The threat of privacy

[Karl]

Just a note here to acknowledge that I am _very_ _very_ confused.

I think we're trying to build communication on the blockchain by
disrupting the list, not sure.

I think below I must have been responding to 'demonrats': my father
was very democratic, and we currently have republican power.  I try to
be extreme-left and to express dislike of democrats, myself.

On 8/4/20, Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Zenaan leaked a mafia secret here.  It's evidence by how he has moved some
> of the ongoing references we've been exchanging.
>
> Community disruption and political fragmentation: you are not welcome here.
>
> K
>
> -
>
> There is proof inside many peoples' electronics.  Proof that a marketing
> group would contract development of a frightening virus.  A virus that
> responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what
> people see on their devices.  A virus that alters political behavior en
> masse, for profit.
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 4:30 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>
>> It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its
>> subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial
>> system.
>>
>> Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and
>> wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any
>> Demonrat
>> politician ever could.
>>
>> To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and
>> mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a
>> bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly
>> inefficient blockchain in the way.
>>
>> You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the
>> whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away),
>> and
>> they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture,
>> when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture,
>> but nope "there must be greener pasture".
>>
>> Idiots.
>>
>> We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the
>> hidden
>> (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e.
>> the
>> Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the
>> actual
>> greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that
>> firetrucking
>> myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain
>> to
>> China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the
>> %
>> has surely only gone up since a few years back, too!
>>
>> If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel
>> Andrews
>> would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood.
>>
>> Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity
>> in
>> its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you
>> have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake"
>> (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat).
>>
>> Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified
>> Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em".
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> > It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed /
>> instituted upon us.
>> >
>> > We have the right to financial agency.
>> >
>> > Participation in our community requires that we have the right to
>> participate in the financial system of the day.
>> >
>> > Privacy is another fundamental human right.
>> >
>> > Folks need to live their human rights.
>> >
>> > Use it or lose it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote:
>> > > Good stuff. Thanks.
>> > >
>> > > Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging
>> crypto
>> > > users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency,
>> the
>> > > Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal,
>> Telegram, burst
>> > > transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec
>> wizards, the
>> > > array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on
>> by lists
>> > > like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak
>> sites,
>> > > turncoats needing pensions.
>> > >
>> > > To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as
>> paper
>> > > money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional
>> > > spoors,
>> > > aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to
>> finger
>> > > malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them,
>> dear Mary
>> > > tell what you know.
>> > >
>> > > At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The Threat of Privacy
>> > > > By Charles M. Kahn1
>> > > >
>> > > > Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works
>> > > > doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time.
>> > > > I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking,
>> > > > and
>> > > > will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have
>> > > > to
>> admit
>> > > > that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with
>> > > > hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
>> > > >
>> > > > One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will
>> Roberds,
>> > > > published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it
>> > > > partly
>> > > > as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is
>> > > > Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a
>> > > > record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a
>> > > > net
>> > > > debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed.
>> > > > The
>> > > > implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records
>> directly,
>> > > > cash could wither away.
>> > > > In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its
>> ability to
>> > > > protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while
>> the
>> > > > reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of
>> data
>> > > > transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and
>> > > > deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive.
>> > > > Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for
>> cash, it
>> > > > would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it.
>> At the
>> > > > te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy,
>> > > > but
>> there
>> > > > had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of
>> privacy and
>> > > > the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released
>> > > > in
>> > > > 2009).
>> > > >
>> > > > [...]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference
>> > > > II:
>> New
>> > > > Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8
>> > > > June
>> > > > 2017.
>> > > > 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity
>> and the
>> > > > pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was
>> > > > an
>> > > > important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid;
>> > > > everybody
>> > > > “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>