gmkarl at gmail.com
Mon Dec 7 13:50:22 PST 2020
Your reply to my message seems good for showing different areas where
we agree and disagree.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:50 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 05:54:13 -0500
> Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I haven't seen that, and it sounds a little strange to me. Do you have a photo?
> better description : they are BGA chips, but instead of being packaged in plastic, the top of the chip is a mirror-like crystal. There are absolutely no markings on them.
Sounds frustrating. It's pleasant to feel like I have this shared
experience with you, of opening devices and working with their chips.
> > I usually plan to use phones by installing apps on them using their
> > existing operating system. With Kivy you can write python that runs
> > the same on iOS and android.
> Ah I was thinking about trying python on retardphones. Still, that means using a fully compromised 'platform' at all levels from hardware to OS.
Yeah. Eventually it seems it's easier just to stop things from easily
communicating and use them anyway (even atomic nuclei are
compromised!). Depends how urgent the situation is, I suppose.
> > Here in new england we say 'dumbphone' for the phones that have a
> > black and white display and don't kidnap your eyeballs and social
> > connections with advertisements, to counter 'smartphone'.
> Funny because the 'dumbphones' are marginally better than the 'smart' kind and calling them 'dumbphones' is just govcorp 'marketing'.
> > 'smartphone' i think usually gets some descriptor around how it is
> > watching you all the time without your consent. 'retardphone' is more
> > appropriate but nobody in my communities understands that the danger
> > warrants and causes the name, yet.
> that's how it is...
> > > Same thing with printers : the old ones have many parts that can be remade into a '3d printer', but the new ones have a small board with some kind of SoC which is completely useless, unless you have their 'propietary' manuals. And even then the chip is likely to be locked.
> > The manuals or at least some information used to be findable on the
> > internet if one learned the meaning of the numbers on the chip
> > package.
> Yeah, in this case I didn't bother trying to find the manual because I assumed it woudn't be there. Because I know from experience that the manuals for newer, bigger, more integrated chips are kept secret using NDAs and similar 'IP' garbage (HEY JIM BELL)
I could be half a decade out of date.
> > Sometimes they were in chinese, though. I've never pulled a
> > microcontroller from a printer, though; I've only looked at smaller
> > chips in that kind of space. I found an article once on reverse
> > engineering chip circuitry using a confocal microscope and some
> > analysis software. My friend had a confocal microscope, but I only
> > learned he had it around 2013 when my life stopped.
> You probably could get a working device and reverse engineer it while running, but that's a lot of work.
I feel like this point you make is a good example of a way we tend to
move towards disagreement.
I was a software developer and inventor as a child. I suspect many
others on this list were too. So, when I think of something
complicated, I don't think of it as a lot of work. I think of how it
could be automated with code and robots (simply because that used to
be my skill), to make it easy for everyone. When you make new things,
you do the work once, and then people can benefit from that work for a
So, if somebody was struggling with an issue, when I was a teenager, I
would make a new tool, to solve the issue. That became really normal
Because of my personal history, which I suspect to be common on this
list, I wouldn't consider it being a lot of work to reverse engineer a
chip, if I knew a way to do it, to be a problem. I know there are
many people who would desire to do it for fun, and once the problem is
solved, everybody benefits.
That philosophy is really core. For free communities, it's pretty
reasonable to plan on doing a bunch of wild new, really hard things.
I looked briefly for the article where hackers imaged the layers of
chips and mapped all the semiconductors inside them, but I didn't find
it. It provided for extraction of private keys.
> notice that the de facto and legal situation is that technofascists have almost completely control. And the proposed way to 'fix' the problem is to try to patch the technofascist legal system.
The idea of making repairing stuff illegal is as ludicrous as the
ownership of land. There are going to be people who just aren't going
to respect it, because it's a basic survival thing for them.
> > > I've found a few microcontrollers but they are useless without manuals, even if the fuses were not blown.
> > I found manuals on the website of the chip manufacturer. I was able
> > to order more chips from them, to experiment with, too, for
> > cents-per-chip.
> All the mictrocontrollers I use were bought first hand. At least here there's no 'natural', dumpster-located source for them.
I think we were discussing the idea of pulling them from or using them
in discarded devices, which I think is hard now because the tooling
> > > > but I understand that there is much better
> > > > material available on how, nowadays 7 years later.
This quote you left was about glitching blown fuses to repurpose
microcontrollers from other devices.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually as times goes by stuff gets more and more miniaturized and integrated...and becomes un-recyclable.
I didn't realise your reply wasn't really related to the quote.
> > Very precise tools needed eventually.
> the kind of tools that you won't find on a dumpster - the kind on tools that only govcorp has.
This goes back to being a hobby inventor as a child. We can build
these tools, if we want to. Govcorp makes them incredibly
inefficiently, wasting resources in order to try to make
set-and-forget-profit-factories. All these tools started as
prototypes made by researchers and hobbyists, in small spaces,
designed for the task at hand.
I don't know what kind of makerspace experience you have. Here in the
USA, you can find a metal mill that can cut metal precisely down to
thousandths of an inch, for free, because they are left over from old
> > Of course, the scientific community/ies are thinking about all this
> > stuff with a lot of potential wise deliberation. Their power is just
> > filtered by the journals, funders, institutions, and communities they
> > work with.
> I don't think that's the case. The vast majority of members of the 'scientific community' are evil to the core assholes who know pretty well what they are doing.
Having spoken and worked with these people, what you say seems
_mostly_ false to me, here, and it's surprising to me if you believe
it. Very few people seem to believe what you say here, to me. I'm
curious why you believe it.
> > > Yeah, I don't disagree with the concept, but it's easier said than done.
> > The concept of the puppet or of the printer?
> The concept/idea of recycling electronic devices.
Puppet says: learning to recycle electronics is better than throwing
them out and playing video games.
> > Maybe I see where you're coming from better. 3d printers are used by
> > people who don't need them, for fun. So it's hard to use them where
> > the concept would be needed; the concept isn't reasonably designed for
> > a real-world community. They're more like a daydream that is
> > discovering the value of helpfulness but hasn't found it yet.
> What I was objecting to is the original claim
> "this link helps technophiles make unlimited unregulated firearms"
> because while that's more or less technically true, it doesn't imply any kind of increased political freedom (which is ultimately what I care about).
I'm not sure what you mean by "political freedom" here. For
technophiles or others?
> > Makerspaces started making medical supplies in the usa for this
> > coronavirus thing, but they weren't on top of it. The makerspace
> > model could have expanded medical capacity instantly by spreading the
> > norm of helping and learning to help, rather than the help itself, but
> > instead corporations and governments want to be in control and the
> > makerspaces and mutual aid efforts are still kept relegated to
> > hobby-types who happen to be interested, rather than recognised as a
> > solution that can be far faster and more effective than centralised
> > aid.
> Yes, there's a political side to it. But there's also a technical side. So called 3d printig is better suited for slow and small scale production. Mass production is likely to be more 'efficient'. Of course, decentralized and less 'efficient' producion is a trade off that allows people to gain more political freedom, but cnsumerist fucktards don't care about freedom.
You'd probably have to be a childhood inventor (geek) to see that
using a 3d printer, you could make an automatic 3d printer that makes
more 3d printers on its own, and then disassembles them when it's
done. It could make millions of something in a week.
More information about the cypherpunks