Re: [cryptography] To Protect and Infect Slides
Kevin W. Wall:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:10 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
30c3 slides from Jacob Appelbaum:
And you can find his actual prez here: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0w36GAyZIA>
Worth the hour, although I'm sure your blood pressure will go up a few points.
I'm also happy to answer questions in discussion form about the content of the talk and so on. I believe we've now released quite a lot of useful information that is deeply in the public interest. All the best, Jacob
a few observations related to the video presentation: 1) often hear issues about legitimacy of mass surveillance in relation to 'targeted surveillance' as delineator, whereby legitimate targeting is afforded to actual threats to the state and its required security measures that likely involves way more in the realm of reasoning and undocumented information than people are aware of, to determine whether or not a threat exists and if such measures are necessary in terms of state security. thus, surveilling of individuals who are problematic (either as actual foes - aka terrorists, dangerous criminals, spies - or those wrongly-categorized though falling into this same catch-all category) yet where oversight or high fidelity review may not exist and thus reasoning may be weak for who is targeted along with those who are legitimate threats. meaning: in the talk the group or category of 'Muslims' were mentioned as surveillance targets, though perhaps not all of these, yet in relation to profiling, it would suggest mass surveillance could exist in certain communities moreso than in others. in that the individual scales into a group target, the weighting of probability perhaps moving higher in certain demographic characteristics shared as part of a threat model outline. so too, activists against business interests and so on, depending upon how privatized the surveillance model is, what it is being used for, how it is leveraged for political agendas, etc. and so oftentimes in the mainstream viewpoint it tends to be that the targets that tend towards some fraction of 1% of the population are likely legitimate targets (say, 0.00001%) so that, as an example, a US population of 314 million people has around 3,139 actual threats that would justify surveillance measures in terms of their violent activities that threaten to undermine the state or pursue terrorist actions against the population (unless false flag engineered, etc). and here is my contention with this view, and how a category such as 'ethnicity' or 'religion' may indicate there are other potential dynamics that legitimate mass surveillance, and so it may be a fallacy to uphold this perspective, that only some fraction of 1% are justifiable for targeted surveillance and not dragnets over the entire population-- because, what if instead the threat involves an invading force, an occupation, where the opponent tends towards 30% to more than 50% or more, so that it could be 150 million people and those they are related to that require tracking and further analysis. and that this is the more likely threat model, in certain scenarios, depending on how it is calculated. and could also exist as a paradox, where 'both sides' use the same or similar surveillance to track opponents, though with different ends such that the NSA is not a monolithic ideological organization and could be involved in a deception campaign whereby there is a 'sandbox' for a pretend-NSA operating as if the NSA, inside the larger organization and this is the context for issues of who is surveilled, how surveillance is occurring, state- and world-level honey traps, bear traps, monster traps, and so on. in plain sight i think there are conditions of a civil war at world scale and this is the threat model, and there is rotten surveillance that is driven by the corrupt state, and a surrogate or pretend-NSA at the helm, itself corrupted yet also contained, and then another threat model that is monitoring all of this activity via surveillance at the scale of 50% or greater of the population, in great and intricate detail, that remains legitimate. and so, a vast forward strategy yet that is invisible, and a smaller corrupt forward strategy that will be made visible in its corruption. (set(subset)) dynamics. in that this complex approach maps to military strategy of the early into late 20th century, including the aftermath of WWII and politics of Vietnam war in cultural terms extended into the present, and in terms of {superset}, millennia of strategic planning likewise, setting up a false order in order to take it down in an open-source context of Armageddon. 2) it seems bizarre that NSA activities are confined to computer technology and there is yet no mention of behavioral dimensions to hacking, including neurological attacks using em tools and weaponry. in that psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists and others vital information to hacking people who are targeted, to program or force into disrepair. for instance, certain chemicals can enter into the body via food supply and then be triggered via signals and electromagnetic fields, activating them via remote switch. chemicals in food supply then like junk dna that allows such custom targeting at a distance, say via hostile management of infrastructure, beyond normal rules, boundaries. the realm of mindwarfare and psychological war, information operations at the covert level _must be tied to this same NSA infrastructure manipulation if existing and attacking populations, yet why is it disregarded as part of this context, why is the very direct connection between EM tech and EM human physiology disregarded a priori as an attack vector and not dealt with in the human rights context it should exist within by default, if made readily aware that such dynamics are inherent- not anomaly - to this aggressive surveillance, goals of behavior modification, etc. 3) this leads to the issue of how this technology is fielded. if it exists, the quickest and most distribributed, efficient route for an eight-mile distant attack would be the cellular tower infrastructure that already exists. that would turn it from a manual operation with field agents on site or locally, to an issue of remote administration of these tools and their automation, such that any person (tending towards 50% of population model, say) could be attacked, and that it is not a tiny fraction and instead every single device that could be scaled to the highest threat model as need be, and thus whatever tools exist to do this would need to exist in a context of mass surveillance, not individual cases that are few and far between, because if that is not the nature of the actual threat, why would tools be restricted in their use to a less-than-necessary deployment. and thus automated infrastructure deployment seems probable in this regard. 4) in this way, so too, neurological weaponry and behavior modification hacking tools would likely coexist in a similar context if deployed and in use, much more serious than attacking inert tools and equipment. attacking peoples - citizens - nervous systems and minds, driving people into ill health or conditions of psychological/physiological torture via these same technical means, perhaps a sub-branch of NSA or co-use via CIA special programs or other military venture, yet hostile to citizenry, operating in a faulty or infallible threat model, exploited by onesided politics of hidden dictatorship and so on. that level of realism does not yet exist though certainly some measure of these hostile tools exist hidden within the same infrastructure - deployed and leveraged by the corrupt overseers, so when will Snowden or other documents enter into the neurological and other health aspects of hacking, cracking, pwnage, etc. that is, invisible death squads sitting like chess pieces on the city grid, awaiting orders to attack via next hostile moves, &c. ksais ywios wpswz
// forgot to mention this... 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.... the earlier belief, even in context of Arpanet origins... ( "the Internet" (NSA activities) ) when instead, a more realistic scenario in terms of who controls the technical infrastructure, aka the foundation of cyberspace... NSA (the internet) this makes a world of difference, because then national networks and technological development occur 'inside' the framework of NSA and it essentially governs or manages production of equipment, backdoors installed, and if corrupt, loss of law within that same context that can and does served warped political goals, attacking political opponents, dissidents, those against the ruling ideology. technology allowing this. NSA (the internet (countrycodes) ) in this way, a corrupt NSA with dictatorial agenda could have established default control, and enact, develop, extend hidden political organization via secret or overt manipulations that gain and secure, solidify power yet which exist beyond law, 'external governance', even within the state itself NSA is god, essentially. having rooted earth and its inhabitants. // if technical jargon is correct for a non-programmer ...and yet does not observe external truth, adhere to or recognize shared laws of the state, the US constitution, and other agreements that bind the state to its people, in service, versus in exploitation. in this way, state violence could be automated, mechanized against populations that somehow believe the NSA is contained and not the entity doing the containing. like there is an unrecognized role-reversal by the corrupt entity in a power grab related to hidden, secret US coup ywips ispzn wzqko
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....
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. 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? 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? --dan
Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 12:45:55 dan@geer.org pisze:
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....
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. 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?
And the answer to the above is: no. I'll elaborate (Capt. Obvious, but whatever). The possibilities and technologies of connecting and communicating had made such strides during the last 20 years, that we really do not have to limit ourselves to these two suboptimal (to say the least) situations. We can have a decentralized and non- controllable network if we want to, and it can piggy-back on or run within any network that is controlled by the government (not sure about balkanized networks but I guess that would also be doable to some extent). Just use the current "Internet" just as Internet used the telephone system, as infrastructure. The infrastructure was controlled by the government and big telcos -- meh, whatever, we just layered a better network on top. The other way -- and a great one, but a bit harder -- is mesh networking on or as close to the physical level as possible. Just look what these smart cheese- lovers are doing: http://ur1.ca/gdcy5 Think: "we can rebuild the decentralized network, we have the technology" instead of "we're fucked".
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?
Why is it a question that needs answering? -- Pozdr rysiek
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)
// someone has to be repetitious to provide proof-of-concept it is my belief that 'context is everything' applies to the review of these same issues and ideas, especially: location^3 consider issues of mass surveillance and mass deployment of technical means and measures, for saturation potential so that getting to the target is a non-issue, zero cost essentially once installed (the role of infrastructure, resolving such issues by providing a managed platform that readily automate tasks) consider 'integrated surveillance' tools and capabilities in a blackbag context. really think a fleet of a 100 tempest vans exist in every city, or do the economics work against this as a scalable approach and require instead cellular towers or wi-fi antennas as a base for such activities to occur. and if this were possible, would it not be integrated to N-degrees of capability? consider electronic door locks in a context of black bag jobs. what if a remote software command could more easily unlock a car via cellular tower than a person, and invisibly, (this prior to them driving you off the road in autonomous or driverless vehicles, exciting future awaits) so is psychological warfare and other information operations by default assumed to involve teams on the ground or is it potentially seamlessly integrated with existing infrastructure and streamlined as another protocol layer that can or will be deployed as or if needed, in terms of threat escalation and what is legitimated in the given corrupt/illegal approach. if assuming it involves people going from point A to B there is little likelihood of these activities being deployed at the scale of mass surveillance, and yet if infrastructure itself, there is high likelihood or it is probable that they could be made economical and exist as a potential to be used as weapons against populations though may only target a few individuals in the existing context, potentially, thus 0.00001% for more extreme and oppressive measures may be accurate, in that what is hacked becomes the person themselves, say via forced disease triggering or whatnot, as part of this context of hostile surveillance that in active and passive ways could still be deadly, just slow drip, over time, versus out-in-the-open where such attacks could be documented, proven to exist ystsp isozo bxbvi
On 12/31/13, brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com> wrote:
// someone has to be repetitious to provide proof-of-concept
it is my belief that 'context is everything' applies to the review of these same issues and ideas, especially: location^3
consider issues of mass surveillance and mass deployment of technical means and measures, for saturation potential so that getting to the target is a non-issue, zero cost essentially once installed (the role of infrastructure, resolving such issues by providing a managed platform that readily automate tasks)
consider 'integrated surveillance' tools and capabilities in a blackbag context. really think a fleet of a 100 tempest vans exist in every city, or do the economics work against this as a scalable approach and require instead cellular towers or wi-fi antennas as a base for such activities to occur. and if this were possible, would it not be integrated to N-degrees of capability? consider electronic door locks in a context of black bag jobs. what if a remote software command could more easily unlock a car via cellular tower than a person, and invisibly, (this prior to them driving you off the road in autonomous or driverless vehicles, exciting future awaits)
so is psychological warfare and other information operations by default assumed to involve teams on the ground or is it potentially seamlessly integrated with existing infrastructure and streamlined as another protocol layer that can or will be deployed as or if needed, in terms of threat escalation and what is legitimated in the given corrupt/illegal approach. if assuming it involves people going from point A to B there is little likelihood of these activities being deployed at the scale of mass surveillance, and yet if infrastructure itself, there is high likelihood or it is probable that they could be made economical and exist as a potential to be used as weapons against populations though may only target a few individuals in the existing context, potentially, thus 0.00001% for more extreme and oppressive measures may be accurate, in that what is hacked becomes the person themselves, say via forced disease triggering or whatnot, as part of this context of hostile surveillance that in active and passive ways could still be deadly, just slow drip, over time, versus out-in-the-open where such attacks could be documented, proven to exist
ystsp isozo bxbvi
Actually you don't need on-the ground "tempest" vans. I've noticed these strange micro-cells deployed in telephone poles, normally connected to fiber or PSTN networks. Officialy they are used to extend mobile communications range, but I've seen alot nearby giant cell antennas. Can these be used for other purposes? what type of frequencies can these type of equipment suck/spit?. Could these be used for such seamless surveillance strategy? One thing I know. These are high-powered antennas connected to fiber/pstn networks. Attached are fotos of such equipment. Microcell2.jpg is such an example. Microcell2-bridge is a closeup of what seems to be some kind of switch connected to the antenna. What do you think these could be? Maybe we should pay more attention to our telephone poles. Just a thought.
participants (5)
-
brian carroll -
dan＠geer.org -
Jacob Appelbaum -
Johny Sarampo -
rysiek