Threat Model: Parents

[Travis Biehn]

Well,

Depending on your particular bent options range from:
Subversion, Evasion, Opposition, Resistance or Appeal to Authorities, such
as teachers, law enforcement and so on.

Arguments abound, and are largely the fodder of flame-bait and trollery.
[Which is the source of my earlier comment, "accepting paternalism during
youth is the slippery slope to paternalism from the state" - this is a
popular opinion on this list, I'm sure, as are the gamut of opposing
viewpoints.]

This topic is ridiculous, there is no difference between hiding from 'your
parents' and hiding from a nation-state attacker, in both scenarios you
assume all of your equipment is untrustworthy, you have the advantage with
'your parents' because you know who they are, where they live, where they
sleep and have physical access to all their devices.

Unfortunately it is not trivial to hide from either attacker, depending on
their abilities. Some degree of technical savvy is still required.

Any constructive exercise might want to start with Threat Intelligence,
thankfully this is fairly easy if you live in the same abode as your
attacker, no?

If your attacker has no goals or motivations, and carries out no attacks
then there is very little you need to do, except, perhaps, clear your
browser history.

-Travis

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Gadit Bielman <
thetransintransgenic at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Softy <softservant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Several responses have stated, and questioned, the children's rights
>> accessing the Internet.  Yes, with supervision.  What all the responses
>> have missed is the lack of distinction between communication and email.
>> Claiming a child has a right to private extra-familial communications is as
>> divided as the general access to the Internet.  With supervision, without
>> any more or less privacy than the child has in non-virtual communications.
>>
>> And, what hasn't been connected to deciding on the level of supervision,
>> the developmental state of the child is highly relevant.
>>
>> Claiming a child merits access - with or without supervision - can only
>> be made by the primary custodians of the child.
>>
>> We wish to ignore this subtlety because we wish to ignore Society's
>> overbearing on all of us.
>>
>> The result in this specific scenario is, regardless of the child, the
>> custodians require and merit a higher degree of technical faculty.  To
>> presume it is less than the childs is a mistake.  Along with this ability
>> comes the burden of communication: to provide an appropriate example.  As
>> with many non-virtual counterparts:   many failure.  such sad.
>>
>> Why should this medium of bits be different?
>>
>
> Parents, yes, have a responsibility to raise their children, and as a
> result have a bunch of extra privileges and a bunch more authority over
> their children then any one person usually has over another. There is, for
> very good reasons, a very strong power dynamic in a parent-child
> relationship.
>
> And any power dynamic is prone to abuse, the stronger it is the more
> likely.
> I'm am very scared of the idea of a power dynamic like that, where the
> person at the receiving end has their communication completely monitored.
> It means that, in case they need to ask for help, that request will be
> monitored. And depending on how abused the power dynamic is, that could be
> a Very Bad Thing.
>
> Everyone needs a way to ask for help safely. Everyone needs a way to have
> peers safely.
> A power dynamic without those minimal checks is not a safe thing to have.
>
>
> (Also, can I express surprise at seeing this opinion *here*? Like, I've
> heard this sort of argument before, and it definitely has merits -- but I
> Very Much did not expect it on the cypherpunks mailing list? Is there just
> some sort of toggle? Do people suddenly go from "no reason that they should
> be able to have privacy" to "spying and censorship are suddenly totally
> wrong" when they reach the arbitrary age where they are Now An Adult? Was
> "get breached" the only thing mSpy did wrong?)
>



-- 
Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn>
| TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus
<https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150602/635fdb60/attachment-0002.txt>