Re: Julian Assange LiveStream
Well foretold. Disclosure of national security secrets has become a cult as addictive and crippling as non-disclosure, NDA v. leaks. Both suffer excessive secrecy as if wedded in a vainglorious conspiracy to claim to protect and reveal much but carefully dispense only that which buttresses their information and power control, eyeing and emulating one another to guarantee mutual benefits. Neither fully serves the populace, instead disdains consumers, propagandas for product, adopts one another's practices, revolving doors their practitioners, aided and abetted by governments pretending to act on behalf of their subjects. Prosecutors, judges, legislators, executives, lockstep with each other and with their ostensible opponents, especially the governmentally-privileged wealthy, NGOs, journalists and manufactures of weaponry, hardware and software, paid and free. Periodic orchestrated campaigns of Ellsbergs, Mannings, Snowdens, et al, signal breakaway insiders but merely confirm these are standard operating procedures for limited disclosure to boost reputations of disclosers and non-disclosers. The Internet promised a change with free software, free access, free discourse, and immediately became dominated by practitioners of duplicity, openness concealing secrecy, deceptions long established. Witness this very forum and its vanity description on Wikipedia. Or more telling, the Web, Wikimedia and Archive, kissing cousins of Google, SM, aggregators, bots, Tor, Deep Web, all dancing to the tune of TLAs with Terms of Service, privacy policies, redactions, omissions, secure submissions, open source vetting, which baldly disclose cooperation with authorities, trust us even so. This is all well known and belabored, hustled and lipsticked, mea culpa. Still, there are possibilities for avoiding the domination of, and manipulation by, secretkeepers and their complicit opponents. One is to keep away from the most popular and promoted infosec, comsec, techsec, privacy, indeed, sec in all its permuations, especially that associated with natsec -- the civil-military-commercial-NGO occult. Secrecy and leakage, don't believe anything about them, same coin. At 10:05 PM 6/1/2019, you wrote:
No doubt to many this might apply. A common component formative to beginning action perhaps. A feature easily spotted, and often rarely well coached and developed into stronger action and impact. With some certainly becoming tiresome under repeated theatrics, and continuing long tails, trappings, and resources, best left retired for other entrants. To which of any does this apply? You decide.
Regardless, the pace and impact of "top secret" leaks has tapered off, and old publishers now embroiled in petty bickering and legalities.
Clearly a new generation of leakers and publishers is now warranted.
And as always with many would be deathbed revealers knowing the wrong of what they hold yet still chosing immorality of silence.
Anyway, this time around, the encrypted distributed p2p messaging, filesharing data storage, cryptocurrency blockchains, anonymity networks, and even publishers, are much more advanced and ready for such a new wave.
Bring it forth.
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 07:33:45AM -0400, John Young wrote:
Well foretold.
Disclosure of national security secrets has become a cult as addictive and crippling as non-disclosure, NDA v. leaks. Both suffer excessive secrecy as if wedded in a vainglorious conspiracy to claim to protect and reveal much but carefully dispense only that which buttresses their information and power control, eyeing and emulating one another to guarantee mutual benefits.
Neither fully serves the populace, instead disdains consumers, propagandas for product, adopts one another's practices, revolving doors their practitioners, aided and abetted by governments pretending to act on behalf of their subjects. Prosecutors, judges, legislators, executives, lockstep with each other and with their ostensible opponents, especially the governmentally-privileged wealthy, NGOs, journalists and manufactures of weaponry, hardware and software, paid and free.
Periodic orchestrated campaigns of Ellsbergs, Mannings, Snowdens, et al, signal breakaway insiders but merely confirm these are standard operating procedures for limited disclosure to boost reputations of disclosers and non-disclosers.
What are the parameters of a non vain disclosure? For those who intend to do it right, it is our duty to disclose our bound, the rules proclaimed by those ordained, guardian protectors of all righteous commentary. Let us not withhold such vital Soul endearing secrets to that analysis which dares to creep an iota to the right of the zero threshold of this judgement vector.
The Internet promised a change with free software, free access, free discourse, and immediately became dominated by practitioners of duplicity, openness concealing secrecy, deceptions long established. Witness this very forum and its vanity description on Wikipedia.
Or more telling, the Web, Wikimedia and Archive, kissing cousins of Google, SM, aggregators, bots, Tor, Deep Web, all dancing to the tune of TLAs with Terms of Service, privacy policies, redactions, omissions, secure submissions, open source vetting, which baldly disclose cooperation with authorities, trust us even so.
This is all well known and belabored, hustled and lipsticked, mea culpa. Still, there are possibilities for avoiding the domination of, and manipulation by, secretkeepers and their complicit opponents. One is to keep away from the most popular and promoted infosec, comsec, techsec, privacy, indeed, sec in all its permuations, especially that associated with natsec -- the civil-military-commercial-NGO occult.
Secrecy and leakage, don't believe anything about them, same coin.
At 10:05 PM 6/1/2019, you wrote:
No doubt to many this might apply. A common component formative to beginning action perhaps. A feature easily spotted, and often rarely well coached and developed into stronger action and impact. With some certainly becoming tiresome under repeated theatrics, and continuing long tails, trappings, and resources, best left retired for other entrants. To which of any does this apply? You decide.
Regardless, the pace and impact of "top secret" leaks has tapered off, and old publishers now embroiled in petty bickering and legalities.
Clearly a new generation of leakers and publishers is now warranted.
And as always with many would be deathbed revealers knowing the wrong of what they hold yet still chosing immorality of silence.
Anyway, this time around, the encrypted distributed p2p messaging, filesharing data storage, cryptocurrency blockchains, anonymity networks, and even publishers, are much more advanced and ready for such a new wave.
Bring it forth.
Forgo "disclosure" and "non-disclosure," NGO and NDA; The "non" implicates, is misleading, moderates and dilutes opposition, is downright deceptive. So too is "dis." And "redact" and censor and secretkeep. Those who non, dis, redact, censor and secretkeep brag of knowing more than they tell, vaunt themselves as power games riggers in confession and appeal to their cult. They demean and stigmatize those "who go too far" in unfettered revelation, "dumping" and failing to abide the rules of rigging. Tell what you know or shut the fuck up, the latter much superior. Lurking is the way to go. Heed this, telling is lying. Leaks lie exactly as do secrets.
What are the parameters of a non vain disclosure?
For those who intend to do it right, it is our duty to disclose our bound, the rules proclaimed by those ordained, guardian protectors of all righteous commentary.
Let us not withhold such vital Soul endearing secrets to that analysis which dares to creep an iota to the right of the zero threshold of this judgement vector.
participants (2)
-
John Young -
Zenaan Harkness