Re: hardware monitoring at the most basic level …
OK, I got inquisitor 3.1beta2 and I will try it on my boxes, but
honestly I think there has been quite of "paradigm shift" and I
couldn't see how it covers the kinds of "use cases" (let's call it
that ;-)) that I mentioned. BTW, have you thought of including DTrace?
The assumptions that initially justified, say, knoppix' functional
niche have changed nowadays. How could you protect yourself (at least
being conscious of it to the point of being able to easily
gauge/sense/prove it to some extent and manage those kinds of (as NYPD
Commissioner Raymond Kelly calls them)) "lawful efforts" without going
mad? (which is what they want) How could you, for example, protect
yourself from a black bag job inside your apartment to reset the BIOS
in your boxes and routers to then remotely own them or not even that
but doing it through your ISP? (which in the US, like any other
business, must all submit to snitching)
Of course, my work-hose box is not connected to the Internet at all
but I was using a KVM box to just share the monitor and "things"
started happening real soon and the KVM box started to malfunction ...
there is not a box I have own that I remember that hasn't had sound
card problems ... Once I watched a youtube feed in which some dude
showed how you can monitor "noise" in your telephone lines using Linux
... those are the kinds of things I have in mind
Say you go to a public library and each time you try to
unsuccessfully connect to the Internet for more than one minute you
get kicked off, then you switch to WEP hacking spoofing your MAC
address as a way to prove that "it is about you". There are provisions
in the law that address cases in which the only way you have to prove
a greater wrong is doing something "illegal" as long as there is no
criminal intention and no harmful consequences whatsoever and you
obviously and visibly do it to prove your point in front of their own
clerks, who have told me "support" would not take their calls if other
people are online just fine ...
>> A la Orson Wells 1984
> You mean George Orwell
I actually did
lbrtchx
Reply to: