a gray-area of consideration though which should not be thrown-out and instead analyzed or parsed, at the level of patterns, and a PC-hub system today that is opposite this approach, by requiring a preexisting rationalization to exist to fit everything into which is flattened down into a realm of binary code which throws out these unknowns, which is made structural in software solutions that streamline this kind of ideological processing, into compartmentalized views, most notably the transformation of the computer program into apps, which perhaps in some ways has similar to city planning at a larger scale (major desktop programs) to individual houses (apps) that are of endless and repeating yet altered variety, as housing stock, less comprehensive in totality yet more comprehensive tiny details. of the latter approach, the now evident realization that a majority of apps are base don reinventing the wheel, taking something and tweaking it and calling it something new or something else, while the main idea degrades through endless copies of copies. and in this way also, the improbability of moving from this decentered app-landscape or 'distributed and disconnected computational environment' into a city-planning or development model, where the various intricacies are united at a larger scale, made coherent if this is not their origin or purpose to begin with. And it seems the consumer-version of the IoT begins here, in this fragmentation and ideological adherence, that all that is needed are enough apps and Wi-Fi and the IoT will just start functioning as if by magic with various efficiencies gained simply by plugging in and using the devices in a backwards, inefficient, and ineffective way that benefits those making these claims financially, by extending their models as if shared standards, minus questions of data and the substance of knowledge in relation to information transmission, and truth itself as part of this development process. so it seems obvious then that the computer model is off. not only off, way way way off, like fundamentally unrealistic and that those who are pursuing this personal adventure are involved in folly and have money to burn and exist inside bubbles without any accountability outside self-same ideological tenets and beliefs, drip fed or spoon fed from Silicon Valley weathervanes pointing digital, where apps apps apps are the best practice solution for any and everything, so long as it makes money for technocrats. the big issue with the PC appears and existing computer architecture and processing appears to be that of predetermination, that the existing model is correct and is the basis for decision-making and it cannot be questioned and instead functions as a given or assumption, and thus provides strategy and options to choose from, even if they are subpar or even backwards and regressive. thus determinism is at work, as ideology, whereby solutions are based on preexisting answers and approaches that have in the past worked and now are being further extended and yet cannot extend, cannot improve beyond a certain preexisting limitation which should be obvious to those growing up from the first decades of consumer computing, when Radio Shack sold its own version of the same, the Tandy computer, which is essentially the same device in use today, whatever the various branding is. not much has changed under the hood in the ways things are done, at a consumer-interface level, with how information is processed as data, in that "ideas" do not exist within computers, only various rationalizations or solutions for specific tasks or frameworks that are limited, none of which are comprehensive. the closest to this would be the OS as a generic space for potential processing and yet even within this space of the desktop or tablet, the larger conceptualization of the IoT cannot fit within it, as a file & folder issue, as a subprogram that is of a lower hierarchy in some significant sense to activities that are of lesser not greater importance. in other words, the binary-based black-and-white processing that is also in the OS approach, beyond parsing bits and entering into the way of managing ideas as data, such that there is no place for knowledge or organization of ideas or information at a general abstract level within these machines, when what is needed is each person's life to be modeled at the scale of a world or universe and not a city plan or various combined housing stock by outside developers or app builders. cosmology is need, not comixology. and yet it is just not possible in the given scenario. there is no there there, nor within the internet front-end, for such interaction. and so if people and these machines cannot correlate and relate and become coherent, how can device-to-device interactions be modeled effectively in their various optional dynamics, if it is a question that exists beyond limited partial rationalizations, where the part cannot approach or model the whole or substitute for it, and any attempts lead to folly, indicating a threshold condition has been reached and that the model is outdated, retrograde, if not fundamentally unreal for the task encountered. so it seems quite obvious then that an always-on home computer infrastructure is needed that could process ambiguous data and make new discoveries of relations and interactions in an open data model based on patterns, how does this relate to that within these parameters and in these looping sequences and frameworks. parsing at the symbolic-level of data, not as binary bits and instead in a different conception of processing and computation itself, where 'variables' are retained and not thrown-out, akin to holding onto all the junk DNA in case it may have relevance or value in heuristic modeling and reevaluation, where the data that is processed exists in a realm of hypothesis and, critically, -- logical reasoning -- and is not treated as a rationalization, where the PC awaits is already-known correct answer which it correlates with and provides output for, determined by software developers who are not wise about everything in the world yet have the weird prospect of modeling everything as if this is indeed their task, which then turns into a form of inaccurate translation or representation that is wildly off-course with how the world actually works, the nature of reality, social interactions, knowledge, basically everything that is not in a programmers cookbook of ready-made solutions, yet on the interior appears as if comprehensive modeling and control over environments to those ideologically aligned. the Internet of Things is a joke in the existing scenario. a boondoggle to pursue and participate in within the existing modeling, for it requires a new foundation of computing, a new way of processing data that is not possible within existing equipment, regimes of computation, and computer architecture. it requires an understanding of thinking, reasoning, decision-making beyond bits, 2-value where making a choice is equated with being right or wrong. a bit too simplistic for what is going on today, this absolutist relativism. it requires massive questions about the nature of computers, infrastructure, systems, feedback, diagnostics, the entire realm of existing approaches interrogated, perhaps for the first time, so as to retain the things that are effective and place them into a new paradigmatically-different and improved framework. to give some idea of the challenge, while today it would be possible to swap out WiFi for Zigbee wireless, to allow minimal data interactions, in the example of LED lighting, say with HUE data.lights and a dual Zigbee/WiFi router to manage them [2][3], that it still potentially relies upon and requires a certain approach to computing that becomes a limit for how 'shared systems' can relate and within what particular parameters, based on OS management and again rationalizations within software that require choices or decisions to be made about functionality. in that at some point it may be like scripting the home environment, the triggering of various effects based on noted cause scenarios (ifttt) though under the control of the user. which may be fine for the present day yet at the meta-level, everything needs to be decided upon. An example of this information overload conundrum is easy to notice with the connected home and interfaces that script conditions for the automated shades to rise and lights to dim and TV to descend from the ceiling, that, so long as those conditions are matched _exactly and can be predetermined accurately, then succeed, though life is so much more complex than a repeated pattern occurring the same over and over day to day, year to year, and without that computational leeway ('ambiguous reasoning') then forces fixed-patterns onto a schedule or flow, and becomes rigid or pre/pro-scribes solutions or seeks to determine events based on inadequate approaches to processing/evaluation, that then dumb-down environments, efficiencies are lost at the same time technical efficiencies are gained, in part, and that this is due to binary computation and data modeling in insufficient frameworks and non-AI-based approaches that cannot grow beyond these limitations or scale or integrate with other activities that do not share the same dynamics, or if they do, they are a false-view of the issues involved, as if turning the washing machine on from the car on the highway is the question and priority, versus its spewing toxic VOC fumes (volatile organic compounds) [4] into the atmosphere, which should have a global policy requiring scrubbers for all new laundry rooms and machinery, to capture these neurotoxins prior to their release into the air effecting people, environments and wildlife, though -unmentioned- in the global warming and carbon emissions likewise (outside the ideological data model), yet on par with pollution in 18th c. England with blackened soot filled skies from the first industrial revolution, [5] which begat policies to recover nature and civility, versus ignoring it (as with unnecessary gross-output of wifi without its use, and disproportionate data-rate to what devices actually need that connect with it, which could instead be turned off, not radiating just to blast radiation). so priorities are backwards, goals, strategy, if working from the needs of truth and ideas outward, versus ideology inward. and this is oddly enough correlated with crypto or so it seems. because it would appear an always-on centralized computer processor in the home would be needed to parse always-on IoT micro-data of various interconnected devices and events queuing and chiming-in near and far in a comprehensive data model. And that if unknowns are involved, this server-like device would need to be able to manage a realm of unknown variables that loop about as questions or hypotheses, as if lifeforms or partial patterns that have yet to find their constellation match and thus only partly process or 'compute' in the model, yet are included or accounted for as such and not thrown out as data. so an entire life of data (what is in the refrigerator, what products a person has, their warranties, need for resupply, various contacts and scheduling, analysis of routine patterns, tasks, etc) is then being continuously juggled in what would be a custom framework per person per environment (as world/cosmos) which could in some sense function as clockwork, or fuzzy clockwork at best, if not also as circuitry (the circuity of self, circuitry of work, circuitry of relations, etc). and so at some extreme level of coherence all of this combines into a general model of a life and its functioning, and what is proposed is that this approach neither can be contained within a 1980s file&folder framework nor within binary processing of these events nor within an ideological solution provided by a developer of said existing tools. and that instead, an always-running process would be required to allow for this flow of data, this interaction and placement of a person within it, accurately represented, and require both AI and human interaction with the modeling, to help build, establish, falsify data-model hypotheses, to optimize these relations and in that way, the fuzzyness of patterns and routines then could inform IoT person-to-device and device-to-device relations by this larger comprehensive framework as the context, which instead is absent, completey missing because it cannot exist in yesterday's approach. so the thing is, how do you process an incoming stream of potentially unknowable data and yet keep it around and relevant. and one day i was thinking about this scenario above, which i call the Data Furnace, where a server-like machine is in a dwelling and controls the lighting, media, networking, computing, and where peripherals tap into this centralized resource which syncs all the data (as if grandfather clock perhaps, symbolically), such that the modem and router disappear into the utility closet and are integrated in the Data Furnace rack, much like home theater server-systems or actually, most like modular stereo systems as a conceptual basis for modular computing of the future, which can be connected together, say UPS backup power module, fiber modem, and musical sampler that provides lightspeed sound data to musical keyboard interface or wirelessly to others. that the technology is centralized, on the model of the mainframe and timesharing, where dumb terminals are the most efficient approach to coherence amongst devices and information then is in one place, not many places at the same time in slightly different forms. so if the PC of today is based on having everything 'known' in advance of its processing, and having ready-made solutions that are available for how to address situations via predetermined rationalizations, then what the data furnace approach requires is a way of continual questioning, and openness to information, and going beyond existing models and challenging its own conceptualization as well as having the ability to grown, transform, integrate data and various models and frameworks at a higher meta-level, as this relates to an individual though also to larger patterns, which could function equally well in as a data-model and framework for a business, government, organization or their combination, in that local patterns may be evaluated en masse and reveal unique data at another level, as this is useful for planning or business strategy. it is about intelligence, having machines that support thinking and themselves provide an accurate worldview that structurally connects to other 'integral and differential' patterns and processes. and so one day thinking about crypto, it dawned on me that the NSA and government likely have already developed a solution for this kind of processing albeit within a realm of high secrecy. or i would be willing to bet that should capacity exists that would be directly transferable as a technique, as the basis for this data furnace, without risking any of the cryptological issues involved. in that there are assumed two basic routes to cracking crypto via computers today, or so it seems. and the first would be to have knowledge of the task, and to know the encryption scheme in advance, and thus when a stream of data is capture and analyzed it is done within an existing framework or 'known rationalization' much like today's computers, whereby speed and accuracy then allow a code to be broken due to advanced knowledge of the code or secrets about the code that allow its compromise via these or other technical methods. and thus ordinary computation that exists in a realm of extreme performance could crack crypto that is in some sense ordinary or usual. and so billions of trillions of calculations a second could potentially deal with everything that occupies a given realm of parameters and known crypto approaches. so mainstream crypto would be this, presumably. and either already broken or breakable. though another likely possibility exists for cryptanalytic computers, which is that the data stream is unknown and unknowable in the given existing scenarios. and so how would a machine approach that situation, if either its binary data was analyzed or data that is non-binary, say patterns or traces within a series of 20 books that are referenced in an article believed to be used to pass secret data, whereby entire collections of libraries (of books referencing books) and data from content experts is needed, (papers, lectures, whitepapers) and also mathematical and linguistic analysis ranging from geometry to typography and translation and etymology, all that either could be addressed by a network of said people and distributed experts, or automated and partially developed in a hypothetical framework via computer and human hybrid modeling, which may or may not accurately approach the code in question, if it indeed is the encrypted code. what my presumption is is that a computer exists, a processor, that is capable of taking information in, whatever it is, and analyzing it via patterns within various frameworks, models, parameters and approaches, and seeking out structure and relations that establish or build some meta-conceptualization based on what is availably parsed in whatever dimensions are accounted for and correctly analyzed. in other words, identifying and managing and combining and distinguishing and relating patterns in ways that are akin to reasoning, within hypothetical models that may only partially match the situation, and then could be further evaluated, expanded or refined, though continually are tested and retested again, as unanswered questions though at most only partially answerable, awaiting or given more information that either contradicts or expands or solidifies the modeling (tending towards 1, in terms of probable accurate interpretation). if such a computational engine could be, as a defense technology, transplanted into a home environment (and business, and government) as a new foundation for 'reasoned computation' that is grounded in truth, and reliant upon it, then the various ambiguous data streams could begin to automatically build-out and build-up their own interrelations specific to given situations, scenarios, environments, and individual and interacting people, whereby the rulesets are not prefigured or predetermined and instead evolve, as data-models, within paradoxical frameworks, where logic is not just on/off, and instead like sampling, of variable resolution (N-value logic) though beginning in the gray-area (3-value), where the processing exists in a neutral middle realm of questioning, and remains there, tending towards 1, away from 0 (false modeling) as time moves in the connected systems, near and far, as patterns function as gears and together clockwork though as information tied to matter and energy, not separated from it, and held apart, segmented into other unrelated domains. this integrated parsing of events and activity then what distributed sensor networks potentially involve, operate within, as with ambient intelligence of nature as a realm of processing, as patterns develop, change, transform, die, begin anew. perhaps those who know how these cryptanalytic processors actually work could correct the above assumptions if inaccurate or provide more information about the nature of the challenges involved. from my view such technology is required for the IoT to serve humans, whereas the existing binary equipment is sure-fire the path to human enslavement via idiotic ideological technology that seeks to rule and manage over other lives via conformance to authority-based obedience to inaccurate models, wrong beliefs, and misplaced authority, in the guise and under the shield of being cool, trendy, up-to-date, when this is backwards, mind-numbingly stupid, and beneath the ability to even reason about because 'ideas' are not involved beyond private interests exploiting for profit. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZigBee 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xserve 2. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/566538828100249725/ 3. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/566538828100255612/ 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compound 5. http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_industrial.html

1 0