Assange believes too late for any pervasive privacy
Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic. https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/ Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange on #RT10 panel Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 18:13 Edited time: 11 Dec, 2015 03:16 Humanity has lost its battle for privacy and must now learn to live in a world where mass surveillance is becoming cheaper for governments to implement, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said during a panel dedicated to RT’s 10th anniversary. Assange addressed the panel on security and surveillance hosted by RT in central Moscow on Thursday via videoconference from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has remained holed up for the last three years in order to avoid extradition to Sweden. When offered a chance to comment on the session’s topic – “Security or Surveillance: Can the right to privacy and effective anti-terror security coexist in the digital age?” – the whistleblower asked the moderator, and host of The Big Picture Show on RT American, Thom Hartmann: “How long have you got, Tom?” implying he has a lot to say on the issue. But it was Assange’s only joke during the event, as his reply turned out to be gravely serious and in many respects depressing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rFNQ8ytnE “In thinking about this issue I want to take quite a different position, perhaps, from what you would expect me to have taken… I think that we should understand that the game for privacy is gone. It’s gone. The mass surveillance is here to stay,” he said. Mass surveillance is already being implemented not only by major world powers, but also by some medium and small-sized countries, he added. “The Five Eyes intelligence arrangement [of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US]… is so evasive in terms of mass surveillance of domestic and international telecommunications that while some experts can achieve practical privacy for themselves for limited number of operations… it’s gone for the rest of the populations,” the WikiLeaks founder stressed. International terrorists are among those “experts” capable of making their communications invisible for security agencies, he added. Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,” Assange said. “The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months, because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,” he explained. Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added. The focus should now switch from defending privacy to understanding what kind of society will be built in these new, changed conditions, he said. The WikiLeaks founder reminded the panel of the historic examples of East Germany and other societies, in which people adapted to living under the scrutiny of the authorities. “If you look at societal behavior in very conformist, small, isolated societies with reduced social spaces – like Sweden, South Korea, Okinawa in Japan and North Korea – then you’ll see that society adapts. Everyone becomes incredibly timid, they start to use code words; use a lot of subtext to try and sneak out your controversial views,” he said. According to Assange, the modern world is currently moving “towards that kind of a society.” Privacy is among values “that simply are unsustainable… in the face of the reality of technological change; the reality of the deep state with a military-industrial complex and the reality of Islamic terrorism, which is legitimizing that sector in a way that it’s behaving,” he stressed. Assange encouraged those present on the panel as well as the general public to “get on the other side of the debate where it’s going” and stop holding on to privacy. The panel discussion was part of an RT conference titled 'Information, messages, politics:The shape-shifting powers of today's world.' The meeting brought together politicians, foreign policy experts and media executives from across the globe, among them former director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn, the Green Party’s Jill Stein and former vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, Willy Wimmer.
On December 11, 2015 12:48:12 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic.
Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange
Jeezus, wtf! Julian has either finally lost his mind from living in exile or someone has gotten to him. What is this defeatist fuckery?! Of course we learn to adapt while living under a surveillance, militaristic police state - while we use and make the tech that pushes back, and will ultimately take it back. The very fact that the recent atrocities committed by crazy religious extremists and other mentally unstable people (including the latest delusional asswipe to shoot up a woman's health clinic in my gun-obsessed country) were able to be planned and carried out right under their noses proves that they're not ubiquitous. They just like to project that image so we will self-censor and cower in fear, as Julian seems to be buying into. Fuck That, I say! Part of it is just practicality: the Digital Stasi collects so much information that they can't process it all in a timely manner. Since they claim to hoard all encrypted communications (as though they don't hoard everything anyway), using existing encryption and other strategies while we develop something better will keep these pissant spies busy for quite some time. I'm not a ter'rist, not doing anything particularly interesting or illegal, don't really have much I care to hide... and that's exactly why the fucking government is not allowed to read my email and track my every move. They're proven that their attempt at constant and total surveillance is useless for keeping "the homeland" (what a fucking nazi phrase) safe, time and again. They're the ones we need protection from anyway. Adapt to survive: yes. Always! But advising that their cancerous surveillance is malignant, that it is too late to stop it, is utter bullshit. I refuse. -S
on #RT10 panel Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 18:13 Edited time: 11 Dec, 2015 03:16
Humanity has lost its battle for privacy and must now learn to live in a world where mass surveillance is becoming cheaper for governments to implement, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said during a panel dedicated to RT’s 10th anniversary.
Assange addressed the panel on security and surveillance hosted by RT in central Moscow on Thursday via videoconference from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has remained holed up for the last three years in order to avoid extradition to Sweden.
When offered a chance to comment on the session’s topic – “Security or Surveillance: Can the right to privacy and effective anti-terror security coexist in the digital age?” – the whistleblower asked the moderator, and host of The Big Picture Show on RT American, Thom Hartmann: “How long have you got, Tom?” implying he has a lot to say on the issue.
But it was Assange’s only joke during the event, as his reply turned out to be gravely serious and in many respects depressing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rFNQ8ytnE
“In thinking about this issue I want to take quite a different position, perhaps, from what you would expect me to have taken… I think that we should understand that the game for privacy is gone. It’s gone. The mass surveillance is here to stay,” he said.
Mass surveillance is already being implemented not only by major world powers, but also by some medium and small-sized countries, he added.
“The Five Eyes intelligence arrangement [of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US]… is so evasive in terms of mass surveillance of domestic and international telecommunications that while some experts can achieve practical privacy for themselves for limited number of operations… it’s gone for the rest of the populations,” the WikiLeaks founder stressed.
International terrorists are among those “experts” capable of making their communications invisible for security agencies, he added.
Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,” Assange said.
“The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months, because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,” he explained.
Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added.
The focus should now switch from defending privacy to understanding what kind of society will be built in these new, changed conditions, he said.
The WikiLeaks founder reminded the panel of the historic examples of East Germany and other societies, in which people adapted to living under the scrutiny of the authorities.
“If you look at societal behavior in very conformist, small, isolated societies with reduced social spaces – like Sweden, South Korea, Okinawa in Japan and North Korea – then you’ll see that society adapts. Everyone becomes incredibly timid, they start to use code words; use a lot of subtext to try and sneak out your controversial views,” he said.
According to Assange, the modern world is currently moving “towards that kind of a society.”
Privacy is among values “that simply are unsustainable… in the face of the reality of technological change; the reality of the deep state with a military-industrial complex and the reality of Islamic terrorism, which is legitimizing that sector in a way that it’s behaving,” he stressed.
Assange encouraged those present on the panel as well as the general public to “get on the other side of the debate where it’s going” and stop holding on to privacy.
The panel discussion was part of an RT conference titled 'Information, messages, politics:The shape-shifting powers of today's world.' The meeting brought together politicians, foreign policy experts and media executives from across the globe, among them former director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn, the Green Party’s Jill Stein and former vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, Willy Wimmer.
On 12/11/15, Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
I'm not a ter'rist, not doing anything particularly interesting or illegal, don't really have much I care to hide... and that's exactly why the fucking government is not allowed to read my email and track my every move.
"I don't have to be doing anything wrong to want my privacy."
I refuse.
So do I! <scare quotes>Beware! We are breaking the first rule of non compliance. What's the first rule of non compliance? Do NOT talk about non compliance! But what's the rule - only want to know how to not comply in a compliant way?! Listen, you don't get it do you - I just gave you the first damn rule. But that sounded like a freedom of speech rule and on the vector of freedom of speech your rule's at a rather distasteful end? Fecwha?! What the fuck are you smoking!?!#! It's a mathema... [!!SLAP!!] [!!POW!!]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2015 03:38 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange on #RT10 panel
[ ... ]
while some experts can achieve practical privacy for themselves for limited number of operations… it’s gone for the rest of the populations,” the WikiLeaks founder stressed.
[ ... ]
The WikiLeaks founder reminded the panel of the historic examples of East Germany and other societies, in which people adapted to living under the scrutiny of the authorities.
[ etc. ] Well yeah, he's only stating the obvious: Pervasive networked computing is here, it's growing, and historical concepts of 'privacy' are just that, historical. But in the context of the show, his comments focus on the archaic paradigm of "privacy" as something that exists naturally and is violated when State actors pry into the private affairs of individuals. That's a narrow viewpoint, distorted by an increasingly irrelevant context. Today, State actors are only one group of "privacy violators," alongside commercial interests and the general public itself. The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a world of "networked everything." The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other, and the guards: The guards do have a better view, but their powers of observation are no longer exclusive. Secrets that could once be kept until after their exposure could make no difference are now breaking open before the protected operations are completed: http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/SHB.cambridge.061014.pptx CPunks will recall Cryptome's ongoing Eyeball series, and of course, the Total Poindexter Awareness project: Early examples of open source intelligence collection /and/ reporting directed against the wardens of our modern Panopticon. Today, projects like CopWatch are "watching the watchers" and reporting to an audience large enough to inconvenience our Panopticon's owners. In the last few days we have seen random nobodies manage to save and re-publish multiple eyewitness accounts of a staged 'terrorist' attack, directly contradicting the propaganda narrative the event was staged to support. The availability of more and better political intelligence formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially. This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil uprisings inside its own borders, again in full view of interested members of the general public. I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to. Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the Interet, not so much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-RbGZBnBI :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWav+0AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LuTAP/j7Lna3XmlVsVbPxnX8pSu/K nyud+fsJspwH1DN7C0PI/I9TtN6y0RoSoyCa4DIAkYU1bjgrrqeUj95veI4w40NM K1OuXZp4VlLuia/fKZ1LAZEGlQo1y9HkDAEaTokSMr1HY3JODl8aGjYYIwH9xBBo xEDKqeztEB/tR3lPKRuMU2c2D5y9tmst47C+/8cQuW996A2ZlhDNaJuctZSI+sPT d3c4YBwed6g6RQFiDWGZZpN96jTQGVPG7K6wRRFoTu5HfIbh2JVMO6ZTuNCiaNuG WCduTRgGpZ0XdYZ3d5q82WDEjNU/1EPriabPPBV8ZWRcXjro2kWVho5FuvkcEgpV PVkxEq5W+hzUlb8yTJaXQpVAV6vbnQF/Fex/DQ0SXiwHk4VFUE4YuBs+qJ9+azwt rgahJzvvsRadmSVkZUArciNV0l7OVlMkdfUm6umr0nIbdxHzF8IBF5VedtECkiEy 2H9vGB3qxewX2kyvc4oPqWL/EPDn8XvaPXTJOIE0SpOvPAQAIC7Xv8FpHNIS+LyT 5EjAXQ7T+KvFCDmfduBy1Uuiwo6gwxU8h/oQJPw6mswaATZvH410ffUZsDYwRgE7 1n23MkohySJ2ZYXABifKeEfkvcnNj4dYMCumiNrW076Ms1WobkpcMHLKh1VqsdD8 iGALaZ3rJ3VxVP2Ipjfy =40o9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On December 11, 2015 9:00:54 AM Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to.
No. Just because my private thoughts may not be considered special or out of the ordinary does not mean you or anyone else has the right to know what they are unless I give you permission. Which leads to:
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
People who grew up with the Internet... Do you mean the vapid idiots who willingly post every detail of their entire fucking lives on Failbook and fart out every insignificant, nonsensical thought in 140 character-blocks of uselessness? We, the Old Farts who helped build the place, wish you'd clean your room and take better care of things, or we'll be changing the locks. -S
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2015 12:13 PM, Shelley wrote:
On December 11, 2015 9:00:54 AM Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to.
No. Just because my private thoughts may not be considered special or out of the ordinary does not mean you or anyone else has the right to know what they are unless I give you permission.
The power to give and withhold permission for others to see you varies with circumstances. In an environment where this power is inherently weak or intermittent, you are "in the game" whether you want to be or not; the only alternative is to isolate yourself from resources native to the privacy-hostile environment. Most of the participants in the privacy-hostile networked world consider the resources found there indispensable. However, to whatever extent you participate in an environment where arbitrary enforcement of personal decisions about "privacy" is often impossible, a purely defensive game is most likely a long term losing strategy for society at large: The practical advantages of participating in the networked world far outweigh the perceived and, possibly, the actual harm from "loss of privacy." Only a few atypical individuals will be able to manage their affairs so that the advantages of "strong privacy protections" outweigh the costs of compensating for lost access to resources.
Which leads to:
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
People who grew up with the Internet... Do you mean the vapid idiots who willingly post every detail of their entire fucking lives on Failbook and fart out every insignificant, nonsensical thought in 140 character-blocks of uselessness?
The vapid idiots don't interest me, except perhaps as a study in herd behavior. (I find that VERY interesting...) I mean everybody: The morons you mention; the clever ones who pump social and economic iron with their lookityboxes and 23 WiFi enabled devices in arm's reach; the smart ones who use the Internet as a University, storefront and intelligence collection asset; the brilliant batshit crazy ones whose most contagious ideas occasionally spread like prairie brushfires.
We, the Old Farts who helped build the place, wish you'd clean your room and take better care of things, or we'll be changing the locks.
Tell me about it: Those Old Farts were early adopters, because they happened to take an unnatural interest in computers. So a large faction among them are capable of understanding and implementing network security and making rational decisions about disclosures of their activities and data to 3rd parties. These folks, and the few /honest/ professionals in related fields, are the only thing that keeps the Internet from clogging up with shit from end to end and falling apart. Well, at least we have mostly kept it from falling apart. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWaw/OAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LOx8P/jEHWGDCUXcSxrKMSCP9VGyN mjQd1onnYce/y7rh2bF34rTj48XjBVyIjTk1VvU1NCgf7AUNC0b9m2KbzyUtAkDs G1WWcbDRUGBDUFzFlRDJY1OFZBMzjgm+TDSxwaNwWfUNgn6YZmIZFky03HtJL4fY zAyykfVeKm7I8S8m8EX5WzNL2qLmXg1x93kt+Kool4V4oQcZ2X7PxlWkwbf5n3jq i/VlE8mkFURuv6Oe8tSnHSt0QV2StuGD2il8sBwi0kl7xq7HndP3WXbMFMXGcmCn uQ+CSzE1+AtP77aSARMrP8rzQczeUjf1ukkY7RaVrd+2bHSyzxW2AzybOFu4WyYd R8kVo1aHKJhdJb+rdtEOwhoyv2ABlphZWdhjP3YUchzy5ppYBTc1NqK7O5Im1VkH ZqkHL4SysGKtrjnDEiQIGrESmUyigDH30zRoDHGIXGr4oQ2849aRWPuMK+c5iuuc vFd4iGhRgtVih6w04On+0V9UnOehiV2IggoUPBHARn7KuYALq7aXWtVD5+KwsbCF zWJtGfnT9M8EUfSywOGf+5B4+Vafe3D5X9ZdkpIdk2Wvsy5kHHMImJqagSyy5SBK ljpFS2K1o6beahezyRNYX6MMgC2IfmCvYsPkDtSYbtfUQiFKr3nXpPCMn72eZG+B RPQSmZHjXwgxQtHNMpaV =9EqG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On December 11, 2015 10:10:21 AM Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
The power to give and withhold permission for others to see you varies with circumstances.
you are "in the game" whether you want to be or not;
True, unfortunately.
the only alternative is to isolate yourself from resources native to the privacy-hostile environment.
False. Offense is often one of the best defenses. Just one example: the data scraping and collating scum like Intellius and their ilk, from whose talons we cannot escape. In such cases, it is better to pollute their data pool with garbage so it is of little value to them and we retain privacy by obfuscation. I've made sure that Intellius alone has three different profiles on me including varying ages, birthdates and backgrounds, and good luck to the marketing and profiling scum in discerning which - if any - is the real one.
The practical advantages of participating in the networked world far outweigh the perceived and, possibly, the actual harm from "loss of privacy." Only a few atypical individuals will be able to manage their affairs so that the advantages of "strong privacy protections" outweigh the costs of compensating for lost access to resources.
I find absolutely no benefit in allowing Fuckerberg's empire of suck to acquire my data, so I prevent it in every way possible. I don't use Google anything, but I know my emails get indexed and data-raped when I'm forced to correspond with people who use their "free" gmail. There is no way to avoid every avenue of privacy violation, but it is possible to minimize it and not make it easy for the bastards.
Those Old Farts were early adopters, because they happened to take an unnatural interest in computers. So a large faction among them are capable of understanding and implementing network security and making rational decisions about disclosures of their activities and data to 3rd parties.
Yes, and we know there is no closing the door after the data has gotten out so it is best to restrict and control access as best we can.
These folks, and the few /honest/ professionals in related fields, are the only thing that keeps the Internet from clogging up with shit from end to end and falling apart. Well, at least we have mostly kept it from falling apart.
We're not doing a very good job, I fear. But I live so much of my life online, (which is why I am fiercely protective of my right to control my PII when I see fit), I'm not going to acquiescence to zero-privacy as the norm just because "everyone else is doing it." There are billions of people on this planet who believe in nonsensical things; it surely doesn't make them right. -S
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to have the password(s). Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can watch the guards. Thank you very much.
and the guards: The guards do have a better view, but their powers of observation are no longer exclusive.
...yeah, 'better view' is somewhat more accurate.
Secrets that could once be kept until after their exposure could make no difference are now breaking open before the protected operations are completed:
http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/SHB.cambridge.061014.pptx
sorry, not bothering with pptx, whatever that is.
CPunks will recall Cryptome's ongoing Eyeball series, and of course, the Total Poindexter Awareness project: Early examples of open source intelligence collection /and/ reporting directed against the wardens of our modern Panopticon. Today, projects like CopWatch are "watching the watchers" and reporting to an audience large enough to inconvenience our Panopticon's owners. In the last few days we have seen random nobodies manage to save and re-publish multiple eyewitness accounts of a staged 'terrorist' attack, directly contradicting the propaganda narrative the event was staged to support.
The availability of more and better political intelligence formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all communications will come handy, don't you think?
again in full view of interested members of the general public.
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to.
Sorry, that's not the point at all? The problem with people reading your 'private' mail or your mind is that it that it enables them to attack you way more efficiently. We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about the sickest nazis on the planet doing it. Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you mentioned have raised generations of clueless young retards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-RbGZBnBI
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWav+0AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LuTAP/j7Lna3XmlVsVbPxnX8pSu/K nyud+fsJspwH1DN7C0PI/I9TtN6y0RoSoyCa4DIAkYU1bjgrrqeUj95veI4w40NM K1OuXZp4VlLuia/fKZ1LAZEGlQo1y9HkDAEaTokSMr1HY3JODl8aGjYYIwH9xBBo xEDKqeztEB/tR3lPKRuMU2c2D5y9tmst47C+/8cQuW996A2ZlhDNaJuctZSI+sPT d3c4YBwed6g6RQFiDWGZZpN96jTQGVPG7K6wRRFoTu5HfIbh2JVMO6ZTuNCiaNuG WCduTRgGpZ0XdYZ3d5q82WDEjNU/1EPriabPPBV8ZWRcXjro2kWVho5FuvkcEgpV PVkxEq5W+hzUlb8yTJaXQpVAV6vbnQF/Fex/DQ0SXiwHk4VFUE4YuBs+qJ9+azwt rgahJzvvsRadmSVkZUArciNV0l7OVlMkdfUm6umr0nIbdxHzF8IBF5VedtECkiEy 2H9vGB3qxewX2kyvc4oPqWL/EPDn8XvaPXTJOIE0SpOvPAQAIC7Xv8FpHNIS+LyT 5EjAXQ7T+KvFCDmfduBy1Uuiwo6gwxU8h/oQJPw6mswaATZvH410ffUZsDYwRgE7 1n23MkohySJ2ZYXABifKeEfkvcnNj4dYMCumiNrW076Ms1WobkpcMHLKh1VqsdD8 iGALaZ3rJ3VxVP2Ipjfy =40o9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2015 02:25 PM, juan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined... A highly productive "office worker's desk" that fits in a small tote bag has its uses as well.
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to have the password(s).
Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can watch the guards. Thank you very much.
Just for starters check out CopWatch, referenced in my earlier post. We might also factor in a half dozen or so investigative journalism outlets, document distribution sites like Cryptome and Public Intelligence, one's news aggregators of choice, access to foreign press outlets, various spook watching sites, the mass of raw data contributed by Manning, Snowden et al... The Internet is billions of people, interacting through the world's first many-to-many communications medium. The "Web 2.0" buzzword denotes a real thing: Millions of users as content creators and content promoters, the appearance (as predicted) of swarming behaviors on the networks with social and economic impacts in the real world, smart mobs, pathologically stupid mobs, etc. etc.
Secrets that could once be kept until after their exposure could make no difference are now breaking open before the protected operations are completed:
http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/SHB.cambridge.061014.ppt x
sorry, not bothering with pptx, whatever that is.
Micro$oft's latest and greatest incarnation of PowerPoint. Works in Open / Libre Office, and I can't be bothered to convert the file to ASCII art for security purposes...
The availability of more and better political intelligence formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
- From this I can only you don't take any interest in politics, or your definition of the word is very different from mine. or that you just don't use the Internet much.
This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all communications will come handy, don't you think?
Yes it will. But will that be a sufficient advantage to compensate for the ones our rulers lost when the Internet became too important to commerce to "just turn it off"? Little Brother is watching Them, and there are enough /clever/ Little Brothers (and Sisters) out there looking to pull Big Brother's pants down that they are becoming a real world problem.
again in full view of interested members of the general public.
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to.
Sorry, that's not the point at all? The problem with people reading your 'private' mail or your mind is that it that it enables them to attack you way more efficiently.
We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about the sickest nazis on the planet doing it.
Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Yes, it gives the opposition a potentially useful tool. As there are FAR too many dissidents of various types wandering around loose for it to be possible to personally persecute more than a tiny fraction of them, the main value of mass surveillance is for aggregate content analysis, social network mapping, and predictive modelling of large scale social behavior. This may be useful for targeting and calibration of propaganda, and advance deployment of physical assets to counter populist political actions. But so far, Big Brother seems to suck at that kind of work... Do the new surveillance capabilities the Internet gives military and police agencies outweigh the educational, intelligence, propaganda and organizational capabilities the Internet has given to radicals of all stripes? That remains to be seen, but I am fairly sure that obsessive attention to "privacy" shifts the balance of power somewhat toward those whose whole job is to maintain the status quo. Of course, any political organizer with any common sense knows well enough when to keep some specific information OFF the networks and out of the hands of uncommitted "hang arounds" at public meetings.
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
Very old. Sometimes I wonder, "when did I get so damned old?" I watched Mercury and Gemini launches from my back yard.
People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you mentioned have raised generations of clueless young retards.
I didn't start the "age based" comments, but srsly, it doesn't take THAT much effort to find plenty of clever young radicals to play with IRL - if you're OK with exposing your identity as a "political dissident" on teh interwebs. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWa2JtAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LyFoQAK4hO/ko/nRojRE2m/n7ygSh h4kIEr0uMYsrwpDtE5M6OEkvQZZWZtk8jKj+0Oh4kO8GFWC5nvnbUjYor9HwPHhO PlhdIibMzrqYRfRelEduQt9QkYdhezxmwSUVLailzhEju8wVKRJ4rF9rN4qhL77T k5cqfrnfM2ILQesi/Ey8O7+vNjZIXXjLuERgn0Z/+aGgsA8VdIupx5T+whD6YtiD 2Fm62LCG7H4xdbivtuvYCa5yG2kNRU+zjjY5wMxdY2gMEBObD6KbA7YST3DxFdFi bqFv5LpjUQYitQ7Bq64ts4j5Hwg5+F2ZnGQt9D4XkUSPIM0Am1W/4jj1bqoBQxv2 p1tI+T1XLlPkIla4BIL7GRishlLzAxQGzkezeWdjfC3Z76yo0D1EZkabAy8x0WJv /g7scAynmMKD+zGV0kXyhv9nXmajReYe6cwEPIa8ZMnN7cqQiMLlt7tJHBLwG3pg A/d5xrJqhldAayjkxTx1F9HMLqapYFEVEPPH0gs308iUBTP2iWBqxO7LSByCbBU7 N+CBL3UKSl84G3XcQ4hyDqEZxD5if1Yo1y5jjmodF/NRhwuahf3AqhnIA87Qn+B/ o4Fne1yls+uNhM5rdtBHZOwIJaLuAfXE6iDF7X2q7cdTE+uVRfkGgTROTGrI247z fi4+ZbBhgdGMLSYzC/Bl =9n9b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:55:26 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/11/2015 02:25 PM, juan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined...
Oh, OK. Yes, all those things you mention are enhanced by electronic communication networks. And yes, the online library is especially nice. I can't help pointing out though that all the things you mentioned existed before the internet and even before telegraph networks =P Before 'networking', access to libraries was more restricted, true, but the ability for governments to track millions of people in realtime was just a crazy dream - or nightmare. Looks to me that the good changes are more incremental in nature whereas the bad changes are kinda 'revolutionary'.
A highly productive "office worker's desk" that fits in a small tote bag has its uses as well.
Point taken.
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to have the password(s).
Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can watch the guards. Thank you very much.
Just for starters check out CopWatch, referenced in my earlier post.
Until a few months ago I had a facebook account and yes, I used to follow copwatch, among other things. As a matter of fact, I've been involved in the political networking you speak of (both online & offline) , for years, mostly in spanish speaking 'libertarian' circles.
We might also factor in a half dozen or so investigative journalism outlets, document distribution sites like Cryptome and Public Intelligence, one's news aggregators of choice, access to foreign press outlets, various spook watching sites, the mass of raw data contributed by Manning, Snowden et al...
The Internet is billions of people, interacting through the world's first many-to-many communications medium. The "Web 2.0" buzzword denotes a real thing:
Yes, I realize that part of the hype actually references real and valuable changes.
The availability of more and better political intelligence formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
- From this I can only you don't take any interest in politics, or your definition of the word is very different from mine. or that you just don't use the Internet much.
I honestly don't see a radical change in that area. Or else, if 'poltical intelligence' is more common and of better quality, I don't see too many people acting on it.
This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all communications will come handy, don't you think?
Yes it will. But will that be a sufficient advantage to compensate for the ones our rulers lost when the Internet became too important to commerce to "just turn it off"?
I don't think they plan to turn it off. That's the thing. Considering how computers work, it's possible or even easy for them to, say, sabotage or control personal communications while 'freely' allowing people to buy stuff off amazon.
Little Brother is watching Them, and there are enough /clever/ Little Brothers (and Sisters) out there looking to pull Big Brother's pants down that they are becoming a real world problem.
Wait and see I guess.
We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about the sickest nazis on the planet doing it.
Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Yes, it gives the opposition a potentially useful tool. As there are FAR too many dissidents of various types wandering around loose for it to be possible to personally persecute more than a tiny fraction of them,
Yes, you do have a point there, but it's not as if mass persecution of dissidents is impossible either. Just look at the US 'war on drugs'.
the main value of mass surveillance is for aggregate content analysis, social network mapping, and predictive modelling of large scale social behavior.
None of which is exactly harmless...
This may be useful for targeting and calibration of propaganda, and advance deployment of physical assets to counter populist political actions. But so far, Big Brother seems to suck at that kind of work...
I don't think there's been a real 'on the field' test yet.
Do the new surveillance capabilities the Internet gives military and police agencies outweigh the educational, intelligence, propaganda and organizational capabilities the Internet has given to radicals of all stripes? That remains to be seen,
Well, that I can agree with. I obviously am not too optimistic regarding future outcomes, at least as far as the near future is concerned.
but I am fairly sure that obsessive attention to "privacy" shifts the balance of power somewhat toward those whose whole job is to maintain the status quo.
That may be true.
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
Very old. Sometimes I wonder, "when did I get so damned old?" I watched Mercury and Gemini launches from my back yard.
Well, at 44 I'm not exactly young either =P. Anyway, I don't think the different views have much to do with age. Yes, young people on 'social networks' will post 'private' pictures for all the world to see, but I think even them have secrets they don't want to share.
People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you mentioned have raised generations of clueless young retards.
I didn't start the "age based" comments, but srsly, it doesn't take THAT much effort to find plenty of clever young radicals to play with IRL -
I don't think there are many radicals around here, either young or old =/ Maybe I should move... if you're OK with exposing your identity as a
"political dissident" on teh interwebs.
I kinda suspect I already did =P
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWa2JtAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LyFoQAK4hO/ko/nRojRE2m/n7ygSh h4kIEr0uMYsrwpDtE5M6OEkvQZZWZtk8jKj+0Oh4kO8GFWC5nvnbUjYor9HwPHhO PlhdIibMzrqYRfRelEduQt9QkYdhezxmwSUVLailzhEju8wVKRJ4rF9rN4qhL77T k5cqfrnfM2ILQesi/Ey8O7+vNjZIXXjLuERgn0Z/+aGgsA8VdIupx5T+whD6YtiD 2Fm62LCG7H4xdbivtuvYCa5yG2kNRU+zjjY5wMxdY2gMEBObD6KbA7YST3DxFdFi bqFv5LpjUQYitQ7Bq64ts4j5Hwg5+F2ZnGQt9D4XkUSPIM0Am1W/4jj1bqoBQxv2 p1tI+T1XLlPkIla4BIL7GRishlLzAxQGzkezeWdjfC3Z76yo0D1EZkabAy8x0WJv /g7scAynmMKD+zGV0kXyhv9nXmajReYe6cwEPIa8ZMnN7cqQiMLlt7tJHBLwG3pg A/d5xrJqhldAayjkxTx1F9HMLqapYFEVEPPH0gs308iUBTP2iWBqxO7LSByCbBU7 N+CBL3UKSl84G3XcQ4hyDqEZxD5if1Yo1y5jjmodF/NRhwuahf3AqhnIA87Qn+B/ o4Fne1yls+uNhM5rdtBHZOwIJaLuAfXE6iDF7X2q7cdTE+uVRfkGgTROTGrI247z fi4+ZbBhgdGMLSYzC/Bl =9n9b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2015 10:08 PM, juan wrote:
This may be useful for targeting and calibration of propaganda, and advance deployment of physical assets to counter populist political actions. But so far, Big Brother seems to suck at that kind of work...
I don't think there's been a real 'on the field' test yet.
I don't think network surveillance had much to do with it, but in terms of political warfare 'on the field', I believe I have seen examples recently. Example: When the grand jury verdict clearing the cop who shot Michael Brown was announced, there was a very large but orderly demonstration in downtown Ferguson. We know this because people who were present posted photos and videos as it happened. According to realtime reports posted from the scene, crowd was ordered to disperse then immediately tear gassed. That wasn't the "hot story" covered by the press corps, however. Mass media news outlets reported rioting: USA Today used the headline "Ferguson Burning." But that didn't happen. The only "civil disturbance" was the CW attack on the crowd downtown. The material events referenced by the propaganda narrative were consistent with one or two mobile teams armed with molotovs and M-80 firecrackers leading the TV cameras on a merry chase away from the crowd downtown by simulating gunfire and setting fires: The isolated fires were not associated with disorderly crowds or looting. There were numerous reports of gunfire but no injuries or reports of people seen carrying guns or shooting. The biggest fires were at an auto parts store, and a used car dealership where a row of cars were burned (the owner presumably got the full insured value of some stock that wasn't moving). One police car apparently burned for over an hour, as if prepared in advance to do so in case it took longer than expected for TV news crews to arrive. In this instance, it is very possible that network surveillance enabled our Security Services to determine in advance that there would be a large crowd that night, at a well organized self-policing event unlikely to produce violence or property damage useful to the State's propaganda mission. Anyone could have predicted the crowd, but its orderly behavior was not a likely guess unless the organizers and associated social networking traffic were under surveillance. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWbFk0AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0L0uQQAKnNcnraEaWwcsea3GiSEg3P w0sz/SakaZ8peoAxRrTB3Rf5j05PytCeQhjlN65aU1F55IZNE750xiDCOmrGDbGx ydjQRnrZT7Ktmgj0+ODfJTRSioQbe2c35DGBUQScPoLNr5MF+Qk450HXOfcOPOtz LFdP+0/fZQ99noqpYu5q4aPyJlWvMUMb/L69+iNIOoA1rcCWSKW6JqmAObBN50GE mriq0PMgS69lTaxNdhFouGqhwvQcXcde8Pdw6gWxTg979NuFnIuk6BQDChbWGvlq Ib8ygpDK/FMzNpg8lIoZswY6Sb/76pqjNyi9/LbUvvqkrkcTUW12LIu1DFq6mdnR RWfU1M1YTQt1AYzzf7WOkdOctol7ezGzbgmma3YgZl+oaGNQPYUuTNrtiOizh53K k1SG/YtFeZOa0lxXL1ki8tWBg0FoLR/i/UqG2yKrXNXjThycQpXLLw09i3eQ6c6H 6iB6aTvUenBBLGgt1otIp8meNlpfrA23IfjOv75pWtq3hNSaf4yjiZs6k92RhIi0 W9v3FGlzRpLTVtkmljaerLZUt2WDdNdHnVKupghELpQMCV+qLmcgQfODHJ1EL5wz ZhhlyepRLfz80bTBHvSYiWrc0dSPYaRSidRMPOYtIlsf10iBSG3uQJfJ8Q7Y5AEH 7vpBRQQZaQCcyWcVJxGJ =oEjP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dnia piątek, 11 grudnia 2015 18:55:26 Steve Kinney pisze:
On 12/11/2015 02:25 PM, juan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney
<admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined...
Why exactly is that not compatible with privacy? I am doing quite well without Facebook accout. "Networked anything" does not have to mean "...and no control over your data". You're basically doing both a straw-man (i.e. making it seem as if privacy supporters want to live in a world without the Internet), and a false dichotomy (i.e. making it seem as if you can't have privacy and Internet). Not cool. And, more importantly, not true. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/12/2015 08:22 AM, rysiek wrote:
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined...
Why exactly is that not compatible with privacy? I am doing quite well without Facebook accout. "Networked anything" does not have to mean "...and no control over your data".
Collection of metadata sufficient to reconstruct all of the above activities in detail is not compatible with privacy. Neither is full take collection triggered by rule sets defining "interesting" behavior, i.e. the use of 'privacy enhancing' technologies, reading about Linux, etc. (per published USG docs that are "generally accepted" as real). You don't have to act like an idiot to lose your "privacy," and relative to State actors it already happened.
You're basically doing both a straw-man (i.e. making it seem as if privacy supporters want to live in a world without the Internet), and a false dichotomy (i.e. making it seem as if you can't have privacy and Internet). Not cool.
And, more importantly, not true.
You can have some semblance of privacy on the Internet, for instance reducing the take of commercial surveillance operations by selectively blocking ad servers and whitelising a limited number of sites to run Javascript in your browser. You can have more by using technologies that are "too hard" or "too inconvenient" for non-specialists to put up with, i.e. TOR, i2p, GPG, etc. Privacy supporters who understand network security, understand that any activity they want to conceal from all surveillance actors must either be conducted off the network, or via "anonymizing technology" that degrades network access to a lesser or greater extent (100% in instances involving two way communication with people who do not know or care about these matters), while being observed and recorded by actors hostile to privacy. If CPunks subscribers don't know that, what chance of 'privacy' does the greater unwashed publick stand? :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWbF7WAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LP10QANHkwHKERUcsW0+FcRXraz8k 3h/jomiidZJstHmp6iYvB50k8/qs+FDuzUlvkvkSjx80Y9jRz5olRlYuJPdRWuzq c/Fpl9Ak5y4dSAs1ySrI8MnZwgXuK7kxF5vfVb/E8qFyvtAEXvWWFBXZOIJeA9/a iyUIaXO3adc+cUbuGFUixZbsYUZS1dagqU01BIBH1Um2KVziLR3ntel5xC0B6FRi nxXohUh/orTMPsV2rOBiCIJre77f+8x5LGGiycFULip4WM4pv5zisDXq4NloPtWj ZZXdK+FLBYmTQUrx7fODeUD1NdvRNasOQ/lxZ6VumWt+2MEPDv5aH06YgaSDT7rN CtThTMoe0ANw8igGge5w3UvgsvLMN2tEoYwLZb4dnRkSqy8iXNBVtWOh74sE62cc wODsajIbdmTg+u4m5hCQU+bMgeU17bhDys9ZRhFar2FrmYANZnrElFaSCQ/2rxyl cmNzK/lxWLrKEFv6spiO119ffD/mOtUqPqRXZJqb/RxW/EskCx3vwSx57P6o1wXe xskbaC1n0H/st5iZijFRsz2GJS9/ZZ+MSX99MyXi9XGFPtTS6RSJ7f5MmhVoMbPp j6HHcqovVVSF1KyOLQkHVMbppJbEkzfgrCBAKvp9ODKuqiHIJ1/rFknxMoYq37k7 4iVSG+S5XEwKBXaRooRd =Xy3C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dnia sobota, 12 grudnia 2015 12:52:25 Steve Kinney pisze:
Privacy supporters who understand network security, understand that any activity they want to conceal from all surveillance actors must either be conducted off the network, or via "anonymizing technology" that degrades network access to a lesser or greater extent (100% in instances involving two way communication with people who do not know or care about these matters), while being observed and recorded by actors hostile to privacy.
I still don't see how that makes it "impossible" -- just very, very hard at the moment. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
Probably because Old Farts lived a conscious period of years where the only remote connection to any other human being was via voice telephone or snail mail, and even then it was between family and business situations, not amongst masses of new randoms. They were, and knew, the mechanisms and value of real in-person humanity and its associated lines. It was only in the 1990's that masses of people began to encounter the internet hands on, mostly at school. Such that anyone today under 30 years old did not have any non internet period of conscious. They therefore have no basis on which to evaluate the huge shift they were born into and the ongoing change being foisted upon them. Surveillance, databasing, DNA, drones, lack of privacy, etc... all being dropped upon humans in under 30 years... is going to have massive impact upon the evolutionary biological nature of humans and humanity that we simply cannot comprehend, predict, or control... some of it will be good. But as when someone jams a camera in your face... these types of things are biological stressors... which are generally bad, even if and after the pressure is removed. Old Farts know and lived history, some literally before the transistor... and they are perfectly well capable of telling you exactly what's goin on. Only question is, are you brave enough to ask, to behold, to comprehend the answer... and what are you going to do with what they tell you? Some of them are probably on youtube talking or being interviewed about it... both good and bad.
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:38:47 +0000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic.
Privacy is among values “that simply are unsustainable… in the face of the reality of technological change; the reality of the deep state with a military-industrial complex and the reality of Islamic terrorism, which is legitimizing that sector in a way that it’s behaving,” he stressed.
Some notes : RT is a propaganda organization working for the russian state. However, their 'anti western' propaganda isn't ordinary propaganda because what they say (about 'the west') is usually true. RT propaganda takes the form of libertarian criticism (with the caveat of course that it's directed against 'western' states...never against the russian state) I haven't checked the whole interview, but going by the above quote, Assange seems to be forgetting his libertarian (or civil libertarian, whatever) leaning and instead parroting the pentagon/kremlin line on 'islamic terrorism'. But in reality, "the reality of Islamic terrorism," is close to the reality of the bogeyman. Considering the extent of western crimes and imperialism, there should be a lot more 'terrorism' coming from the victims. Oddly enough, there isn't. So one can either believe that captain americunt is saving the universe...or else, the terrorist don't really exist. Except of course as false flag ops.
Assange is entirely correct. The reason is the distribution curve for sensors and, in particular, everything -- and I mean everything -- about "personalization" is simply surveillance. I may be able to hide from The Man, but I cannot hide from my friends and neighbors, and they are increasingly festooned with the infrastructure of total information awareness. Poindexter was simply ahead of his time. The private sector will do with bread & circus what the mil sector can not do with black budgets; the private sector will own 95% of the listening posts and will buy their freedom of motion with yours. --dan
On December 19, 2015 5:54:21 PM dan@geer.org wrote:
Assange is entirely correct. The reason is the distribution curve for sensors and, in particular, everything -- and I mean everything -- about "personalization" is simply surveillance. I may be able to hide from The Man, but I cannot hide from my friends and neighbors, and they are increasingly festooned with the infrastructure of total information awareness. Poindexter was simply ahead of his time. The private sector will do with bread & circus what the mil sector can not do with black budgets; the private sector will own 95% of the listening posts and will buy their freedom of motion with yours.
--dan
It's deeply unsettling for me to admit that Dan correct about this, but there it is. I don't use Failbook (as I'm sure you *all* know by now) and yet I have received disturbing email from the Fuckerberg empire encouraging me to sign up so that I may "connect" with "people I might know." This is because some of my friends who use it were not s-m-r-t enough to disallow the harvesting of their contacts. One name that was suggested was someone I hadn't spoken with in well over a decade... there was simply no way they could have had my email address among their contacts, because that email address didn't exist during the time I knew them. Failbook is omniscient! There are several more instances in which my privacy was invaded or compromised due to the carelessness or ignorance of others, despite trying to maintain my nearly-zero online footprint online (in my legal name. Of course I may be selectively found pseudonymously.) That's not counting the countless Big Data database breaches which have put my medical and financial PII at risk. The death of privacy is not going to be 1984'd; we already live within A Brave New World, and it's being built one narcissistic, geolocation-enabled, duck-faced selfie and status update check-in at a damn time. Why would the TLAs waste any more* money on invasive data collection when people put their info and everyone else's out there, sold for the use of "free" email and apps? Can't really blame them for plucking the lowest-hanging fruit. *In-Q-Tel's ROI on that initial Facebook seed money must be positively unquantifiable. -S
participants (7)
-
dan＠geer.org -
grarpamp -
juan -
rysiek -
Shelley -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness