Skrymions: Data storage breakthough

\0xDynamite dreamingforward at gmail.com
Thu Apr 13 07:59:22 PDT 2017


I said it before.  Heavy industry amplifies human will.  High
technology amplifies the mind.  They can amplify virtue or vice.
Neither care.

Marx0s

On 4/12/17, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:04:47 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
>>> >better technology, better mass surveillance
>
>> That's a rather limited way to look at things.
>
>
> 	Maybe limited, but do you think what I say is incorrect?
>
> 	Perhaps technology in general could be 'neutral' but it
> 	is a fact that technology the way it is being implemented right
> 	now shifts the balance of power away from individuals and
> 	towards the military-industrial-government organizations.
>
>
>> Let's consider:  Are
>> we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say,
>> 1980?
> 	
> 	Better off, regarding what? Has the ability of the
> 	corporate-governmnet mafia to track its subject decreased, or
> 	wildly increased?
>
>
>> In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the
>> Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing.
>>  News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and
>> local newspapers, with no effective competition.  People, generally,
>> found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face
>> speaking.
>
> 	Political activism has been carried using printed media for a
> 	(long) while. Of course that same printed media has been mostly
> 	subverted by  corporate-government madia. The fourth state is a
> 	branch of government.
>
> 	But at least printed media technology could be used against the
> 	government and it didn't allow the government to track people.
> 	Books don't spy on you. The intershit does.
>
>
>> If you simply accept all of the positives of the
>> subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus
>> solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get
>> conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance".
>
> 	No I don't think that's how the reckoning works.
>
> 	Do the current systems allow waaay better surveillanece of
> 	subjects by the corporate-government mafia? The answer is yes.
> 	Whatever alleged 'positives' there are (I don't think there are
> 	any), the fact of better surveillance remains.
>
> 	It is a fact just like it is fact that central banks
> 	counterfeit trillions and trillions of pseudo currency and that
> 	enriches the government and corporate mafia.
>
>
>> But
>> one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public,
>> are far better able to monitor the actions of governments,
>
>
> 	Where's the evidence for that claim?
>
>
>> which
>> ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the
>> governments is very, very valuable.
>
> 	It might be useful, if it existed. But it doesn't.
>
>
>> I have no doubt that, for
>> example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their
>> actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the
>> Vietnam war.
>
> 	I don't think there's any evidence for that sort of claim.
>
>
>  And even more pushback in regards to Syria.  As, I
>> think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list