cypherpunks
Threads by month
- ----- 2024 -----
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- 8 participants
- 28017 discussions
----- Forwarded message from Jesse Victors <jvictors(a)jessevictors.com> -----
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:23:48 -0600
From: Jesse Victors <jvictors(a)jessevictors.com>
To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org
Subject: [tor-relays] NSA's "Tor Stinks"
Message-ID: <52545BC4.3020106(a)jessevictors.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
Reply-To: tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org
I recently ran across several articles related to the NSA's attempts at
cracking Tor and de-anonymizing its users. They are after terrorists and
other individuals who seek to do harm of course, but their work
obviously has implications into other Tor users, the vast majority of
whom use Tor for legal and proper activities. So far, it appears that
the cryptographic standards and protocols implemented by the Tor devs
appear to be holding, which I find interesting. The NSA has been trying
other methods to figure out Tor, including identifying and then
infecting user machines, trying to control/hijack the Tor network, or by
influencing the network as a whole, and they've had a very small amount
of success, but not much. One thing that was especially interesting to
me (and I expect to everyone on this mailing list) is that they are
trying to control more relays via cooperation or direct access, which
can then be used for timing attacks or disruptions to the users. They
are also trying to shape traffic to friendly exits. For anyone
interested, I would highly recommend these links:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-pre…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24429332
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-en…
Also, from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-high-secure-in…
it appears that their opinion of Tails is that it "adds severe CNE
misery to [the] equation". These are all highly informative articles,
and it appears that Tor is remaining resilient to their efforts, as long
as people (including relay/exit operators) use the latest software,
remain aware that Tor doesn't protect them in all aspects, and as long
as there are enough non-NSA relays and exits (we need more!) such that
everything they see still remains encrypted and anonymous. Interesting I
say.
Jesse V.
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays(a)lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
----- 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
5
4
the idea may at first seem strange or improbable, though machines can
effectively 'lie' by sustaining and enforcing a false perspective where
errors and deception are normalized into shared structuring. the exchange
of data -in its skew or misrepresentation- can become foundational to a
given reality that has an implicit if covert agenda connected to it, which
can range across cultural domains, including politics, economics, social
and demographic aims, pitting some against others, yet unaccounted for.
[machine1] <--- lies ---> [machine2]
such a false perspective then depends upon how ideas are modeled, (thus
also situations they seek to encompass, via automated surveying via the
surveillance infrastructure monitoring citizens from various angles)
[binary1] <--- lies ---> [binary2]
these views can be 'shared' and thus presumed legitimate by default of this
sharing of a common framework, even if private and only partially true, yet
also carrying the mantle of 'public observation' within a default context.
what is important to note is that the much can be ignored from this POV and
yet can be equated with representing a total situation, likewise. in that
the edited parameters of perception, even if technical, in their onesided
evaluation, still carry a presumption of accuracy within the shared frame.
and this can be standardized, institutionalized, yet remain ~ungrounded,
and thus, the error-rate instead of being dealt with and removed becomes
structural and of a protected, insulated domain instead, a leverage point
that can be used to gain advantage via exploiting the uneven relations
between what is inside the boundary and what it observes onesidedly
by not accounting for truth at the level of machines and representation, we
have given machines the ability to lie to us. faulty modeling enshrined in
the silicon and circuitboards provides the structure to sustain and further
extend the faulty views of people, extended within the technological tools
that then are subverted by this fundamental impurity, where, specifically-
the 1's and 0's of binary ideology are equated as if absolute truths while
not connected to its logical accounting beyond an ideology of 'true belief'
and thus these ones and zeros are emblematic or 'symbols' of a truth that
is actually absent within the technology-- it is nowhere represented in the
modeling of data itself, which instead occurs only within language and its
conventions and does not require accordance with grounded nature outside
this view, such that reality is replaced by its system of signification,
the 'representation' replaces the reality, and narrows down the dimensions
to only what can be allowed to exist as it benefits a particular viewpoint
that no longer has human values as its purpose continual decision-making
technology has become disconnected from humanity and thus society this way
and the digital equipment stands in for 'accountable truth' as if devices
themselves are this higher realm of understanding and awareness, vs. lower
and so people begin to serve machines and the nothingness (absent of truth)
at their centre as if the higher calling, when instead their
representation of reality is highly limited, finite, and warped,
constrained and censoring what exists to only a particular flawed
relativistic model that is biased to serve only some people, at the cost
and labor of the many it exploits
life, nature, love, are nowhere present except as they can be represented
as commodified SIGNs to be exploited, systematically, via state machinery.
in that, in the internal 'digital universe' established, these unmapped
relations are anomalies that get described away in other limiting terms and
thus are established in warped structural frameworks that become normalized
as the basis for shared awareness - love equated with a brain state or with
chemical processes that can be artificially induced or engineered, versus a
different approach regarding its mystery and boundary where reductionism is
incapable of accounting for its greater truth, due to ideology and dogma.
this is how scientific methodology becomes deterministic as a worldview
that supposes itself capable of rationalizing the world in its actuality
without accounting for the actual dimensions which must be edited to fit
the worldview and its agenda, thus the parameters of observation and also
the establishment of a constrained evaluation that becomes structural and
in this way- the world of life and its situations are modeled within lesser
views than what actually exists, protected by this binarist representation
that replaces the world with a substitute model said and believed to be the
defining truth, which becomes the foundation for 'machine' relations and
observations between humans, and between humans and machinery. as if the
use of programming code written in C++ is by default grounded in the world
an accessing external truth by using SIGNs to represent external events;
versus having these assumptions actually tested as hypotheses, and held to
account for errors, which has been removed from the process of ideas
not just any errors, technical, ideological errors, errors of observation
that go beyond the institutionalized dogma, into the code of the perceivers
and deciders and hold those relations and observations to account for how
situations are modeled and in what terms, because this can be exploited,
the world can be misrepresented in its entirety and if not held to account
can become normalized and the basis for day-to-day existence, a corruption
that is sustained and extended by technology that extends this ~processing
so how do you get to the errored code if it exists prior to its input into
the machines and the creation of machine-based frameworks and modeling.
what if people today are not required to be honest or truthful (as their
*private right*, no less) thus grounding is not required via relativist
and subjective agendas that exploit the A=B mismatch, as if A=A activity
how to get to the code within a person who parses situations inaccurately
and seek its correction, especially with a breakdown in communications such
that language cannot sustain such in-depth considerations between peoples,
is everything reliant on peoples conscience then, to do the right thing, or
on the ability of sociopaths to lie and feel no remorse or obligation for
truth beyond their self-interested boundary? how did error and lies become
acceptable as a basis for relations, unless to exploit eachother and divide
citizens into smaller and smaller enclaves of un/shared awareness. is not
the ability to rationalize inaccurate worldviews as personal operating
systems somehow involved in the deeper corruption as it relates to ideas,
how they are detached from reality and accounting beyond a given boundary
which then becomes the self and its ego, personal or shared beliefs about
how individuals and groups exist, compete or cooperate, yet beyond further
accounting in actual truth, beyond some shared level of communication
this is insane, in terms of logic and empirical truth, because
language-relations can be largely ungrounded, superficial, manipulating
frameworks to force and warp perspectives to fit agendas and some of these
views are larger than others, controlling them within skewed ideological
ecosystems and thus a gigantic warped mechanism can exist that presumes
shared truth as shared belief that remains unchecked beyond the enforced
boundaries, and this goes into peoples nervous systems, their brains and
how they think, prior to this communication with others - their own
self-conception and self-accounting as a being in relation to all that is,
and the presumption of knowing or not knowing and choosing or finding a
path to function within that syncronizes with the larger momentum and
allows survival, and yet this very path of least resistance is likely by
default antihuman and against humans and civilization itself, as miswired
and misdirected
and the individual is not held to account for their internal errors in
terms of themselves, necessarily, and can go about being inaccurate in
observations or bias toward partial-truths while ignoring others, then
assuming this condition translates into a pure truth of machinery via
outward action, that provides a platform for this same way of being that
can and does exist in a bubble or virtual condition in terms of its truth,
in that it is by default a detached condition from the actual nature of
things as they exist, beyond the given warped model representing them
this is why the outward survey requires first an inward survey of the self
prior to seeking to determine external changes - and is a major failure of
activists who require moral compliance from another while not necessarily
having the same integrity in their own lives, in terms of grounded truth-
instead it can become another exploit in a competitive scheme, worthwhile
perhaps though unsound in terms of shared reasoning, tit-for-tat scenarios
that are the very basis for their destruction as ungrounded approaches, an
issue of dealing in language and systems of representation versus truth as
the mediator, thus signs of things and their interactions in competition
versus alignment via shared truth and common agenda, which then places
those who serve truth on the same side, and those who share lies as the
enemy. if caught in relativism and protected boundaries, that next step can
never be achieved, and thus the dance can legitimize the false perspective
and provides needed symbolic checks and balances for status quo relations,
versus a deeper interrogation of culture beyond the superficial, whereby
advertising of non-profits or other organizations eventually replaces the
issue with their own cause, a hollowed-out exercise of self-sameness of the
shared underlying ideology, no matter what is said, via such 'grounding'
if everything was as easy to determine was simply writing about it and-or
having observations and communicating -- people would probably think they
are REALLY SMART and could self-righteously go about justifying any action
that they deem correct as being correct, as long as no feedback exists that
counters this belief. therefore people could think or believe what they are
doing is really radical or politically challenging powers that be because
they are functioning in a particular domain in those terms -- yet to what
effect is this stageplay, a song and dance routine, versus getting to the
core condition that could actually change what is going on-- and what will
it take to get there if a boundary exists within the minds of people who
may think 'conventional approaches' are adequate to the existential task
even while insurmountable in these same mindsets and ways of relating
what if the biggest impediment to change is the individual observer, the
self who is set in their views and is not requiring of a higher degree of
fidelity with the external world, given private predisposition to what can
be a selfish or self-serving protected viewpoint-- what if individualism
has been corrupted to the point that individuals are recoded in group-think
and behave like a herd even while having all the choices in the world to
pursue their own interests (while ignoring most everyone elses likewise)
what if the code of self is in error, the psychological, emotional, mental
way of being, and that interactions between a self and itself is in error?
what if people are fucked up in their views by default- what then...
and what if this is allowed by ungrounded, unaccountable beliefs that are
detached from empirical truth beyond a protected private boundary- and that
no obligation exists to humility or to 'reason' beyond this limited narrow
framework, as is peoples *privatized* rights, via the corrupt constitution,
which becomes a document allowing and enforcing COLLECTIVE IDIOCY instead
how to deal with that situation, the encoding of an ideological default
state within people, straight of the womb or test-tube that then can be
fast tracked into the automated machinery and exploited over a lifetime for
profit, while surviving or struggling to, to greater or lesser degrees
and what if the obligation of the education system to deal with this as a
condition has been obliterated, such that truth is absent from schools and
instead everything is mediated in terms of appropriate language (SIGNS)
that involves standardized tests that validate correct pattern matching,
even while it is to institutionalize B=A and B=B dynamics, yet questioning
this condition is not allowed and the boundaries are enforced, especially
via psychiatric feedback for challengers, misfits, strugglers, the abused
so dealing with truth is basically ILLEGAL within society, and the last
place you will have it dealt with is within the court system because the
law is based within accounting for events within ungrounded LANGUAGE, the
sign of what occurs, versus in its truth as tallies to ones or zeros. that
is unless you get access to the supreme court and constitutional review to
test the source code itself as a framework for this 'shared truth' that is
not actually this, yet functionally and legally represents it, including
the above actions that set people against one another in exploitative terms
in this way, people and the machinery that extends the faulty actions that
are believed good, true, correct, right, and yet are oftentimes opposite of
this if accurately accounted for beyond the given limits of interpretation
and via censoring or limiting outside observation, this can be disallowed
and thus the false perspective, whether in peoples shared ideas or within
the technologies developed and used for daily exchange can exist in the
same rotten and corrupted frameworks and be required as a basis for shared
exchange when it is this very process which relies upon unchecked falsehood
and thus automatically extends it via its continued use, as a methodology
in contrast, if each individual was assisted from birth to old age in
developing self awareness, and given the basic skills and tools to map
their own consciousness and understanding in a personal circuit of the
self, a diagram of all their attributes and goals and combined health and
education records and skills and career data, that this self-diagnostic
capacity then would be the most accurate model of the self that could be
referenced for a person as they relate to others within the larger state,
and data that is external would be matched against the personal model, such
that if points of view conflict, it can be mediated in the given frameworks
versus having one biased viewpoint have authority over another even though
it may not be accurate or could rely on structural falsehoods. thus, if a
student questions something in class, it could be reviewed by others in the
objective terms it exists within (A=A) instead of misrepresented by those
who ideologically subvert this process (A=B and-or B=B), and therefore an
obligation would exist to mediate this condition of shared truth and the
lies would have no place as situations are accurately accounted for, given
the data that is continually checked by outsider observers as people are
interacting with others and other systems in the shared environment
[A=A] <---> [A=B]
the difficulty is that there is no obligation of citizens to operate within
an A=A framework due to relativism which negates the possibility of shared
truth, while at the same time exploiting this as a universal perspective,
which establishes a boundary for what can and cannot be a shared viewpoint
and thus a 'subjective objectivism' is universalized that only allows its
limited parameters to be allowed for relations, even while flawed and
reliant upon errors, which enable further exploitations to take place
against any truth that exists, via arbitrary onesided evaluations that are
effectively the politicization of the entire infrastructure of society,
most especially via academics where the threat of 'new ideas' is largest
new ideas meaning empirical truth, accounting with western philosophy and
cultural traditions, that kind of thing that is disregarded as out of date
or fanciful, censoring the very structure of logical reasoning, and in
doing so allowing the false perspective to rule over all interpretation.
thus to succeed in this system requires belief, to belief what is said, as
it is said as a sign or correct pattern that can be matched to the self and
adhered to, versus questioned or considered or thought about beyond the
particular enforced boundary -- or else! you can lose your ability to live
in the society, be sent all the way to the bottom to be ground up by the
base functioning of the automated machinery, as systems exploit people as
cattle, guided into appropriate processing, all eventually slaughterhoused
'trust the machine' is like 'trust the liar', it just does not work that
way in terms of the greater truth involved. yet doing so can bring benefits
within those parameters, yet the price is truth itself, a disconnection
from the larger issues involved. the representation does not match the
reality, and in that gap, the exploit. and it begins in the person, within
the individual mindset and its enculturation, whereby false frameworks are
normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, including in the tools
themselves, digital technology- the networked media jukeboxes that people
carry around, represented by candy-store icons, mapping only to certain
highly constrained dimensions that keep everything in the ideological box
yet may allow the perception that activity actually exists beyond this
limit, and that would be illusory, the entire system is engineered from the
ground up, as if the context is a wild frontier and not disneyland from the
start, the groundplane not full of wires and automated sensing mechanism, a
managed stage and scenery and actors everyone playing their unique parts
so what if individuals start with an A=B worldview, and this limits their
larger interactions in the world beyond a given limit or private boundary.
what if the code they think in their brains is even B=B as if A=A, and yet
it is unaccounted for in this inaccuracy. say- having no relation to the
context in which events occur and only viewing things in their immediacy
and locally, say no technological history or understanding taught in school
so it seems that issues of today are those of the 18th and 19th century
instead, and so an immediate [sign] can be evaluated outside a realistic
context and oversimplified and analysed in inaccurate terms which are
those of entire political platforms and agendas even, missing information
never accounted for in scratch-my-back exchanges that serve the 'common
good' which is the past and present evil in its inadequacy and deep
mendacity
people with partial views could assume 'total literacy' in a binary mindset
even while reliant upon falsity, and this can manage over others, including
other truth, which is ignored or falsified by its ability to be limited or
stopped entirely, via hostilities or censorship or containment, etc. and
thus in the realm of the ungrounded empire of signage, an egotist could
easily believe they 'know everything' in their particular warped framework
and function within the system in these partial terms, for self-interested
goals that serve a like population that benefits from this, while ignoring
and oppressing those who do not and are not served by the corruption of
pseudo-truth universalized and made authoritarian, people submitting to
lies and deceptions and frameworks of falsehood and basing relations on
these simply to survive, to have a chance at continuing to breathe instead
of fighting an "irrational" enigma that forces people straight into
madness due to its insane dimensions, which do not add up to a sane
worldview and instead it is antihuman, it is oppressive, it is illegal,
unconstitutional yet none of this is of significant if truth is not
logically accounted for
the winners are the schemers and scammers and liars and cheats and now the
entire state system and world system is based upon this 'shared principle'
as a basis for governing power, the constitution ~interpreted this way thus
allows its justification, so long as truth is allowed to be misrepresented
and there is no way to sanely prove, given the evidence, what is going on
unless of course the source code is everywhere around us and it is a limit
of our own inaccuracies to not be able to read it and communicate our ideas
about the shared situation. to do so requires getting truth grounded in a
shared framework of logic, beyond the binary, getting clear about what the
issues are, understanding and comprehending the modeling of empirical
truth (A=A) in a relativistic framework (A=B), and then taking on
situations via public debate of ideas -- contests of worldviews where
LANGUAGE would no longer be used to 'hide truth' via powerplays of
ungrounded subjective rhetoric and instead would be brought down to ones
and zeros of truth and falsity, accuracy of beliefs and ideas structurally
accounted for in terms of their allegiance or ignoring of the involved
parameters, beyond just the limited boundaries of a given perspective, to
include the larger situation that is ignored because it can be removed from
the shared equations, as is the privilege of the dishonest and corrupt who
exploit these dynamics, (and this can include anyone determined to 'choose
their own reality')
how can accurate code be written if it is not firstly based in truth that
is beyond the bias or error-rate of the coder. it takes other people and
observations to check against, other modeling beyond finite limits and
boundaries, the threshold of self as detached versus connected with others
and of dimensionality that extends into ecosystems and is not containable
only within an enforced narrow worldview -- truth is held captive inside of
pseudo-truth and falsity, and this can be within a person themselves
thus, firstly, how to free the person from the inherited, surrounding, and
absorbed falsity of environment and others that formats the self- how to
get that distance and recognize that fallibility of the self, that it is
the very imperfection of an individual that leads to their perfection as an
optimizing being, by accounting for errors allows these to no longer limit
or constrain functioning within lesser circuitry and adaptation and growth
and development can occur beyond the false boundaries - once released from
the inaccuracy as a malfunctional framework. and what if this is the goal
of society, to help people develop into who they most actually are, and to
support this self-development because it is the long-term best approach to
improving society via high functioning citizenry, versus today which seeks
to constrain and disallow this develop, keeping most everyone stupid and
limiting only 10% of the brain to be used in the education system (or else-
the psychiatrist and psychiatric pills for you!)
what if society was not an antihuman environment, and what if to get there
requires a new relation between people, and what if the way people are now
formatted prevents this, due to constrained private boundaries that limit
and protect awareness, yet this is also the essential self-corruption, that
it can protect inaccurate views and beliefs sheltered within false models
and beliefs that remain unchecked and uncorrected and are even the basis
for shared relations, in that careers or marriages or other relations may
be developed in that inaccurate context. thus what if any acknowledgment of
error or inaccuracy could lead to negative repercussions and jeopardize the
fragile sandcastles of peoples lives, where such revelations could become
weaknesses, and set a person up against themselves in their functioning,
when their brain and its beliefs are in opposition to what the body does
and the conflicts that can arise in realizing a schizophrenic, fragmented
condition required and normalized within society, as the status quo itself
maybe it is the system that is actually crazy - and following along is the
crazy thing, and waking up to this is actually about BECOMING SANE and not
about losing your mind, and instead about finding it, grounding it in the
more realistic situation, just as 9/11 did for a great many here, because
finally some of the dimensions that exist beyond a given boundary were
brought back into the world and could begin to be discussed in potentially
more realistic terms, yet this itself was détourned, again via language
so what if everyone exists in 'some truth' or partial truth, and this is a
pseudo- condition, in that it is ambiguous and variant in terms of how it
can be and is accounted for. [truth] is not 100% absolute, instead it is
embedded in frameworks and contexts that carry it and these can be in error
in terms of viewpoint or beliefs or perspective or facts and even subverted
or twisted, such that truth is aligned within a warped worldview that then
becomes normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, as with today
so what if this toxic situation is the default condition for observation,
such that the individual observer exists in a condition of 'some truth' and
the goal is to remove the errors, simplify the situation by getting rid of
the false beliefs in the modeling of events, and in doing so, while
perhaps a less elaborate construct, a more accurate belief that tends
towards A=A awareness, than relies upon A=B assumptions, including
falsehoods needed to sustain the view. the ability to error-correct,
fallibility, is the key to the cybernetic circuitry of self, allowing
improvement. it is not an issue of weakness to be able to accurately
account for the nature of the self to enable better self governance,
management, and interactions with others. it is necessary and vital to
unlocking the self beyond limiting constraints and false boundaries that
contain the self within institutionalized views and inaccuracies that
forbid development beyond the given belief system
it is liberation, this accurate accounting of the self and freedom from the
structuring of lies and deceptions, shared and unshared. it is the ability
to 'know' what is known, and be able to defend this in terms of its truth,
in a larger empirical framework of truth beyond the self alone, as this
relates to humanity, the interconnectedness of shared human perspective
thus to get the ones and zeros of truth and falsity accounted for within
the self then enables relations with others that are not reliant upon the
frameworks of 'shared lies', by default. and such true is only devalued
when it is downgraded into a pseudo-truth evaluation and forced to be
limited by a false worldview for what greater truth involves. it is a
litmus test for ideology, where peoples boundaries are, who can and cannot
be reasoned with and within or beyond protected or chosen boundaries. thus
a closeminded biased programmer who codes this way likely has their own
biased OS of self that is the basis for this imbalance externalized. so
too, a person who has internal equilibrium with greater truth may balance
external dynamics in an alignment more conducive to exchange in this way.
the free flow of information and ideas requires free minds, in other words
and the censorship or limiting of ideas and actions, in their truth, is an
indication also of an inner disposition of those with such decision-making,
that it is a tell basically about the logical reasoning running the works.
this too can be exploited. the programming of self, not the automatic NLP
brute-force of another and instead, 'processing' or logical reasoning, how
a system works, within what dimensions, by what routines and flows, can
then establish a way of coding based on a way of being, its foundation in
truth, and built up from that awareness, reliant upon it and tested against
it in terms of self-accountability, versus missing this vital step and
running 'beliefs' without necessary grounding, as these become systems and
technologies and administration and ruling agendas
perhaps in this way social engineering has within its domain the issues of
the programmer as a model of the computing paradigm they in turn develop,
such that their modeling and thinking and motivations extend outward into
systems yet relate back to the self as observer and decider, including in
moral or ethical or ideological dimensions. and thus flaws in personality
or flaws in beliefs or manipulations in these realms could be a continuum,
and allowing insight into the nature of the exploit by those who exploit,
as they think this way or rely on such deceptions, yet may also not be able
to accurately account for themselves in these terms- seeing or evaluating
the self accurately- looking into the mirror and see who is actually there
versus who is believed there ("who is the fairest of them all", etc.)
the signs can lie, can be hollowed-out, shallow, detached from truth yet
*appear* to equate with an idea, to represent a truth, stand-in for it, and
as long as no one is the wiser, this could be a successful approach though
it remains virtual, the bubble can always be popped by outside accounting,
and thus the way things are calculated and in what parameters does matter
for how events are considered, communicated about, what is allowed reality
and in this way, the masquerade of self as people may be externalized and
held beyond this internal accounting for beliefs and actions, such that
pseudo-truth is all that is required to sustained warped true belief' that
is self-serving and dishonest, such that the person or IMAGE in the mirror
is a fake, ungrounded in relation to actual existence, a conceit or ego
that is daydreaming in terms of the chosen ideological terms of existence,
and all that exists beyond this self interest remains unaccounted for and
the external pressures involved, kept away from influencing these beliefs
because it can be kept outside or protected against, via private enclaves;
though at some point this could fail, and another world could take over and
then this same person would have to come to terms with external accounting
beyond the limited view, and for this their worldview would be effectively
crushed, their ability to reason in these same terms and carry such beliefs
would no longer be allowable, given the larger situation that now must be
confronted and dealt with-- especially on terms other than self-beneficial.
how well can liars do when the lies are no longer allowable as a practice.
what happens when the accounting involves them losing jobs, careers, their
houses, as others have due to the treachery of their antihuman ideology
the danger is the encryption of the self that may not allow a self to be
decrypted, if the key of truth is ignored. and thus those who can unlock
themselves from the falsity have a different capacity for functioning than
those who cannot audit themselves, take account of their actual condition
versus a sign-based self-belief that wills itself into shallow existence,
despite the facts and evidence. a volatile combination for instant madness,
this. the self inaccessible, running hostile code, no way to masquerade,
then stuck in a reframed reconstituted operating system of the state that
seeks out the errors for removal. those humans aligned with truth on the
one side, antihumans on the other. it is not appearance that is the issue,
it is actuality, grounded beliefs as this relates to actions and integrity
again in terms of security, the falsity of self and its ability to be
exploited by self or others, or produce continual errors in processing then
is a critical failure that must be remedied. the self needs to establish a
1=1 relation with truth and get beyond the reliance on manipulations that
allow subjectivity to overrule evidence and disregard empirical modeling;
that is, the conceit and narcissism of 'thinking' as binary onesideness
that prevents thought via certainty of knowing a pseudo-truth viewpoint in
terms of 'true belief' as if absolute and verified universally while false.
those who do not do this perhaps are limited by parameters or boundaries
that must be protected or confused and knotted and short-circuiting, yet
also can rely upon this as a devious tactic that prolongs and extends the
techniques of exploitation reliant on false frameworks and mimicry, saying
one thing and doing another, as if it is beyond external calculation even.
this situation and these interactions becomes transparent, freudian slips
or tells or evidence of warped beliefs and limiting worldviews that seek to
control and determine 'external events' in a bounded self-serving biased
rationalization, that safely operates within a shared zone of ideology
needless to say, this is also an operating system, these peoples mindsets
are running routines in their brain-based platforms, programs and scripts
and parsing data in certain parameters that exploit data and force it into
particular skewed, self-serving views -- and thus, 3-value and N-value
interactions can probe these situations and gain awareness of what these
parameters are, what the limits are, how decision-making is justified and
validated, what functions as proof (pattern matching, sign/image-based) and
it is this same approach that extends into distributed technology systems,
as the all-seeing eye of surveillance, the hidden identity that observes
wrongly and seeks advantage through these same means, though here wetware
where does the secure code begin and end. where does the insecure code
begin and end. where does the corruption exist and extend from. it is thus
the idea that truth is the basis for this evaluation of security, and lies
are what allow insecurity in this context. if you run secure code on your
machinery, if that is the goal, so too the self, or it could be in error
sanaam, galangal, staranise
✉
1
0
----- Forwarded message from taxakis <taxakis(a)gmail.com> -----
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:12:50 +0200
From: taxakis <taxakis(a)gmail.com>
To: cryptome(a)freelists.org
Subject: [cryptome] snaps
Message-ID: <00ad01cec8e7$77bd5360$6737fa20$@com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Reply-To: cryptome(a)freelists.org
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/13/gchq-accused-monitoring-priv…
http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/08/ibm-researcher-can-decipher-your-personal…
http://wikileaks.org/Video-Edward-Snowden-wins-Sam.html?
http://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-Releases-Fifth-Estate.html
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/10/12/prime-generating-fractions/
http://www.livescience.com/39821-mathematics-links-quantum-encryption-black…
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2013/03/why-am-i-forbidden-from-using-my-ip…
https://blog.thijsalkema.de/blog/2013/10/08/piercing-through-whatsapps-encr…
http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions…
----- 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
Guys, in order to minimize Tor Project's dependance on
federal funding and/or increase what they can do it
would be great to have some additional funding ~10 kUSD/month.
If anyone is aware of anyone who can provide funding at
that level or higher, please contact execdir(a)torproject.org
1
0
----- Forwarded message from Paul Gardner-Stephen <paul(a)servalproject.org> -----
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:20:34 +1030
From: Paul Gardner-Stephen <paul(a)servalproject.org>
To: serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [serval-project-dev] Roaming between mesh extenders
Message-ID: <CA+_T8-BFZe2uPxupwzG+L=e9B7zuZQ3Tg9ajK0YmdwNRrO_8Pg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Paul Gardner-Stephen <
paul(a)servalproject.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 07:39:41AM +1030, Paul Gardner-Stephen wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Miles <myles(a)tenhand.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Is each mesh extender supposed to have a distinct ip range for the
>> public
>> > > network? That's what commotion &etc do.
>> > >
>> >
>> > We haven't done that yet. Partly because in a large network there just
>> > aren't enough IPv4 addresses to support unique IP ranges for each. We
>> can
>> > of course still greatly reduce the probability of a nearby collision by
>> > doing so, and so probably should, and possibly randomise on boot.
>>
>> Have you looked into cjdns way of doing things?
>
>
> No, we haven't. We are quite happy to apply a more sophisticated approach
> than we do now for this. From a pragmatic perspective it might make sense
> for us to just copy what Commotion do. I don't know if they are using
> cjdns.
>
Just a followup having read a little more about cjdns now -- basically
Serval doesn't need cjdns because the Serval overlay mesh network uses
public keys as network addresses. Being an overlay, it is also possible
for us to use arbitrary transports, and not have to worry about needing
root access on a device. This means that we can make a 1st-class Android
mesh client that doesn't need root, for example. The use of public keys as
network addresses means that all communications can be encrypted and
authenticated without any further complications. The use of IP on Serval
mesh nodes is just to provide something for the mesh to tunnel over, so the
IP configuration is not interesting to us, and can be configured however
the user otherwise wishes if they want it to interoperate with some
existing IP network or mesh.
Paul.
> Paul.
>
>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Serval Project Developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
----- 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
----- Forwarded message from Nico Williams <nico(a)cryptonector.com> -----
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:53:03 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico(a)cryptonector.com>
To: Jerry Leichter <leichter(a)lrw.com>
Cc: ray(a)unipay.nl, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] prism-proof email in the degenerate case
Message-ID: <20131011155302.GA8170(a)gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:22:50PM -0400, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 11:58 AM, "R. Hirschfeld" <ray(a)unipay.nl> wrote:
> > Very silly but trivial to "implement" so I went ahead and did so:
> >
> > To send a prism-proof email, encrypt it for your recipient and send it
> > to irrefrangible(a)mail.unipay.nl....
> Nice! I like it.
Me too. I've been telling people that all PRISM will accomplish
regarding the bad guys is to get them to use dead drops, such as comment
posting on any of millions of blogs -- low bandwidth, undetectable. The
technique in this thread makes the use of a dead drop obvious, and adds
significantly to the recipient's work load, but in exchange brings the
bandwidth up to more usable levels.
Either way the communicating peers must pre-agree a number of things --
a traffic analysis achilles point, but it's one-time vulnerability, and
chances are people who would communicate this way already have such
meetings.
> A couple of comments:
>
> 1. Obviously, this has scaling problems. The interesting question is
> how to extend it while retaining the good properties. If participants
> are willing to be identified to within 1/k of all the users of the
> system (a set which will itself remain hidden by the system), choosing
> one of k servers based on a hash of the recipient would work. (A
> concerned recipient could, of course, check servers that he knows
> can't possibly have his mail.) Can one do better?
Each server/list is a channel. Pre-agree on channels or use hashes. If
the latter then the hashes have to be of {sender, recipient}, else one
party has a lot of work to do, but then again, using just the sender or
just the recipient helps protect the other party against traffic
analysis. Assuming there are millions of "channels" then maybe
something like
H({sender, truncate(H(recipient), log2(number-of-channels-to check))})
will do just fine. And truncate(H(recipient, log2(num-channels))) can
be used for introduction purposes.
The number of servers/lists divides the total work to do to receive a
message.
> 2. The system provides complete security for recipients (all you can
> tell about a recipient is that he can potentially receive messages -
> though the design has to be careful so that a recipient doesn't, for
> example, release timing information depending on whether his
> decryption succeeded or not). However, the protection is more limited
> for senders. A sender can hide its activity by simply sending random
> "messages", which of course no one will ever be able to decrypt. Of
> course, that adds yet more load to the entire system.
But then the sender can't quite prove that they didn't send anything.
In a rubber hose attack this could be a problem. This also applies to
recipients: they can be observed fetching messages, and they can be
observed expending power trying to find ones addressed to them.
Also, there's no DoS protection: flooding the lists with bogus messages
is a DoS on recipients.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
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
14 Oct '13
----- Forwarded message from Felix Stalder <felix(a)openflows.com> -----
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:19:31 +0200
From: Felix Stalder <felix(a)openflows.com>
To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <nettime-l(a)mail.kein.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Pascal Zachary: Rules for the Digital Panopticon (IEEE)
Message-ID: <5257B493.1010201(a)openflows.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
Reply-To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <nettime-l(a)mail.kein.org>
The concept of the panopticon has been very popular ever since Foucault
elevated it to the rank of a central metaphor for modernity in
"Discipline and Punishment" (1975). And the NSA revelations seem to
confirm its usefulness once again.
But I think this is mistaken. We are not living in a panoptic world at
all, at least not in the Bentham/Foucault sense of the term (is there
any other?).
I follow here largely Zygmunt Bauman, one of the last negative thinkers
in the European tradition. He makes two arguments against in this regard:
First: "Today's Big Brother is not about keeping people in and making
them stick to the line, but about kicking people out and making sure
that when they are kicked out that they will duly go and won't come back."
And, more importantly, Bauman argues, power hates the
responsibility/costs that comes with being a prison guard / running a
prison (assuming they have not been turned into a source of profit).
They don't want to be tied down, together with the inmates. They want
to be mobile, weightless and separate.
So surveillance has been decentralized and turned into task performed
by the prison inmates themselves, and make into a precondition for
staying inside: think credit ratings, facebook friends, google ranks
etc. You have to make yourself continuously and actively available for
surveillance, provide your own data, in your own time and at your own
costs, in order to avoid big brother to jump into action and kick you
out.
Some people are using the concept of "ban-opticon" to express this.
On 10/10/2013 08:41 PM, Patrice Riemens wrote:
>
> original to:
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/rules-for-the-digital-panopticon
<...>
--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com
|OPEN PGP: 056C E7D3 9B25 CAE1 336D 6D2F 0BBB 5B95 0C9F F2AC
# 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
Hi list,
I am looking for studies on how user behaviour changes under
surveillance. I have no insights at all in the social studies academic
space, so I am very curious if there is any serious work being
done. Older studies, say from Stasi times and until now are very
welcome.
A quick search on the net gives me the following,
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/how-surveillance-changes-behavior-…
"How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study"
But there must be much more out there.
24
53
----- Forwarded message from Arlo Breault <arlolra(a)gmail.com> -----
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:28:09 -0700
From: Arlo Breault <arlolra(a)gmail.com>
To: me(a)tomlowenthal.com, griffin(a)cryptolab.net, sukhbir(a)torproject.org, nickm(a)torproject.org, dgoulet(a)ev0ke.net
Cc: tor-assistants(a)lists.torproject.org, tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org
Subject: [tor-dev] Attention Otters
Message-ID: <5C68F77BAD8D432BB29EC4EBEE0432B6(a)gmail.com>
X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178)
Reply-To: tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org
Not sure the following is entirely clear or complete,
but I tried to capture the concerns from the meeting
and the ensuing discussion.
Hope it helps.
Arlo
Attentive Otter Plan
====================
Goal
----
Add instant-messaging to the Tor browser bundle in order to provide a secure
communication tool which supports the free flow of information online.
Overview
--------
Instantbird [1] is a cross-platform IM client based on Mozilla's XULRunner.
The following presents the necessary steps to turn Instantbird into the
future Tor Messenger.
A Way Forward
-------------
1. Remove libpurple dependence
This is a trivial amount of work and changes to the build to support it would
be accepted upstream. They are already considering moving libpurple, and the
added protocols it supports, to an add-on for reasons of licensing/code
quality. JS implementations of the following protocols exist: XMPP, Google
Talk, Facebook, IRC, Twitter, with Yahoo landing soon and AIM/ICQ started but
further away.
2. OTR support
Instantbird currently lacks support for OTR. Two pieces are needed here: a
suitable OTR implementation, and an interface between the client and that
library (essentially, the role that pidgin-otr plays).
To get started, for the OTR library, a js-ctypes wrapper of libotr should be
used in conjunction with the message observer API. Code [2] from a few years
ago towards this end has been written but probably needs to be dusted off and
extended. An effort is underway at Mozilla to implement OTR in JS using NSS,
which could be dropped in as a replacement. A patch has been submitted [3] but it looks far from complete, so I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. When asked, they said it won't be ready for *a while*. Should the NSS implementation fail to materialize entirely, they would still be willing to take the
ctypes wrapper and libotr, as it doesn't present any licensing issues. In his
analysis, Mike suggested converting the ctypes wrapper to an XPCOM
wrapper but it's unclear why that's preferable.
The front-end side seems like a larger undertaking. This involves not only
the interaction with the message observer API but handling the quirks in the
various protocols (think /me in IRC), authentication including SMP, and
importing and storing long-term keys. Sukhe estimated at least a month of
development time and expressed an interest in being the one to undertake it.
On the bright side, the Instantbird team seems eager for OTR support and this
work will most likely be upstreamed.
3. Disable logging
An add-on may be required to ensure certain desirable configurations, like
logging disable by default. A difference in goals between UX for the
average user and the TIMBB user may force us to maintain these changes.
4. Tor controller
Tor Launcher will be used as the controller. Sukhe has already reported
having this working.
Using only JS protocol implementations means all traffic goes through
nsIChannels, making proxy support fairly easy to verify. For DNS,
network.proxy.socks_remote_dns should be set. DNS SRV should not be an issue
seeing as how it isn't supported by Mozilla [4]. Should test for other
UDP traffic leaks.
5. Messaging window
Jail it to type=content. Preferably everything is displayed in plaintext,
with HTML disabled or at least sanitized with an XSS filter [5]. Disable JS
and other features. Make use of all the preferences from TorBirdy.
6. Installer and updates
Leverage the work that's already being done on Mozilla's updater for the TBB.
7. Deterministic builds
Deterministic builds for the TBB was a major undertaking. I can't imagine
this case being any different, less the experience and groundwork already
laid.
8. Sandboxing
Come up with a practical, cross-platform way to sandbox the application.
I don't have an answer here. Maybe you do.
9. Audit
- Instantbird's render attack surface (content window, XSS filter, etc.)
- Crypto in NSS and how JS uses it
- Interface between the UI and OTR
- Proxy by-pass
- And more ...
10. Translations
Instantbird is available in 14 languages, including French and Spanish.
However, none are RTL and we want to support Arabic and Farsi. Messaging
should already work for RTL languagues though, they've fixed a few bugs
to ensure it, and reflecting the UI is reported to not be a ton of work.
They are definitely willing to accept patches here.
11. Other considerations
- Disable Instantbird's built-in auto-updater and crash reporter
- For sure OTR on by default, but maybe disallow any non-OTR comm. entirely
- CA verification: TOFU mode? Pin popular domains?
- Disable older TLS/SSL suites
- Consider the interaction between all three Tor bundles (FF, TB, IM). Tor
Launcher could attempt to authenticate and read settings from an already
running control port.
- Choose a different default profile folder (to avoid picking up plugins
and other unsafe settings)
References
----------
[1] http://instantbird.com/
[2] https://gitorious.org/fireotr/fireotr
[3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779052#c20
[4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328
[5] https://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-beta/source/chat/modules/imContentSink.jsm
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
----- 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
--- 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