i wrote:

> 5) another realization upon hearing the 30c3 talk of Jacob Appelbaum
> was the 'earth firewall' then indicates that the NSA controls the internet,
> and that it is not operating as a subset within it, and instead everything
> that occurs is within its domain....

<dan@geer.org> replies:

> The Internet is not controlled,...

my immediate reaction: this is ideology. just like internet security
or anonymity, beyond a given threshold it is controlled, not anonymous,
it just matters if those layers are perceptible and-or acknowledged within
a given zone of observation. perhaps my view is naive, and lacks basic
understanding of the situation (knowing those here are involved indepth
with standards, history, designing and building of said infrastructures)

will try to explain why this is my relation. most everywhere i look, much
of everything i see is trapped within ideology. a condition i equate with

'answered questions'. not necessarily bad if beliefs are grounded, yet if

somehow erroneous, then 'knowing' is replaced by inaccurate believing

that then becomes standardized, _the_shared_view, etc.

never successful at attempts to learn programming (they started with

calculus problems in C++ on first day, had to drop) and while having
tried Logo for fun, using for geometry, have not made it past that in
terms of descriptive reading of programming ala computer software;
though perhaps in some way the condition of 'ideology all around' or

of a surrounding ideology, perhaps much of it ungrounded/inaccurate

and thus warp/skew/bias/falsity normalized and related to and through,
is that it is like having a - guessing - high level programming language
reliant upon lower level assumptions that would be in error if not wrong.
not sure if this would be machine code, assemblers, whatever. though
that that remains unchecked while the other code views continue on
as a shared perspective and develop a given worldview based on what
can be done, though the underlying systems may function differently
or may not be able to sustain those views if audited or error-corrected

thus i do not see how observation is so readily able to be detached
from its accounting in truth, at the level of processing or parsing of

data, in its actual truth, grounded observation and shared circuitry,

for it would be opposite how computers actually function if removing

the logic gates from microchips, the billions of transistors/switches,

and then just letting anything compute in any way that is believed--

yet that is actually how -language- qua communication functions in
terms of untethered beliefs, this relativistic relations as if shared set

though based on unshared sets and different views and frameworks,
then consensus in agreeing on things (beliefs) without processing it

all the way down, seeing that turtles may beat the hare in the race
because they may not make errors while the hare may crash & burn
though if unaccounted for it does not matter- truth becomes irrelevant

given that 'random number generation' is so difficult to insure, in a

crypto model, to assume a highly rationalized and deterministically
(it is assumed) functioning system is operating within or as chaos

seems likewise ideological, in the sense that these are constructed

systems in certain parameters that can be accounted for, and yet
may not be likewise, in everyday terms, so an illusion may exist or
persist of 'no control' or 'wildness' while thoroughly accounted for at

another level or layer, where the specs are closed by the originators

and root of one level may access root of another, or those combined

in a military context as origin, i do not think it likely to imagine this
is not the case, when planned as a strategic infrastructure, to think
all technical capacity is in books or manuals or given to consumers
or detectable using normal means or parameters. also; it seems that

the system was designed to be hacked, experimented with, and this
is part of the myth-making and legendary hacks- is that they were

open enough to accomplish these feats, even perhaps supported in

doing so within a given culture, and perhaps this was a ruse and not
an oversight or misstep. or perhaps it was exploited, harnessed as
a way to create industries, such as computer and internet security,

allowing again an illusory 'wilderness' and then 'increased controls'

for the chaos or untamed environment. perhaps it is unregulated to
a degree, in-line with certain philosophies, that are experimenting
with the medium in terms of social or cultural engineering, etc.

tho in this, what strikes so odd is that anarchists are so group-

oriented, and identity-based in 'cypherpunks' as a common view,

reliant on these technical systems in a given incarnation that are

bringing wealth and jobs and skills and status, likely also perks,
which seems a bit opposite to what some of the ideas are about,
seemingly. though i do not know enough to know why i feel this
or intuit some dissonance between what exists as infrastructure
and views of 'liberation' or 'freedom' that may be based upon or
rely upon or use or exploit distortions, even, unreal parameters
that do not parse at the processing level of logic, absolute truth
and instead like other 'group views' become ideologically-based

and this allows friction-free beliefs of a given group versus others

it seems much more of an individual condition, situation, to ponder
and that the split is at this level, because the complexity is likewise,

yet when 'the group identity' is invoked, it seems to presume that a
given cohesiveness and understanding exists that i tend to think is

a fiction or perhaps an overstatement of what can be achieved within
the stated parameters - unless accuracy at the transistor level of the
ideas is dealt with. this is a problem of language and history itself..

i mean, if someone brings up or references 'secrecy & history' and
this is parsed in a view of private mankind, that leads to one set of
assumptions and values; whereas if it is grounded in a human set
of relations that is another interpretation. though any #keyword is
capable of this ideological split, any given view or belief or concept;
it does not inherently have 'group coherence' or scale to a group by
default of its corruption at this top-most level of shared observation
and agreement or verification, instead it is bounded, an upper-limit
exists that is actually very low level, and thus individual processing

that is not matched between people becomes this logical limit of
shared observation, if one view or another warps, skews, biases

at the input/output of another yet while claimed the common POV

in this way: language <--> language

versus: truth <--> truth

when it involves ungrounded beliefs, concepts, communication
that seeks to represent 'shared reality' via language, relaying ideas
though that inherently contains errors, given the medium/approach

that allows and requires and relies on this (serial strings without
error-checking or correction, repeated over and over, ad naseum)

thus something like: "what is history?"

that becomes a question that some may assume exists within a

given realm of accuracy, and others may not even believe in it as

a representation of accurate events, in that- was the 'inside view'

what was captured or translated, or an external view of events that
seeks to represent what occurred via some form of approximation

i believe that looking backward into situations is not necessarily
to adequately discern the truth of the present, lacking access to
the secret if quasi-encrypted truth of the past, in its truth, at this

transistor or logic-gate level of processing. and that in terms of the
state -- much of this is likely off-limits to known 'historic' events,

perhaps even to include Arpanet or revolutions, in the way they

are engineered from perhaps a set of parameters beyond known
or written accounts, in other dynamics remaining unaccounted for

this is to consider that there may actually be very large secrets
that are not known or divulged even while others of lesser depth
are accessible or available to a 'group scale'. somewhat like the

view that an industry-wide effort to allow hackable infrastructure is
only occurring on those beneficial terms in a geopolitical context,
which would be incredibly naive to think people were not handed
this situation and instead developed or discovered it themselves,
that is, there is more on the inside going on than the outside is

capable of understanding in terms or parameters that may exist

the idea of hacker as revolutionary or freedom fighter, while all

well and good, is also a way to be a pawn in a larger worldgame

and the effects turning against people operating within a certain
range of assumptions appears as if a wake-up call that this is

perhaps beyond a realm understood by those operating within it;

and that resources could exist that far outweigh anything that is

deployed or available in the public or private realms, perhaps even
making what is going on child's play by comparison. such that-
sure, you think you are just going to take down the power grid
because you *think* you have access to the SCADA network-

"go ahead-- make my day..."

some of these situations are unbelievable. they are too easy.
which indicates deception and people being taken for a ride

for instance, if someone threatens to turn the lights off to a

population via hacking into a power system, and defines this
as a 'cypherpunk' activity, because it is an offensive attack
using subverted computer systems and high-level skills, it

can be interpreted in different ways as a 'shared identity'- as
if the hacking skills is the value or morality, a higher status
as if information or computer warriors or whatnot. yet not to
differentiate 'who is being attacked' then could imply that it

would not matter if humans were attacked, and thus such

events could be against people like myself and to me (and

others, and especially the state) this would be an enemy
action, if that level of consideration was not involved or was
not relevant- perhaps because the ideology is not processed
to that degree or level and instead relies on ego or superior-
belief as a privileged class. whoever the hackers are, it is
certain there are others vastly more powerful in this world,

and yet this may exist in a secret undiscoverable realm
until it is too late to change course or take-back actions

(at least that is my belief, given evidence that cannot be shared)

i mean, you could even be a malicious alien attacker with

IQ of 10,000 or something & appear to have total control over

surrounding populations, though again- it could be deception
and with certainty there are others of higher capacity totally
able to neutralize any such threats, without any question

(this raises the question of what is the common context or
foundation for relations and identity- is this a parallel-world
simulation, part-real part-fictive woven together across both

past-and-future, engineering reality in the present moment.

if so is acknowledging this not critical to realism, such that

clones and copies and avatars are involved in scifi identity-

relations, as a standard, and not some other assumption

instead quaint, that allows a warped version of relation to
continue uncorrected, easy exploitation, easy lies, etc.)

thing is about language, people can reference ideas and-or

concepts, authors-- thus, Hayek, Keynes, Hegel, Marx, and
yet what is being referenced is ideology, believed viewpoints

established as shared relations --perspectives-- yet that may
not be parsed in their truth, as ideas, at the transistor level,
so what is shared is a social understanding or consensus or
relation based upon agreed upon principles or patterns that,

in their being representational, copies of belief even, can in
turn substitute or stand-in for that grounded truth requiring

direct observation and testing of principles and hypotheses

in an unbiased, neutral framework - which does not exist
in the relativistic approach to communication nor ideas

Hayek, Keynes, Hegel, Marx and others had 'some truth'

yet it is not absolute truth within language as language,
as it is mediated. these are signs, patterns, instead that
are referenced, not truth itself. it is trap, just like when i

refer to an author and seek to present their views yet this
is a limit or skew is inherent and perhaps even inaccurate,

not only my views though their views also, potentially also
in error, not absolute in correctness, yet believed to be as
if biblical conveyance that is to be knelt down before and

served as if higher, even, as if guiding light, when that same
light may not be as bright as direct observation shared by
and between people of the same phenomena modeled in
parameters more accurate or beyond those of the past

if considering the medium of 'the book' as including and
involving 'all books'-- most of the views are tending toward

falsity in some way, due to the problems with language
and communication and observation, even if philosophy
or work that resonates. a layer or layers of error exists
as a structure, due to the approach. the assembler is

wrong from the beginning. everything needs to be re-
written and its truth recontextualized to neutralize the

existing (historic or observational) bias, then to mine

those perspectives -beyond copyright- for a larger and
more inclusive shared perspective, weaving together all
truth in a single model. without a certain approach to
logic it is not possible. the errors are structural, needed,

and then what is linked, parsed, likewise, especially in
an AI context, for computation, evaluation, deliberation,
decision-making, which would lead to automated tyranny
if a computer that is inaccurate and faulty in reasoning
then was to judge other external events, while missing
that core truth or serving the higher vs. lower principles;
and thank science and technologists equivalent to a

new priesthood for not questioning this either, because

they are inherently always right, due to sustained dogma

and ideological beliefs in their own higher awareness,
virtue, values, by ignoring data outside their models yet
in doing so, discarding truth in 'universal calculations'

there seems to be 'an escape velocity from reality' as

a shared situation in online belief systems, for relation
that scales from the group back into individual contexts

as if believing makes it so, and this can be a deception of
the highest order, a mistake so large and dangerous that

before a person realizes it, they are already off the cliff and
it is too late to do anything about it, the ground has shifted

let's say someone is going around stealing and attacking

opponents on the internet. they may not realize this is a
death sentence in a new, changed context. they will be
pursued and eliminated for such activity by another group.

that those are the stakes. not stealing from a toy store,

but taking away others lives, careers, health, tools, etc.

it is not like you can try killing off a people over centuries
and then when it is revealed, the situation will simply involve

saying 'good game', shake hands, and then they will then be
treated equally, and allowed to continue onward as citizens,

even while having practiced genocide and instituted pogroms.

it is much more serious than that. the stakes are as high
as it gets in both mortal and illusory immortal terms. those

seeming the most invincible are the very entities weakest,
yet may never realize it because the illusion is sustained;
so it becomes a test of power, until one day there is failure,

a critical failure beyond the existing parameters and beliefs,

something outside the worldview and ability to imagine it

this is more the nature of what exists and is going on today

so why would the present divulge such core code as master

narrative out-in-the-open, for fear it may be understood and-or

used by the enemy, etc. -- unless the enemy cannot parse it,

because their assembler language is skewed by necessity &

in doing so, forces a given perspective that can be exploited-

such that things are really simple, simple as believed, look at

the mastery we have, look at ourselves in the mirror, aren't we
great, superior, of highest intelligence, the smartest set, etc.

if people are talking about Hegel or Marx or [author/ideas] yet

are not involved in truth and logic and reasoning as part of this
fundamental relation, likely they are involved in the ideological

dynamics of these - language computations - versus grounded
truth that removes the views and langauge of their errors, which
are many. you just cannot transport the past into the present
without some anomalies or aberrations in view, it must also be
accounted for. yet most times none of it is, assumption upon
next assumption, layer upon layer of previous consensus and

"group opinion" relied upon as structure - versus the concepts

and ideas in their purity, as informational models, many that
are skewed or warped when applied as default historic views

ideas about capitalism are crazy. about communism. about

money. about society. just fucking insane. nonsensical.

insofar as they are detached from actual observable truth

versus beliefs that are shared, copied, exchanged, exploited

for instance, i believe that politics as a category or discipline
likely does not need to exist except within certain conditions

it would seem that a human population, if cohesive identity,

would only require ~governance, to manage a representative

view (say direct democracy, feedback from citizens of state)

and that this internal-fracturing of the political is an effect of
having an _unshared identity, or multiple identities competing

group1 <---> group2

such that, each group would have its own politics, and thus
the more there is subdivision, say group1 (a,b,c) , that each
of these then becomes potentially oppositional within whatever

those dimensions or dynamics are likewise (schizphrenica of
the state, as planned, and relativism go together, enable this)

(politics1a) <--> (politics1b) <--|--> (politics2)

note that both 'inside a shared identity' (1) could be split and

those groups 'outside' the identity (2), thus humans could be

against other humans and against antihumans via politics

this is what confusion gets you, and not having grounding of
views and beliefs in truth, and shared observation allows this
and leads to it as a condition, especially of ideology, as such

ungrounded dynamics are shared via consensus, submitting
or compliance with standards, norms, shared views, etc.

governance, in contrast, could exist just in group 1, or so it

seems, and also in relation to group 2, yet not in opposition:

(governance) <---> (governance)

-- note interior/exterior dynamics of shared identity...

(governance <---> governance)

if these were two different human groups or people, they are
not necessarily inherently or necessarily opposed, given how
law and relations exist, in what dimension and parameters,
and this could be anything. how one individual relates to
another, how an individual relates to the group. a child to
their family. children with other children. states with states

or individuals with a state. core code, yet trapped in a view
of politics as standardized via mass media, corrupt code of
constitution exploited, ~framed as if politics are "freedom"

versus the basis for tyranny, difference as if liberation, etc

(here i think the idea of conservation also has relevance,

its relation with innovation in a more subtle if literal way)

secrecy then in this context. developing of state infrastructure,

if truth is at the core, issues of governance- shared identity, not
of politics, division & opposition as matter of course interaction,

that would be the illusion, part of the deception, the polarization

yet to belong would involve allegiance to truth, not shared belief.
litmus test being everything, ever action a person takes, this in

the context of global surveillance state, every gear and rotation
measured for and counted against, clock ticking on destinies

i think this same thing holds true for patents, of unshared
identity which then splits and divied the shared condition
into a 'shared group relation' as an ideological impossibility:

(patent1a) <--> (patent1b) <--|--> (patent2)

where 'human discovery' cannot be legally allowed to benefit
other humans, and instead must be a realm of 'private profit'

at the expense of the group, a limit to innovation or censoring
shared interactions to only monetary terms of relation, which

can and have been hacked and exploited to onesided relations

versus patents in a shared human identity, where basic and
fair compensation would exist yet not for exploitation against

the group development, via sharing knowledge versus hoarding
it and preventing its shared use for wider cultural development

(patent1 <---> patent2)

that is, the above patents would be of the 'human' domain as
a shared identity, and would have inclusiveness to this group,

an inside condition, while others may exist outside this and
thus the patents could protect against unlawful use, especially
against human goals or principles via law and its enforcement

(patent1 <---> patent2) <--|--> (antihuman)

in this way the patent system would benefit humans as the

shared set, and protect ideas from their antihuman exploitation
or corruption by outside or external forces, who may seek to

corrupt, exploit, undermine via the patent system, hacking it,

or seeking to prevent spread of knowledge, discovery, invention
by way of proprietarizing information and ideas, via pseudo-truths

error-checking and correction are key to verification/validation

of ideas, proofs required for testing statements and hypothesis

as it relates or grounds to truth and falsity in logical 1s and 0s

(this step and many in proximity are most oftentimes skipped,

not least by scientists who have an ideological domain to patrol,

protect and defend against outside truth challenging their skew)

what is more, it seems this issue of group and individual ID is
also inherent in masquerade, the presentation of viewpoints in
a context of anonymity, and the assumption that intent is what
is presented is thus a claim that may not be verifiable beyond

actions that could involve mimicry or simulate 'shared views'

there could be deception involved, different interpretation, of

oppressors and liberators side-by-side using the same mask
though for different reasons, this internal fracturing de facto

yet the politics not necessarily revealed "externally" even

while 'in group' (such that 1a<->1b, also: 1a<->1b<--2, etc)

discard or discount truth in validating 'shared beliefs', this.

then marketing-and-communications, advertising strategy,
another layer of manipulation- get some photogenic models,
put masks on them, represent the NSA as outsider view, etc.

this is so basic to the dynamic of subversion to be expected,

especially cynicism, if the very things fought against wearing
same masks, hiding within multiple layers reside beside you.

int his way, devilish details, uncooked eggs, anthro-implication
of this incestuous manipulation of the state at the nano-level,

not only of miswired chips, miswired relations, brain cells

normalizing this processing as if on the level versus rigged,

the whole game tilted, racking up points for the subverters

for the sake of goverance and higher truth, morality implicit

for sake of politics and lesser truth, immorality standardized

and made relational, shared lies as if shared truth, if serving
self and others of like ideological mind. that level of corruption.

where it involves in the individual scaled to shared corrupt state

that is the enemy of humans. that loss of control over self

in its relation, service to, and observance of higher truth, not
just that which serves immediate needs in limited parameters,
justifiably superior because it helps self most, damn others.
as language, concepts, works ideologically buttress these
views, 'great works' repeated again and again, to legitimize
beliefs as operational structures minus accounting for their
actual truth in a wider boundary and empirical framework

in this way, money as absolute truth, business philosophy

is as far as it goes-- all that is needed, to determine value
and morality in the ongoing destruction of civilization for
the goals of few at the expense of truth, live, love of many,
including of nature, the future, the past, wisdom, all that is

The Internet is not controlled, i.e., there is a power vacuum
that will soon be filled. There are many, many players and soon
to be more.

i may or may not understand the implications of this view
though find it interesting (as your many other observations).

i correlate it with the framework above, where when nested in
such a context, yields what i consider truth and accuracy of
the ongoing situation in certain dimensions, given perspective
or 'structural viewpoint' - what is observable and out of view.

thus 'order out of chaos' may emerge via takeover even,
perhaps, conquering or conquest or colonization of servers
and services by a given group, imagining a scenario akin to

what has occurred locally by outsiders taking over positions,
management and representation, replacing populations, etc.

i relate the use of 'vacuum' to a particular context, anecdote;

once was given opportunity for art exhibit in gallery, in turn

'electromagnetic assemblage' display installed of artifacts &
data to try to conjure up consciousness and awareness of the
electromagnetic domain. somehow, amongst giant harddrive
from 70s and cobra streetlight fixture and antenna, including

vacuum tube radio, was a vacuum cleaner left by someone

in the gallery. i noted how it would be funny to leave it there,
amidst the other artifacts, as a joke. because it both belongs

in the context as a device yet also is ordinary and everyday,

part of the gallery maintenance and chores, and this added
a missing dimension that was beyond all the seriousness

of trying to convey a viewpoint that already existed within
the normal parameters of the space, when hidden away

when 'on display'. and thus it was revealing something in
its greater depth or significance, both recontextualizing

and being recontextualized by other artifacts, offering up

other perspectives and relations, dimensions, parameters
and i thought it was just quite funny how it exists this way,

not sure if this is equivalent to a trope or something such

and maybe so too, 'the vacuum' of the internet if assumed
to be cleaned of other dimensions, the clean room scenario
as if all that is occurring is surgical based on high-insight
versus laid-out in advance, step by step, a sequence of

traps set up, one to the next, at the infrastructural level,

such that if it is believed a vacuum...oh my, what a joke

The question to be contemplated, if any, is this:
Do you prefer that the competing claims of control over the
Internet be resolved by way of (1) dramatic Balkanization or
by way of (2) making the Internet an organ of world government?

within a certain framework of politics and identity this could

indeed be valid and a basis for relations, insight, etc. though
also potentially bounded by this same structure of analysis

it could be parsed in wide-ranging ways depending on how
these parameters are evaluated and in what terms. how is
it assumed it is not already an instrument of world.gov, etc.

and are 'we' privy to that level of secret information if so, etc.

what is Balkanization from the inside, in its truth, versus as
an external representation of events, from inside and outside

in terms of language and communication. what if the Balkans
are not divided from the human context, nor world government,
and so human governance is shared as is empirical truth, thus

some of these may not be questions at a given level of inquiry
or may not be 'political' relations, divisions as may be framed
by a given viewpoint or identity. can such questions even be
pondered or asked within a particular set of ID boundaries

or might some of it remain unspoken for security reasons

another look at it would be this is the scrim of the state
as movie, projecting dynamics of relativism and political
discord as 'massa confusa' that is the precursor to order;

it could have structural and ideological importance, truth
within certain conditions and be useful for relations, etc.

so perhaps a protocol layer of a higher level language or

representation of programming, details there effecting &
effected by, referencing or calling-up other routines and
functioning from other layers, which helps shape a larger

situation, in its various details and intricacies (such that,
approximately: ~where there is truth there is also value)

securing truth at the individual level, bridging or spanning
this between individuals, individual to individual as group,
and groups between groups, and various individuals and
various groups likewise (nations, citizens cross pollinate
in human terms, value, principles), this as shared identity
where cultural difference and belief may have a spectrum
of possibilities yet truth itself is observed and governs self,

is the basis for value, relations, exchange, group relations

such a story remains unwritten as a shared perspective,
a context for this shared viewpoint has not been secured

within language, it exists outside of it, communications;
ideology rules over this entire domain as insane tyranny

where beliefs become detached from reality, accounting

in this madness, to question, to exchange ideas, views,

in so far as they are not ~money, seems merely a fiction
by comparison to the weight of material power needed to
effect change in the world, between people, via such ideas

if this way, if there is no truth, there is no proof for reason
beyond that which money affords, allowing accounting for,
and uses language to prevent against, via its subversion;
this enronomics the basis for ideological exchange also
between peoples using words as if sign-making enough;

calculations bringing-into-being or conjuring what is real
if only it were believed as readily as those most invested

yet at their core, as with technology: nothing. such that

the spirit of the cellphone viewed superior to the frog, this

a realm of 'makers', mimics, who think they are in control

because they copy and control things not of their own doing
or understanding or origin, yet believed so by this capacity;
it is a fundamental mistake in 'universal belief' that confuses

position with truth. the greatest falsity rises highest prior to
collapse, this part of a cosmic deception since time began

A thought experiment, if needing one: is VoIP a part of the
Internet or is it not, that is do you have two networks in your
home/office or one?

i really don't give a fuck, tbh. it is irrelevant in the parameters

functioned within in my realm. its like lincoln-logs or slinky, in
that they are embedded, captured within massive dynamics

that inform the situations (politics, governance, identity) and
within those frameworks, issues of security and insecurity,

hacking, attacks, remote access to conversations breaking
privacy plus surveillance, yet all of this also accounted for
though not out in the open. if someone wants to take that
info and attempt to blackmail individual against individual,

at some point they may realize it is individual vs civilization

(that is where people are assassinated in due course, even if

idiot hackers who are rummaging through other peoples lives)

note: also do not dismiss its relevance for others, or important
technical questions or considerations or relevance, though the
parameters i relate to are stated as to how it is parsed 0s & 1s

(this is to perhaps attempt to apologize for psychic damage of

conveying such views, harshness it involves when actually it is
about seeking this common framework, friction against ideas
and concepts and ideology part of the process, antagonism is

natural byproduct of education system, institutional brutality

against such modeling, accuracy, thus predisposed to convey
views as only a limited view of single observer can do within a
finite perspective, including biases, faults, errors, prejudices,

though knowingly need to be corrected by others for this and

thus seek to apologize for antagonism that goes along with

this view, though also part of language, communication, not
being able to communicate about it, thus best attempt here,

while flawed, inadequate, insultive, insensitive, though also

on attack against enemies, trying to dismantle false beliefs,
break-through walls of labyrinth, help slay the evil minotaur)