[cryptography] To Protect and Infect Slides

[brian carroll]

 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7815 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131231/b03642f9/attachment-0001.txt>