one of our tactics is to make things public knowledge - transparency has been seen by our security ppl as 'protection' >>> yup

what can u do when they can even infiltrate thru ur sym card >> taking ur battery out of ur phone aint doin nothin

Cari Machet
NYC 646-436-7795
carimachet@gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.




On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 04:25:05PM -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:33 PM -0600 Troy Benjegerdes
> <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
>
> > The only real defense normal people have is transparency.
>
>       What (the hell) is that supposed to mean?

http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html

> > The only
> > people who can afford privacy are the ones shouting the loudest that
> > we all have an inalienable right to keep shit secret, while they
> > quietly tap our phones, bank accounts, cryptocoin wallets, and new
> > media.
>
>
>       Those criminals may have de facto privacy. And?

The criminals in power have privacy. The rich who can pay have privacy.

Those below the median income have none.

I am inherently suspicious of privacy and anonynmity advocates because they
are at best not realizing the threat model, and at worst are working for
the criminals in power.