Assange believes too late for any pervasive privacy

[juan]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:55:26 -0500
Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:
>
> 
> On 12/11/2015 02:25 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney
> > <admin at 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-----