Re: stopping mass surveillance
On 12/15/22, Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com> wrote:
> The USA does not have a constitutional right to privacy from the
> government.
to the people you mean, right? They certainly, "responsibly" keep
that right to themselves in addition to layers of obfuscation,
secrecy, "stone walling", dilbertism, ... towards "we the people".
> The only thing that comes close is the constitutional right
> requiring a warrant for search and seizure of documents and property.
"search and seizure" of "documents" which you read off your cell
phone, are transmitted over the Internet and are produced and kept by
IT companies and "property" when these days we are eigentlich the
products being offered and sold, we drive computers on wheels and even
microwaves are WiFi-enabled ...
On 12/15/22, operation.privacyenforcement@mailbox.org
<operation.privacyenforcement@mailbox.org> wrote:
> On 1/9/84 19:84, Jeremy Hendricks message was saved by the all seeing eye:
>> Please provide code examples, flow chart, or a white paper.
>
> Releasing anything of requested documents is not desired yet. The idea
> is not patented yet and will make the developers a high value target for
> a lot of agencies worldwide.
> Would be smart to make plans secretly and silently.
I wonder whom is it you could be possibly hiding from these days. You
could put your protagonism aside and make your ideas eminently open.
Disguising their objectives and goals as "scientific" endeavors, even
as something which "could be used to weaken Russia" ... and it will
all be fine and dandy, less potentially harming to you.
On 12/14/22, operation.privacyenforcement@mailbox.org
<operation.privacyenforcement@mailbox.org> wrote:
> It is about solving a problem that counts as technically unsolveable.
> The idea is about making any type of traffic correlation including
> timing attacks very hard up to impossible. It also would make
> statistical analyses of routed traffic, by user behaviour caused network
> traffic routing much more catchier. If the product is available it will
> be very hard even for government agencies and people with huge amounts
> of money and access to large parts of the internet infrastructure to
> reallocate traffic back to sender or destination.
> Imagine agencies could not distinguish a difference between all of your
> users. Does it not sound interesting?
> This solutions needs to be developed to reclaim our fundamental rights
> technically and enforce our right to privacy. It is right before 1984
> and we need a privacy revolution, an enforcement of privacy.
Quite honestly, I very much doubt such a thing to be possible not
only due to their technical aspects and that we humans are very
probabilistic machines. You can make encryption as hard to beat as you
can, but then "a human" (the weakest link) will have to use it. When
you said "it is right before 1984", I wondered about your smarts. We
are way past 1984! Just compare two-way telescreens as envisioned by
George Orwell with cell phones.
Athenians in a crucial moment of their history invented "democracy"
as some specific social technologies in order to ensure openness and
conscious participation of all members of society; when they saw
themselves imminently enslaved by the hugely more powerful Persian
empire (the worldsonlysuperpower of those days, they were also "good
Christians" who heard God telling them things and thought to be their
job to control every self-moving thing in the Universe).
Compare that to what happened during the Snowden revelations when
gringos realized that their own governments was spying on their
supposedly "private" lives and keeping dossiers of everyone way more
intrusively than the stasi, the KGB, ... all those "un-American"
lowlifes in the "regions of the world" (as the NYTimes calls other
sovereign countries) had ever had it in their wildest sweat dreams! A
whole nation that had been evangelically fed such illusions about
privacy as part of their very moral underpinning and about "not being
un-American" for generations simply went like: "Oh, now I know what
'metadata' is, I thought it was some Latin dance":
// __ 'State of Surveillance' with Edward Snowden and Shane Smith
(VICE on HBO: Season 4, Episode 13)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRWyGKBVzo
~
// __ Obama: Snooping on Americans is okay since we only collect the
metadata of the phone calls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7_XLYpL_Fk
~
"privacy" is simply an odd and base joke to those cluelessly stupid
enough to use it as part of their functional illusions. I mean, not
only the government, even IT companies repeat to you ad nauseam that
"they care about -your- privacy" and people don't even get the inside
joke in such statements. I remember some time ago that people were
talking a lot about the government wanting not only a monopoly on
violence, but also a monopoly on truth. "we the people" don't even
begin to realize that what they want is a monopoly on lies. "Truths"
they find insipidly boring. "Quid est veritas?", rightfully indeed,
asked someone some time ago. (John 18:37)
We are all living in a click-by-click, "all tangible things"
panopticon. The government has been keeping a data Doppelgänger of
everyone of us real time. To them we are all rats in an all
encompassing societal maze they control. People in "the control group"
might be happily elusive about their placebo treatment. You want to
hear about what the experimental group: "targeted individuals", has to
say. People who are definitely not mentally ill have been saying since
the 1990’s such things as "the government is reading my mind", "is
seeing through my eyes", "I hear voices, I can go into back and forths
with telling me about the most private aspects of my life", "how do
they know when I forget my car keys?", . . . (some have been even
driven to commit suicide based on such very wrong beliefs). I have
even gone to country wide conferences these folks have organized to
explain to them that it is impossible for "'the government' to read
their mind" and why.
Not long ago I heard some news about cell phones detecting like 5
years in advance with an accuracy that no other medical device could
match (based on very minor, totally unconscious changes in your
walking patterns). IT companies were selling that data to medical
companies, of course, without telling their customers because "they
care about their privacy" ...
Sorry to all for abusing the list with what some may take as off
topic themes/responses/rants ...
I think it is about time we technical people start to take more
responsibility towards such matters, if only because it was us who
created this mess.
lbrtchx
Reply to: