On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 19:40:25 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 1, 2018, 9:20:41 AM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim, are you seriously suggesting that the total and complete surveillance state should be EVEN MORE EXTENSIVE? Are you drunk or something?
Actually, it's more accurate for me to claim that YOU must be drunk. I've merely advocated that technology, in this case smartphones, be useable by people to protect themselves (and others.) But I do so in spite of the possibility that smartphones could be misused by government, not because of that. I said absolutely nothing about the "surveillance state", a term which conveniently you fail to define.
So I have to define "surveillance state" because nobody here is aware of the existence of the surveillance state, especially because this is a (the) crypto anarchist mailing list. Are you trying to troll me Jim? =)
The first electrical burglar alarm was patented in 1852. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Holmes_(inventor) That allowed "surveillance", of a very primitive type, but it was not a part of any "surveillance state".
but the police and the phone companies and the 'smart' phone manufacturers are - parts of the surveillance state.
Smartphones, and even ordinary cell phones before them, had and have security issues. But to argue that ANY use of them, by individuals to protect themselves, somehow becomes part of the "surveillance state" is nonsense.
"a quick 911-call if necessary." <--- isn't that the magical number to call the pigs? And I didn't argue that any use of them is part of the surveillance state - only the system you just proposed which includes sending realtime surveillance data to phone companies.
Jim Bell