Re: Whether To Design Open Source Public Records Equipment
I sent this reply personally to Punk but am returning the thread to the list per Zenaan's request elsewhere. Please express a differing opinion from Zenaan's if you have one. On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 10:18 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:34:48 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
But why are you dissing Jim's project when there are already surveillance cameras everywhere, and cops are beating up journalists as we email?
because his 'project' will change nothing and it's just propaganda to make 'technology' look good. You can record cops with already existing retardphones. It changes nothing.
Have you tried this? The information is usually lost. The cop orders you to erase it, or even destroys the phone; I emailed myself some recordings once and they disappeared from my email. The current activism appears to be working better because people throughout american culture are resisting those things, and there are too many events for authorities to handle. and Jim has been spamming the list with his techno bullshit It sounds like you're really frustrated and discouraged around the presence of technological business support, without overt acknowledgement and consideration of all the harm it causes. I've been handling that too, and realizing others hold it is cause for me to think on it. Cecilia told me Jim has been through years of prison for resisting abuse of power by authorities. Some of us want to sousveil the authorities, and we are likely to be misled in some ways because those authorities have been surveiling and influencing us for years. In such a situation those confining you can try to produce conflict between you and others, to prevent collaboration or harm you. It is hard to learn how we might be wrong when so heavily criticized. It seems dangerous to me to associate our opinions of what people did with the people who did those things. Such a habit could easily disrupt a community exposed to false rumors.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:43:33 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Some of us want to sousveil the authorities,
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in every cop's bathroom... But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that records everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras. As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually) that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
What you say lands to me as changing my words to similar ones a little. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 2:05 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:43:33 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Some of us want to sousveil the authorities,
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in every cop's bathroom...
I mean recording their public presence for accountability as public figures, not violating their pricacy. Sorry for the obscure "sousveil" word. Got it from wikipedia long ago.
But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that records everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras.
It sounds like this is dangerous and should be discussed before actually producing. Are you able to relate around making something that could do that respectful of others? Maybe we could even influence present-day cell phones and digital cameras somehow. It is primarily for when your life is imminently threatened, which is neither all the time nor everywhere and could theoretically be paired with a call to 911. As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually)
that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
The difference is that I like consensus, so it is only okay if _absolutely_everybody_visible_ by it says that it is okay. I was trying to mention providing it when it is specifically requested by a community. It sounds like there's value around the device that prevents the operation of nearby cameras too.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:59:57 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in every cop's bathroom...
I mean recording their public presence for accountability as public figures, not violating their pricacy.
I wasn't being sarcastic. So again, surveill the authorities in any way you wish - they don't have any 'right to privacy'. Actually the authorities should be beaten to death. They don't have any right all. They forfeited their rights long ago,
Sorry for the obscure "sousveil" word. Got it from wikipedia long ago.
dont worry, I know what it means
But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that records everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras.
It sounds like this is dangerous and should be discussed before actually producing. Are you able to relate around making something that could do that respectful of others? Maybe we could even influence present-day cell phones and digital cameras somehow.
It is primarily for when your life is imminently threatened, which is neither all the time nor everywhere and could theoretically be paired with a call to 911.
....call to what?
As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually)
that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
The difference is that I like consensus, so it is only okay if _absolutely_everybody_visible_ by it says that it is okay.
That\s good. So it turns out that whetehr it's OK or not to surveill people has nothing to do with 'public property' or even 'private property' and evenything to do with individual consent.
I was trying to mention providing it when it is specifically requested by a community.
It sounds like there's value around the device that prevents the operation of nearby cameras too.
Indeed. That would be an actual cypherpunk project. The pixel clock rate trick is clever, but I doubt it's practical. It can be countered by RF shielding of the camera probably. It would be better to point something like an IR laser at the camera and destroy the sensor. Question is, how do to that without getting caught? What about a microwave beam? Could that fry any unshielded electronic device?
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:33 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:59:57 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in
every
cop's bathroom...
I mean recording their public presence for accountability as public figures, not violating their pricacy.
I wasn't being sarcastic. So again, surveill the authorities in any way you wish - they don't have any 'right to privacy'. Actually the authorities should be beaten to death. They don't have any right all. They forfeited their rights long ago,
Thanks, sorry, stuck in banter-mode.
But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that
records
everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras.
It sounds like this is dangerous and should be discussed before actually producing. Are you able to relate around making something that could do that respectful of others? Maybe we could even influence present-day cell phones and digital cameras somehow.
It is primarily for when your life is imminently threatened, which is neither all the time nor everywhere and could theoretically be paired with a call to 911.
....call to what?
Another error on my part. Are you in Russia? 911 is an emergency dispatch number in USA. It works on every phone and immediately calls a local dispatcher who sees your location and sends police, medical, and fire authorities while talking with you. Jim mentioned this in his original proposal. There'd be no way to prevent other coders from removing such a possible feature, but most people aren't coders.
As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually)
that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
The difference is that I like consensus, so it is only okay if _absolutely_everybody_visible_ by it says that it is okay.
That\s good. So it turns out that whetehr it's OK or not to surveill people has nothing to do with 'public property' or even 'private property' and evenything to do with individual consent.
Sounds reasonable to me. Your thoughts? And I'd only want people using guns on citizens or setting their laws to be people who would consent to that.
I was trying to
mention providing it when it is specifically requested by a community.
It sounds like there's value around the device that prevents the operation of nearby cameras too.
Indeed. That would be an actual cypherpunk project. The pixel clock rate trick is clever, but I doubt it's practical. It can be countered by RF shielding of the camera probably.
Probably, and coverup noise could be added, the clock jittered, but not completely nor cheaply nor soon for most cameras, and you can't effectively shield a lens itself. You can also amplify signals by adding more antennas or on the receiving side summing the spectrogram over a long time window, even in time with the period of the signal like with van eck phreaking, which would actually let you recover the image the camera is seeing. Summing over time is how radio astronomers examine distant nebulas and pulsars. You can also collect and send more signal with a well-positioned satellite dish; people even mount these on stepper motors to cover an area. But I haven't had opportunity to learn about and test such things like likely others here have. You probably know this all already. It's probably easier to take out all the electronics with an EMP but that doesn't need any software, and software is what I'm used to being familiar with.
It would be better to point something like an IR laser at the camera and destroy the sensor. Question is, how do to that without getting caught?
Ask someone already targeted to do it for you? What about a microwave beam? Could that fry any unshielded
electronic device?
I'm not prepared for you to ask that; it reminds me of helping people learn possibly-illegal things and getting in trouble for it. The word "any" got me all confused. Do you mean for cameras? Do you mean microwave ovens or microwave signals over 300mhz? The pixel clocks were under 25mhz, but cpus obviously go that high. Maybe I should think more about why you say the things you say, to hold a better role in a conversation.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:05:00 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
a call to 911.
....call to what?
Another error on my part. Are you in Russia?
no, I'm in argentina. I think the local nazi scum copied the americunt scum and now you can 'call 911' here as well, like in hollywood!
911 is an emergency dispatch number in USA. It works on every phone and immediately calls a local dispatcher who sees your location and sends police,
yeah, so, the anti-police-surveillance device automatically calls...the police?
medical, and fire authorities while talking with you. Jim mentioned this in his original proposal.
yeah, further proof that the idea makes little sense.
It would be better to point something like an IR laser at the camera and destroy the sensor. Question is, how do to that without getting caught?
Ask someone already targeted to do it for you?
Ha. That doesn't sound like a solution. We are all already targeted by 'mass surveillance'. So the question remains, how to destroy cameras without being 'surveilled'.
What about a microwave beam? Could that fry any unshielded
electronic device?
I'm not prepared for you to ask that; it reminds me of helping people learn possibly-illegal things and getting in trouble for it.
yeah, that's antother problem. Discussing this in public only gives more information to the enemy. But wait, we're using the arpanet, and the whole point of the arpanet is collecting this kind of information...
The word "any" got me all confused. Do you mean for cameras?
any spying device
Do you mean microwave ovens or microwave signals over 300mhz? The pixel clocks were under 25mhz, but cpus obviously go that high.
I was hinting at the fact that shorter wavelenghts are easier to focus and direct against whatever you're trying to interfere with.
Maybe I should think more about why you say the things you say, to hold a better role in a conversation.
On Friday, June 12, 2020, 11:06:01 AM PDT, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:43:33 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Some of us want to sousveil the authorities,
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in every cop's bathroom...
> But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that records everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras. > As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually) that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh? You apparently don't realize that when government does that surveillance, it generally only uses that data for the detriment of a citizen. If the information collected is embarrassing to the government itself, that information doesn't usually see the light of day. I want to see that pattern changed. Jim Bell
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:55:46PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020, 11:06:01 AM PDT, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:43:33 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Some of us want to sousveil the authorities,
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in every cop's bathroom...
> But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that records everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras.
> As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually) that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
You apparently don't realize that when government does that surveillance, it generally only uses that data for the detriment of a citizen. If the information collected is embarrassing to the government itself, that information doesn't usually see the light of day. I want to see that pattern changed. Jim Bell
It seems that the ability for randos in public to be able to whip out their 'tard-phone and record what's in front of them, is producing a few useful 'exposures of problems'. To this end, an app, "Record and duplicate" could, with one button, and "all at the same time": - begin recording - enable ad-hoc wireless - compress the recording to a size "suitable for broadcast to ad-hoc neighbours" - work out (/ roughly calc) max simultaneous incoming streams this device can support ("record my peers" to back up their streams) - preference and/or randomize if too many simultaneous "incoming backup streams" - build a list of peers - start sending my stream to some number of peers ("for backup") - if extra bandwidth available, forward streams i.e. act as a distance bridge/ repeater (this may need nodes, as in/like the bittorrent protocol) to share information about peers they are aware of (e.g. node closeness based on signal strength) With such an 'on-demand' app, The Authorities may have a harder time getting rid of "problematic" recordings. If that became a real and ongoing probem for the deep state swamp, The Authorities would then lean on Google to "do more evil" and auto remove or disable the app during relevant times and locations - which would be useful for showing folks they do not own their phones...
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 7:56 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020, 11:06:01 AM PDT, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:55:46PM +0000, jim bell wrote: punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:43:33 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Some of us want to sousveil the authorities,
well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in every
cop's bathroom...
But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that records
everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your cameras.
As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually)
that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
You apparently don't realize that when government does that
surveillance, it generally only uses that data for the detriment of a citizen. If the information collected is embarrassing to the government itself, that information doesn't usually see the light of day.
I want to see that pattern changed. Jim Bell
It seems that the ability for randos in public to be able to whip out their 'tard-phone and record what's in front of them, is producing a few useful 'exposures of problems'.
To this end, an app, "Record and duplicate" could, with one button, and "all at the same time":
- begin recording
- enable ad-hoc wireless
- compress the recording to a size "suitable for broadcast to ad-hoc neighbours"
- work out (/ roughly calc) max simultaneous incoming streams this device can support ("record my peers" to back up their streams)
- preference and/or randomize if too many simultaneous "incoming backup streams"
- build a list of peers
- start sending my stream to some number of peers ("for backup")
- if extra bandwidth available, forward streams i.e. act as a distance bridge/ repeater (this may need nodes, as in/like the bittorrent protocol) to share information about peers they are aware of (e.g. node closeness based on signal strength)
With such an 'on-demand' app, The Authorities may have a harder time getting rid of "problematic" recordings. If that became a real and ongoing probem for the deep state swamp, The Authorities would then lean on Google to "do more evil" and auto remove or disable the app during relevant times and locations - which would be useful for showing folks they do not own their phones...
You're on the same page as me here. I like your design and I'm pretty sure we can solve the google problem separately as you recommended on the thread I cried to you on. I guess I like sticking to thread topics to organize things, dunno. Would you be interested in working on such an app?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:55:46 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020, 11:06:01 AM PDT, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
> As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually) that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?
You apparently don't realize that when government does that surveillance, it generally only uses that data for the detriment of a citizen. If the information collected is embarrassing to the government itself, that information doesn't usually see the light of day. I want to see that pattern changed.
I think the pattern should be changed to one in which there's no government surveillance and no goverment. That's easier said than done of course, but I think 'your idea' of crowdfunding a system of self-defense against the state would be a better tactic thant wearing 'black boxes'. Furthermore, taking into account that the state is protected by cops and soldiers, then self-defense against the state entails the extermination of cops and soldiers - who are easier and cheaper targets than their bosses.
Jim Bell
participants (4)
-
jim bell -
Karl -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness