USA To Require Govt Issued ID To Use Internet, No More Anonymous

[rysiek]

Dnia niedziela, 24 stycznia 2016 15:22:09 juan pisze:
> > I did not say a single word about victims. But hey, let's play:
>       (...)
> 	As far as I'm concerned the discussion is about the highly
> 	stupid and misleading comment made by CIA capo mafioso dan geer
> 	regarding the 'private sector'. A high ranking capo of the CIA
> 	mafia is 'kindly' 'warning' 'us' about the dangers of the
> 	'private sector'. Please.

Does the source of the warning make the warning less relevant?

Do you see no potential problems/dangers in private sector having such huge 
databases of who was moving where, when?

>	(...)
> 	"It's cute how some think that power only corrupts and brings
> 	out evil in people if it happens to have a form of a government
> 	agency; and conversely, that no good can ever come from a
> 	government agency."
> 
> 	I am well aware that the government psychos can do some 'good'
> 	with all the resources they steal.

Ah, so we established that *sometimes* the outcome of government action can be 
good. Cool.

> 	A government can invade and destroy a country and then give
> 	some free candy to the surviving orphans. That's really
> 	touching. The overall outcome of government intervention is of
> 	course a disaster.

Fair enough. Let's work with that. Does that mean that orphans should not take 
the government's candy? Does that mean that orphans that *do* take that candy 
are "sellouts" and are to be ostracized or considered akin to government 
agents?

> 	But even if some government plan 'looks good' on some bullshit
> 	utiltiarian terms, imposing the plan by force is just ordinary
> 	crime on an industrial scale.

Again, fair enough. Never been a fan of "imposing a plan by force".

> > if a mafia outlet kills a member of this very mafia outlet (due to some
> > internal business), does that make that (dead) mafioso a victim?
> 
> 	Perhaps. Maybe he wanted to quit and found out that not even
> 	the mafia is a 'voluntary' organization...

So we have a mafioso that became a *victim* of the very mafia he was a 
(voluntary) member of. Cool.

> > If so, does that suddenly make the mafioso a "non-voluntary" mafioso?
> 
> 	Maybe. Or maybe they quarrelled over the spoils. So?

Okay, let me be more specific. Imagine if you will a situation, in which the 
mafioso in question does not *know* that the mafia gave out orders to kill 
him. There was no clear beef between him and the mafia, but some external 
circumstances cause the capos to decide that this guy has to go.

So the mafioso in question does not *know* that he is going to be killed.

And let's assume he has been killed while he was sleeping. So that he had no 
chance of realising what's going on.

My question is: does the sheer fact of being killed by the organisation the 
mafioso was a *voluntary* member of, without him knowing that he's going to be 
killed, change his "membership status" from voluntary to non-voluntary? :)

> 	Why is this important to political theory? How does it affect
> 	the analysis of the criminal nature of the state?

We're trying to establish what does it mean to be a "voluntary organisation", 
and if all victims by definition are not voluntary. You seem to put a lot on 
that, so I am trying to understand how you use those words.

> > Also, I would say that Wikipedia became a "victim" of Internet Watch
> > Foundation's Internet censorship. I am perfectly happy to agree that
> > Wikipedia was not a "voluntary" victim of it.
> 
> 	That's good because "voluntary victim" doesn't make much sense
> 	except maybe as some kind of poetic license.

Cool, so we agreed that Wikipedia is an "involuntary victim" of a civil 
society organisation. Wonderful!

> > However, does that make IWF suddenly not a civil society organisation?
> 
> 	Formally they may look like part of 'civil society' (that is,
> 	non-governmental) but their aims are typical of government.

A-ha! Aims! So we arrive at the dreaded "No True Scotsman". :)

> 	But I think there's some mutual misunderstanding caused
> 	by different definitions of 'civil society'...

So, what's *your* definition* of "civil society", then?

> > Or, perhaps, we can actually have civil society organisations that
> > (sadly) show signs of being corrupted by the power (over *something*)?
> 
> 	If the organizations we are talking about have coercive aims

WorldWide Fund and Greenpeace seem to have "coercive aims", as in: they are 
trying to influence decisions of other people in a certain way. Sometimes even 
using intimidation.

Yet many would agree that these are civil society organisations. So:
 - could you define "coercive aims"? 
 - are Greenpeace and WWF civil society organisations, or not?

> 	I wouldn't consider them part of 'civil society' but rather part
> 	of 'militant society'.

Interesting. Could you define "militant society" and perhaps draw the line 
between the two?

> 	Also I wouldn't say that this IWF thing was corrupted by power,
> 	if that means that they started as not-corrupt. IWF is a
> 	corrupt from day zero, by design. Exactly like all government.

Okay, still needing a definition of "civil society", "coercive aims" and 
"militant society".

> > > > Are you saying no voluntary organisations can ever be or become
> > > > criminal?
> > > 	
> > > 	A voluntary organization can stop being voluntary. At that
> > > 	point it's not voluntary anymore. It's becomes a state or
> > > 	state-like organization attacking people.
> > > 	
> > > 	Shouldn't be too hard to understand eh?
> > 
> > Well, at what point a voluntary organisation stops being voluntary?
> > When they commit their first crime?
> 
> 	It stops being voluntary when it starts coercing people...

Like Greenpeace and WWF?

> > I am confused about your usage of the word "voluntary" here. Are you not
> > actually looking for "non-criminal"?
> 
> 	In this case voluntary and non-crimal point to the same idea.

Okay. So why use two words for it?

Also, does that make the Internet Watch Foundation "criminal"?

> 	Sorry if you don't like my terminology. I think it's fine but
> 	you can change it if you want...As long as you retain my
> 	meaning...?

How can I retain your meaning, if I do not understand it? Well, apart from the 
"shitbag" part, of course.

> > > > Also, I never "equated civil society with mafia/government"
> > > 	
> > > 	Dude, your whole quote and post are there. You listed mafia
> > > 
> > > and civil society in the same sentece. If your writing is sloppy
> > > 
> > > 	it's not my fault.
> > 
> > If that's your standard for "equating", then I have to ask... Why are
> > you equating civil society to mafia? After all, you just "listed
> > civil society and mafia in the same sentence".
> > 
> > Here it is again, for your distinct viewing pleasure:
> > > You listed mafia and civil society in the same sentece.
> 
> 	Ok, ok. Part of the problem is that our definitions of 'civil
> 	society' differ.

Thank goodness we were able to get to that conclusion. Eventually.

> > > 	Begs the question, what kind of power do they have and how
> > > 
> > > they got it?
> > 
> > That's actually a valid point. Your default answer will be "Teh
> > Gubmint", and in the particular case of IWF, you'd actually be right.
> 
> 	Thanks...So looks like this particular example doesn't help
> 	your case, it helps mine =P

Well, it actually highlighted the definition problem. So, how do you define:
 - civil society
 - militant society
 - coercive aims

> > Thing is, does that mean that we have:
> >  - a civil society organisation
> >  - that *you agree* has been to some extent corrupted by power they
> > 
> > got?
> > 
> > It's a "yes/no" question.
> 
> 	That's not how I would describe it. It's an organization with
> 	coercive aims and more or less obvious ties to
> 	government/anti-sex puritan theocrats.
> 
> 	I don't think the IWF are libertarian voluntarists...

Wait, does your definition of "civil society" *require* an organisation to be 
a "libertarian voluntarist" one? And what would that mean?

> > > > Might I offer an example:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation#Blacklist_of_w
> > > > eb_p
> > > > ages
> > > 	
> > > 	What do you think those idiots stand for? They look like a
> > > 	typical right winger puritan assholes to me.
> > 
> > And yet they are a civil society organisation. My point stands:
> > *even* civil society can be corrupted by power. Do you not agree?
> 
> 	There's some misunderstanding because I'm using 'civil
> 	society' as a synonym for free society or a society based on
> 	voluntarist principles.

So basically you make up your own meaning of words/phrases and call people 
names because they use it in a different way, without first explaining your 
way of using these terms? Uh-huh.

> 	As opposed to government which operates on the principle of obey or
> 	die.
> 
> 	if on the other hand, by civil society you mean anything that
> 	isn't explicitly and officially part of the government, then
> 	yes, IWF is an example of a corrupt (or criminal-like)
> 	'civil' organization.
> 
> 	Then again, I never said that the private sector is free from
> 	corruption.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! So we can have private companies that are 
corrupt?

Can they be corrupt without government's help?

> 	You might have caught some of my rants against the
> 	baknking mafia, or the google mafia, or the pharmaceutical
> 	mafia, or...

I try to avoid most of your rants, to be honest.

> 	What I consider a laughable and sick insult is that a high
> 	ranking government mafioso like geer has the cheek to pretend
> 	that the private sector is a bigger threat than his employeers,
> 	the C.I.A.

I don't see where he said it's a "bigger" threat. He just points out that it 
is a threat that needs recognition.

> > > > /me now waits, eating popcorn, for the inevitable No True Scotsman

Well, that one was fast. :)

> > > 	Sure. That coming from such a master of state logic like
> > >   you. As in, power bad, but government good.
> > 
> > Governments are not good in and of themselves.
> 
> 	Of course they are  not good 'in and of themselves'. And they
> 	are not morally neutral either. In and of themselves,
> 	governments are bad, despite their good deeds propaganda.

Why just governments? What makes Teh Gummint so different from mafia on one 
hand, and a huge multinational corporation with their own armed security force 
and/or an effective way of coercing governments to do their bidding on the 
other?

> 	Bottom line : crime can't be 'justified' (that is,
> 	proven to stick to justice principles)
> 
> > But seeing
> > *everything* that a government touches as
> > evil/bad/criminal/your-word-here is akin to seeing everything that
> > contains mercury
> 
> 	I already  pointed out that gov't can do some 'good things',
> 	paid by all the resources they steal.

Fine.

> 	But your 'argument' can only work if you put words in my mouth.
> 
> > (the element) as toxic. If that doesn't ring a bell,
> > let me help you with that:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy
> > 
> > So basically, yes, I am now calling your anti-Tor bullshit akin to
> > the anti- vaccine crowd bullshit
> 
> 	Oh fine. That wasn't the topic of this discussion at all.

No it wasn't. But then, it was in a way. :)

> 	But since you mention it, you can't counter anything I say
> 	about tor and you never did =)

Before we dive into this rabbit hole, do I understand correctly that above you 
just agreed that:

1. in and of itself the fact that a project (say, Tor) takes government money, 
does not *automagically* mean that the project is corrupt/coercive/in bed/etc?

2. that it is *possible* that such a project (not necessarily Tor; some 
hypothetical project) can have good outcome *despite* taking money from the 
government?

> 	"open source" therefore "magically great" doesn't count.

Because Juan Says So.

> > Power bad always, needs to be checked, *regardless* of whether or not
> > it (power) happens to be in the hands of a government, mafia, private
> > sector, civil society, or pixies and unicorns.
> 
> 	Fine. Sort of...

Elaborate on the "sort of" please, as I'm afraid I'm gonna be called a 
"shitbag" soon enough if you don't.

> > Problem is, there are many, many different power structures.
> > Governments are one kind of these. But there are many more, and they
> > emerge on their own, all the time. Looking *only* on governments (and
> > mafia) and missing the broader picture is just plain silly.
> 
> 	Not at all. Government is by far the worst problem.

But you do agree it is not the *only* problem?

> 	Focusing on things that are not as bad as government while constantly
> 	denying the criminal nature of government is...government
> 	propaganda.

What about focusing on things that are not as bad as the government, but *not* 
denying that government is a big problem?

> 	And is exactly what you are doing here as far as I
> 	can tell.

Apparently.

> > Still, sometimes I would love to have your simple "gummint bad,
> > private sector good, remove gummint and the free market will cure
> > cancer" view of the world. One can dream...
> 
> 	That isn't exactly my view. Part of my view is that the
> 	government has to go because of *moral* reasons, not for
> 	utilitarian reasons.  Of course there are good utilitarian
> 	arguments too that statists can't counter, but I personally
> 	don't much care about them.

What, in your view, would happen once Teh Gummint is gone, then?

Also, it's cute how you divide the world into statists and yourself. :)

> 	Let me try this...Do you think encryption systems should be
> 	backdored by the US government, or perhaps the 'united
> 	nations'?

Absofuckinglutely not.

> 	Or should encryption systems be as unbreakable as possible, in
> 	practice making it impossible for government to enforce 'laws'?

Now now, let's not bundle two distinct things. Nice try, but no bone.

I do hold that encryption systems should be as unbreakable as possible, or 
perhaps even more.

And at the same time I hold strongly (and have data to back it up) that this 
will not seriously hinder governments' ability to "enforce laws".

That's exactly why I call LEA's "argument" of "we need backdoors because 
HURDURRISTS" bullshit. No, no they don't. They have more than ample resources 
and means to do whatever it is they're doing without breaking encryption.

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160125/1ed755ad/attachment-0002.sig>