Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 21-03-2021 20:39, deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I
>> apologise for that.
>>
>> I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for
>> others to be able to send you encrypted messages.
>>
>> Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A
>> Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and
>> keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys.
>>
>> Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with
>> sub-keys instead.
>
> Yes, I recall this from the past. So basically there are two use cases here.
> What I was reffering to is cases like Snowden or Assange or some
> investigative journalists who do not survive like Navalni and are not
> Russians ;-).
Well, Navalny isn't an investigative journalist, he's just an agitator.
And, word is, he's a CIA asset, so you're right in he isn't Russian,
either. He got it lucky: I thought he'd wind up in Black Dolphin, or
similar, but he got a really easy gig in a work camp, not far from
Moscow.
> You are reffering to cases in the public domain, but IMO here it works
> perfectly well (signing packages or similar)
> In the use case I reffer to one should take care of his/her life.
This is important. The individual has the right to make their own
decisions on their own personal existence. The right to make the wrong
one, and the right to suffer by it.
> Exchanging
> keys via public domain is not what I would do and even so - it was
> proven "they" are capturing your screen (after you decrypted) and sending
> it home for further analyses.
Making the `public domain `public' again would be a good move. When the
network is owned, as it is now, there will always be compromise. There
will be a `product' to sell.
> In the public domain I do not see how the avg. Joe would manage it to stay
> safe. It is impossible ... most do not care, do not understand or do not
> have the capacity.
Most are currently involved with whether they're going to be voting
Republican or Democrat, next time, in and endless cycle of always voting
for the same party with two different names, and which of the two only
pre-selected Presidential candidates they are going to place their faith
in, in a show that is no more than the illusion of a democratic process.
> I would not bother unless they have the right to vote -
> and yes they do and so determine your future.
>
> So to jump to the conclusion - this form of democracy is counter productive
> and we should have open debate regarding some better form of democracy -
> lets say next generation democracy. (Covid-19 also showed that a more
> totalitarian/military style approach gives better results - and I do not
> mean China here).
I was in China at the time, and it was far from `totalitarian/militant'.
The people just played it smart, as they also did in New Zealand, which
was also not `totalitarian/militant'.
Cheers!
Harry
--
`The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but
because of those who look on without doing anything'.
-- Albert Einstein
Reply to: