Discussion:
Assange believes too late for any pervasive privacy
Zenaan Harkness
2015-12-11 08:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic.

https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/

Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange
on #RT10 panel
Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 18:13
Edited time: 11 Dec, 2015 03:16

Humanity has lost its battle for privacy and must now learn to live in
a world where mass surveillance is becoming cheaper for governments to
implement, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said during a panel
dedicated to RT’s 10th anniversary.

Assange addressed the panel on security and surveillance hosted by RT
in central Moscow on Thursday via videoconference from the Ecuadorian
embassy in London, where he has remained holed up for the last three
years in order to avoid extradition to Sweden.

When offered a chance to comment on the session’s topic – “Security or
Surveillance: Can the right to privacy and effective anti-terror
security coexist in the digital age?” – the whistleblower asked the
moderator, and host of The Big Picture Show on RT American, Thom
Hartmann: “How long have you got, Tom?” implying he has a lot to say
on the issue.

But it was Assange’s only joke during the event, as his reply turned
out to be gravely serious and in many respects depressing.



“In thinking about this issue I want to take quite a different
position, perhaps, from what you would expect me to have taken… I
think that we should understand that the game for privacy is gone.
It’s gone. The mass surveillance is here to stay,” he said.

Mass surveillance is already being implemented not only by major world
powers, but also by some medium and small-sized countries, he added.

“The Five Eyes intelligence arrangement [of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, the UK and the US]… is so evasive in terms of mass
surveillance of domestic and international telecommunications that
while some experts can achieve practical privacy for themselves for
limited number of operations… it’s gone for the rest of the
populations,” the WikiLeaks founder stressed.

International terrorists are among those “experts” capable of making
their communications invisible for security agencies, he added.

Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic
collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,”
Assange said.

“The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass
surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months,
because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of
telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and
computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much
faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,”
he explained.

Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition
with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win
at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal
with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added.

The focus should now switch from defending privacy to understanding
what kind of society will be built in these new, changed conditions,
he said.

The WikiLeaks founder reminded the panel of the historic examples of
East Germany and other societies, in which people adapted to living
under the scrutiny of the authorities.

“If you look at societal behavior in very conformist, small, isolated
societies with reduced social spaces – like Sweden, South Korea,
Okinawa in Japan and North Korea – then you’ll see that society
adapts. Everyone becomes incredibly timid, they start to use code
words; use a lot of subtext to try and sneak out your controversial
views,” he said.

According to Assange, the modern world is currently moving “towards
that kind of a society.”

Privacy is among values “that simply are unsustainable… in the face of
the reality of technological change; the reality of the deep state
with a military-industrial complex and the reality of Islamic
terrorism, which is legitimizing that sector in a way that it’s
behaving,” he stressed.

Assange encouraged those present on the panel as well as the general
public to “get on the other side of the debate where it’s going” and
stop holding on to privacy.

The panel discussion was part of an RT conference titled 'Information,
messages, politics:The shape-shifting powers of today's world.' The
meeting brought together politicians, foreign policy experts and media
executives from across the globe, among them former director of the US
Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn, the Green Party’s Jill
Stein and former vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
OSCE, Willy Wimmer.
Shelley
2015-12-11 16:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenaan Harkness
Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic.
https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10
Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange
Jeezus, wtf! Julian has either finally lost his mind from living in exile
or someone has gotten to him. What is this defeatist fuckery?!

Of course we learn to adapt while living under a surveillance, militaristic
police state - while we use and make the tech that pushes back, and will
ultimately take it back.

The very fact that the recent atrocities committed by crazy religious
extremists and other mentally unstable people (including the latest
delusional asswipe to shoot up a woman's health clinic in my gun-obsessed
country) were able to be planned and carried out right under their noses
proves that they're not ubiquitous. They just like to project that image
so we will self-censor and cower in fear, as Julian seems to be buying
into. Fuck That, I say!

Part of it is just practicality: the Digital Stasi collects so much
information that they can't process it all in a timely manner. Since they
claim to hoard all encrypted communications (as though they don't hoard
everything anyway), using existing encryption and other strategies while we
develop something better will keep these pissant spies busy for quite some
time.

I'm not a ter'rist, not doing anything particularly interesting or illegal,
don't really have much I care to hide... and that's exactly why the fucking
government is not allowed to read my email and track my every move.
They're proven that their attempt at constant and total surveillance is
useless for keeping "the homeland" (what a fucking nazi phrase) safe, time
and again. They're the ones we need protection from anyway.

Adapt to survive: yes. Always! But advising that their cancerous
surveillance is malignant, that it is too late to stop it, is utter
bullshit. I refuse.

-S
Post by Zenaan Harkness
on #RT10 panel
Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 18:13
Edited time: 11 Dec, 2015 03:16
Humanity has lost its battle for privacy and must now learn to live in
a world where mass surveillance is becoming cheaper for governments to
implement, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said during a panel
dedicated to RT’s 10th anniversary.
Assange addressed the panel on security and surveillance hosted by RT
in central Moscow on Thursday via videoconference from the Ecuadorian
embassy in London, where he has remained holed up for the last three
years in order to avoid extradition to Sweden.
When offered a chance to comment on the session’s topic – “Security or
Surveillance: Can the right to privacy and effective anti-terror
security coexist in the digital age?” – the whistleblower asked the
moderator, and host of The Big Picture Show on RT American, Thom
Hartmann: “How long have you got, Tom?” implying he has a lot to say
on the issue.
But it was Assange’s only joke during the event, as his reply turned
out to be gravely serious and in many respects depressing.
http://youtu.be/k3rFNQ8ytnE
“In thinking about this issue I want to take quite a different
position, perhaps, from what you would expect me to have taken… I
think that we should understand that the game for privacy is gone.
It’s gone. The mass surveillance is here to stay,” he said.
Mass surveillance is already being implemented not only by major world
powers, but also by some medium and small-sized countries, he added.
“The Five Eyes intelligence arrangement [of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, the UK and the US]… is so evasive in terms of mass
surveillance of domestic and international telecommunications that
while some experts can achieve practical privacy for themselves for
limited number of operations… it’s gone for the rest of the
populations,” the WikiLeaks founder stressed.
International terrorists are among those “experts” capable of making
their communications invisible for security agencies, he added.
Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic
collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,”
Assange said.
“The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass
surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months,
because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of
telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and
computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much
faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,”
he explained.
Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition
with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win
at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal
with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added.
The focus should now switch from defending privacy to understanding
what kind of society will be built in these new, changed conditions,
he said.
The WikiLeaks founder reminded the panel of the historic examples of
East Germany and other societies, in which people adapted to living
under the scrutiny of the authorities.
“If you look at societal behavior in very conformist, small, isolated
societies with reduced social spaces – like Sweden, South Korea,
Okinawa in Japan and North Korea – then you’ll see that society
adapts. Everyone becomes incredibly timid, they start to use code
words; use a lot of subtext to try and sneak out your controversial
views,” he said.
According to Assange, the modern world is currently moving “towards
that kind of a society.”
Privacy is among values “that simply are unsustainable… in the face of
the reality of technological change; the reality of the deep state
with a military-industrial complex and the reality of Islamic
terrorism, which is legitimizing that sector in a way that it’s
behaving,” he stressed.
Assange encouraged those present on the panel as well as the general
public to “get on the other side of the debate where it’s going” and
stop holding on to privacy.
The panel discussion was part of an RT conference titled 'Information,
messages, politics:The shape-shifting powers of today's world.' The
meeting brought together politicians, foreign policy experts and media
executives from across the globe, among them former director of the US
Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn, the Green Party’s Jill
Stein and former vice president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
OSCE, Willy Wimmer.
Zenaan Harkness
2015-12-11 23:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shelley
I'm not a ter'rist, not doing anything particularly interesting or illegal,
don't really have much I care to hide... and that's exactly why the fucking
government is not allowed to read my email and track my every move.
"I don't have to be doing anything wrong to want my privacy."
Post by Shelley
I refuse.
So do I!

<scare quotes>Beware! We are breaking the first rule of non compliance.

What's the first rule of non compliance?

Do NOT talk about non compliance!

But what's the rule - only want to know how to not comply in a compliant way?!

Listen, you don't get it do you - I just gave you the first damn rule.

But that sounded like a freedom of speech rule and on the vector of
freedom of speech your rule's at a rather distasteful end?

Fecwha?! What the fuck are you smoking!?!#!

It's a mathema... [!!SLAP!!] [!!POW!!]
Steve Kinney
2015-12-11 16:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenaan Harkness
Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay –
Assange on #RT10 panel
[ ... ]
Post by Zenaan Harkness
while some experts can achieve practical privacy for themselves
for limited number of operations… it’s gone for the rest of
the populations,” the WikiLeaks founder stressed.
[ ... ]
Post by Zenaan Harkness
The WikiLeaks founder reminded the panel of the historic
examples of East Germany and other societies, in which people
adapted to living under the scrutiny of the authorities.
[ etc. ]

Well yeah, he's only stating the obvious: Pervasive networked
computing is here, it's growing, and historical concepts of
'privacy' are just that, historical. But in the context of the
show, his comments focus on the archaic paradigm of "privacy" as
something that exists naturally and is violated when State actors
pry into the private affairs of individuals. That's a narrow
viewpoint, distorted by an increasingly irrelevant context.
Today, State actors are only one group of "privacy violators,"
alongside commercial interests and the general public itself. The
disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are
counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a
world of "networked everything."

The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates
but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a
prison where the inmates can watch each other, and the guards:
The guards do have a better view, but their powers of observation
are no longer exclusive.

Secrets that could once be kept until after their exposure could
make no difference are now breaking open before the protected
operations are completed:

http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/SHB.cambridge.061014.pptx

CPunks will recall Cryptome's ongoing Eyeball series, and of
course, the Total Poindexter Awareness project: Early examples of
open source intelligence collection /and/ reporting directed
against the wardens of our modern Panopticon. Today, projects
like CopWatch are "watching the watchers" and reporting to an
audience large enough to inconvenience our Panopticon's owners.
In the last few days we have seen random nobodies manage to save
and re-publish multiple eyewitness accounts of a staged
'terrorist' attack, directly contradicting the propaganda
narrative the event was staged to support.

The availability of more and better political intelligence
formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially. This
is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale
power relationships that is causing a panic among our present
rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil
uprisings inside its own borders, again in full view of interested
members of the general public.

I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in
the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone
reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own
deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who
has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare
your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations
to.

Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the
concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected
to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the
Interet, not so much.



:o)
Shelley
2015-12-11 17:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Kinney
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in
the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone
reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own
deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who
has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare
your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations
to.
No. Just because my private thoughts may not be considered special or out
of the ordinary does not mean you or anyone else has the right to know what
they are unless I give you permission.
Post by Steve Kinney
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the
concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected
to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the
Interet, not so much.
People who grew up with the Internet... Do you mean the vapid idiots who
willingly post every detail of their entire fucking lives on Failbook and
fart out every insignificant, nonsensical thought in 140 character-blocks
of uselessness?

We, the Old Farts who helped build the place, wish you'd clean your room
and take better care of things, or we'll be changing the locks.

-S
Steve Kinney
2015-12-11 18:02:55 UTC
Permalink
On December 11, 2015 9:00:54 AM Steve Kinney
Post by Steve Kinney
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of
privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The
prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until
it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not
special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it
all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most
heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to.
No. Just because my private thoughts may not be considered
special or out of the ordinary does not mean you or anyone else
has the right to know what they are unless I give you
permission.
The power to give and withhold permission for others to see you
varies with circumstances. In an environment where this power is
inherently weak or intermittent, you are "in the game" whether you
want to be or not; the only alternative is to isolate yourself
from resources native to the privacy-hostile environment. Most of
the participants in the privacy-hostile networked world consider
the resources found there indispensable.

However, to whatever extent you participate in an environment
where arbitrary enforcement of personal decisions about "privacy"
is often impossible, a purely defensive game is most likely a long
term losing strategy for society at large: The practical
advantages of participating in the networked world far outweigh
the perceived and, possibly, the actual harm from "loss of
privacy." Only a few atypical individuals will be able to manage
their affairs so that the advantages of "strong privacy
protections" outweigh the costs of compensating for lost access to
resources.
Post by Steve Kinney
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around
the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and
expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who
grew up with the Interet, not so much.
People who grew up with the Internet... Do you mean the vapid
idiots who willingly post every detail of their entire fucking
lives on Failbook and fart out every insignificant, nonsensical
thought in 140 character-blocks of uselessness?
The vapid idiots don't interest me, except perhaps as a study in
herd behavior. (I find that VERY interesting...)

I mean everybody: The morons you mention; the clever ones who
pump social and economic iron with their lookityboxes and 23 WiFi
enabled devices in arm's reach; the smart ones who use the
Internet as a University, storefront and intelligence collection
asset; the brilliant batshit crazy ones whose most contagious
ideas occasionally spread like prairie brushfires.
We, the Old Farts who helped build the place, wish you'd clean
your room and take better care of things, or we'll be changing
the locks.
Tell me about it: Those Old Farts were early adopters, because
they happened to take an unnatural interest in computers. So a
large faction among them are capable of understanding and
implementing network security and making rational decisions about
disclosures of their activities and data to 3rd parties.

These folks, and the few /honest/ professionals in related fields,
are the only thing that keeps the Internet from clogging up with
shit from end to end and falling apart. Well, at least we have
mostly kept it from falling apart.

:o)
Shelley
2015-12-11 19:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Kinney
The power to give and withhold permission for others to see you
varies with circumstances.
you are "in the game" whether you
want to be or not;
True, unfortunately.
Post by Steve Kinney
the only alternative is to isolate yourself
from resources native to the privacy-hostile environment.
False.

Offense is often one of the best defenses. Just one example: the data
scraping and collating scum like Intellius and their ilk, from whose talons
we cannot escape. In such cases, it is better to pollute their data pool
with garbage so it is of little value to them and we retain privacy by
obfuscation. I've made sure that Intellius alone has three different
profiles on me including varying ages, birthdates and backgrounds, and good
luck to the marketing and profiling scum in discerning which - if any - is
the real one.
Post by Steve Kinney
The practical
advantages of participating in the networked world far outweigh
the perceived and, possibly, the actual harm from "loss of
privacy." Only a few atypical individuals will be able to manage
their affairs so that the advantages of "strong privacy
protections" outweigh the costs of compensating for lost access to
resources.
I find absolutely no benefit in allowing Fuckerberg's empire of suck to
acquire my data, so I prevent it in every way possible. I don't use Google
anything, but I know my emails get indexed and data-raped when I'm forced
to correspond with people who use their "free" gmail. There is no way to
avoid every avenue of privacy violation, but it is possible to minimize it
and not make it easy for the bastards.
Post by Steve Kinney
Those Old Farts were early adopters, because
they happened to take an unnatural interest in computers. So a
large faction among them are capable of understanding and
implementing network security and making rational decisions about
disclosures of their activities and data to 3rd parties.
Yes, and we know there is no closing the door after the data has gotten out
so it is best to restrict and control access as best we can.
Post by Steve Kinney
These folks, and the few /honest/ professionals in related fields,
are the only thing that keeps the Internet from clogging up with
shit from end to end and falling apart. Well, at least we have
mostly kept it from falling apart.
We're not doing a very good job, I fear. But I live so much of my life
online, (which is why I am fiercely protective of my right to control my
PII when I see fit), I'm not going to acquiescence to zero-privacy as the
norm just because "everyone else is doing it." There are billions of
people on this planet who believe in nonsensical things; it surely doesn't
make them right.

-S
juan
2015-12-11 19:25:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500
Post by Steve Kinney
The
disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are
counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent in a
world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Post by Steve Kinney
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the inmates
but the inmates can not watch the guards. The Internet is a
prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers
controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to have
the password(s).

Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can
watch the guards. Thank you very much.
Post by Steve Kinney
The guards do have a better view, but their powers of observation
are no longer exclusive.
...yeah, 'better view' is somewhat more accurate.
Post by Steve Kinney
Secrets that could once be kept until after their exposure could
make no difference are now breaking open before the protected
http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/SHB.cambridge.061014.pptx
sorry, not bothering with pptx, whatever that is.
Post by Steve Kinney
CPunks will recall Cryptome's ongoing Eyeball series, and of
course, the Total Poindexter Awareness project: Early examples of
open source intelligence collection /and/ reporting directed
against the wardens of our modern Panopticon. Today, projects
like CopWatch are "watching the watchers" and reporting to an
audience large enough to inconvenience our Panopticon's owners.
In the last few days we have seen random nobodies manage to save
and re-publish multiple eyewitness accounts of a staged
'terrorist' attack, directly contradicting the propaganda
narrative the event was staged to support.
The availability of more and better political intelligence
formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
Post by Steve Kinney
This
is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large scale
power relationships that is causing a panic among our present
rulers. The United States is preparing to put down major civil
uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all
communications will come handy, don't you think?
Post by Steve Kinney
again in full view of interested
members of the general public.
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of privacy" in
the networked world to mental telepathy: The prospect of someone
reading your mind is frightening, until it turns out that your own
deeply held secrets are not special or unusual to a telepath who
has already "seen it all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare
your most heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations
to.
Sorry, that's not the point at all? The problem with people
reading your 'private' mail or your mind is that it that it
enables them to attack you way more efficiently.

We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or
your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about the
sickest nazis on the planet doing it.

Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Post by Steve Kinney
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the
concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected
to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
Post by Steve Kinney
People who grew up with the
Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you mentioned
have raised generations of clueless young retards.
Post by Steve Kinney
http://youtu.be/6c-RbGZBnBI
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=40o9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Kinney
2015-12-11 23:55:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are
counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent
in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products
and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational
research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical
political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all
previous ones in history combined...

A highly productive "office worker's desk" that fits in a small
tote bag has its uses as well.
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the
inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The
Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers
controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to
have the password(s).
Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can
watch the guards. Thank you very much.
Just for starters check out CopWatch, referenced in my earlier
post. We might also factor in a half dozen or so investigative
journalism outlets, document distribution sites like Cryptome and
Public Intelligence, one's news aggregators of choice, access to
foreign press outlets, various spook watching sites, the mass of
raw data contributed by Manning, Snowden et al...

The Internet is billions of people, interacting through the
world's first many-to-many communications medium. The "Web 2.0"
buzzword denotes a real thing: Millions of users as content
creators and content promoters, the appearance (as predicted) of
swarming behaviors on the networks with social and economic
impacts in the real world, smart mobs, pathologically stupid mobs,
etc. etc.
Secrets that could once be kept until after their exposure
could make no difference are now breaking open before the
http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/SHB.cambridge.061014.ppt
x
sorry, not bothering with pptx, whatever that is.
Micro$oft's latest and greatest incarnation of PowerPoint. Works
in Open / Libre Office, and I can't be bothered to convert the
file to ASCII art for security purposes...
The availability of more and better political intelligence
formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
- From this I can only you don't take any interest in politics, or
your definition of the word is very different from mine. or that
you just don't use the Internet much.
This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large
scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our
present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down
major civil uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all
communications will come handy, don't you think?
Yes it will. But will that be a sufficient advantage to
compensate for the ones our rulers lost when the Internet became
too important to commerce to "just turn it off"? Little Brother
is watching Them, and there are enough /clever/ Little Brothers
(and Sisters) out there looking to pull Big Brother's pants down
that they are becoming a real world problem.
again in full view of interested members of the general
public.
I sometimes compare paranoid reactions to the "loss of
privacy" in the networked world to mental telepathy: The
prospect of someone reading your mind is frightening, until
it turns out that your own deeply held secrets are not
special or unusual to a telepath who has already "seen it
all" and has /far/ worse examples to compare your most
heinous and embarrassing inner thoughts and motivations to.
Sorry, that's not the point at all? The problem with people
reading your 'private' mail or your mind is that it that it
enables them to attack you way more efficiently.
We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or
your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about
the sickest nazis on the planet doing it.
Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Yes, it gives the opposition a potentially useful tool. As there
are FAR too many dissidents of various types wandering around
loose for it to be possible to personally persecute more than a
tiny fraction of them, the main value of mass surveillance is for
aggregate content analysis, social network mapping, and predictive
modelling of large scale social behavior. This may be useful for
targeting and calibration of propaganda, and advance deployment of
physical assets to counter populist political actions. But so
far, Big Brother seems to suck at that kind of work...

Do the new surveillance capabilities the Internet gives military
and police agencies outweigh the educational, intelligence,
propaganda and organizational capabilities the Internet has given
to radicals of all stripes? That remains to be seen, but I am
fairly sure that obsessive attention to "privacy" shifts the
balance of power somewhat toward those whose whole job is to
maintain the status quo.

Of course, any political organizer with any common sense knows
well enough when to keep some specific information OFF the
networks and out of the hands of uncommitted "hang arounds" at
public meetings.
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around
the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and
expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
Very old. Sometimes I wonder, "when did I get so damned old?" I
watched Mercury and Gemini launches from my back yard.
People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you
mentioned have raised generations of clueless young retards.
I didn't start the "age based" comments, but srsly, it doesn't
take THAT much effort to find plenty of clever young radicals to
play with IRL - if you're OK with exposing your identity as a
"political dissident" on teh interwebs.

:o)
juan
2015-12-12 03:08:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:55:26 -0500
Post by Steve Kinney
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are
counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent
in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products
and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational
research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical
political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all
previous ones in history combined...
Oh, OK. Yes, all those things you mention are enhanced by
electronic communication networks. And yes, the online
library is especially nice.

I can't help pointing out though that all the things you
mentioned existed before the internet and even before telegraph
networks =P

Before 'networking', access to libraries was more restricted,
true, but the ability for governments to track millions of
people in realtime was just a crazy dream - or nightmare. Looks
to me that the good changes are more incremental in nature
whereas the bad changes are kinda 'revolutionary'.
Post by Steve Kinney
A highly productive "office worker's desk" that fits in a small
tote bag has its uses as well.
Point taken.
Post by Steve Kinney
The Panopticon is a prison where the guards can watch the
inmates but the inmates can not watch the guards. The
Internet is a prison where the inmates can watch each other,
Last time I checked, the 'internet' is a bunch of servers
controlled by google and the pentagon and I don't happen to
have the password(s).
Please, any hacker out there, post the password(s) so I we can
watch the guards. Thank you very much.
Just for starters check out CopWatch, referenced in my earlier
post.
Until a few months ago I had a facebook account and yes, I
used to follow copwatch, among other things.

As a matter of fact, I've been involved in the political
networking you speak of (both online & offline) , for years,
mostly in spanish speaking 'libertarian' circles.
Post by Steve Kinney
We might also factor in a half dozen or so investigative
journalism outlets, document distribution sites like Cryptome and
Public Intelligence, one's news aggregators of choice, access to
foreign press outlets, various spook watching sites, the mass of
raw data contributed by Manning, Snowden et al...
The Internet is billions of people, interacting through the
world's first many-to-many communications medium. The "Web 2.0"
Yes, I realize that part of the hype actually references real
and valuable changes.
Post by Steve Kinney
The availability of more and better political intelligence
formerly concealed from the public is growing exponentially.
Sorry, that's exponential bullshit.
- From this I can only you don't take any interest in politics, or
your definition of the word is very different from mine. or that
you just don't use the Internet much.
I honestly don't see a radical change in that area. Or else, if
'poltical intelligence' is more common and of better quality,
I don't see too many people acting on it.
Post by Steve Kinney
This is one of several drivers of fundamental change in large
scale power relationships that is causing a panic among our
present rulers. The United States is preparing to put down
major civil uprisings inside its own borders,
I'm guessint that the government having full access to all
communications will come handy, don't you think?
Yes it will. But will that be a sufficient advantage to
compensate for the ones our rulers lost when the Internet became
too important to commerce to "just turn it off"?
I don't think they plan to turn it off. That's the thing.
Considering how computers work, it's possible or even
easy for them to, say, sabotage or control personal
communications while 'freely' allowing people to buy stuff off
amazon.
Post by Steve Kinney
Little Brother
is watching Them, and there are enough /clever/ Little Brothers
(and Sisters) out there looking to pull Big Brother's pants down
that they are becoming a real world problem.
Wait and see I guess.
Post by Steve Kinney
We are not talking about your neighbor reading your mail or
your mind(none of his business anyway), we are talking about
the sickest nazis on the planet doing it.
Surely you realize that's a bit problematic?
Yes, it gives the opposition a potentially useful tool. As there
are FAR too many dissidents of various types wandering around
loose for it to be possible to personally persecute more than a
tiny fraction of them,
Yes, you do have a point there, but it's not as if mass
persecution of dissidents is impossible either. Just look at the
US 'war on drugs'.
Post by Steve Kinney
the main value of mass surveillance is for
aggregate content analysis, social network mapping, and predictive
modelling of large scale social behavior.
None of which is exactly harmless...
Post by Steve Kinney
This may be useful for
targeting and calibration of propaganda, and advance deployment of
physical assets to counter populist political actions. But so
far, Big Brother seems to suck at that kind of work...
I don't think there's been a real 'on the field' test yet.
Post by Steve Kinney
Do the new surveillance capabilities the Internet gives military
and police agencies outweigh the educational, intelligence,
propaganda and organizational capabilities the Internet has given
to radicals of all stripes? That remains to be seen,
Well, that I can agree with. I obviously am not too optimistic
regarding future outcomes, at least as far as the near future
is concerned.
Post by Steve Kinney
but I am
fairly sure that obsessive attention to "privacy" shifts the
balance of power somewhat toward those whose whole job is to
maintain the status quo.
That may be true.
Post by Steve Kinney
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around
the concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and
expected to nearly disappear is a Good Thing.
How old are you?
Very old. Sometimes I wonder, "when did I get so damned old?" I
watched Mercury and Gemini launches from my back yard.
Well, at 44 I'm not exactly young either =P.

Anyway, I don't think the different views have much to do with
age. Yes, young people on 'social networks' will post 'private'
pictures for all the world to see, but I think even them have
secrets they don't want to share.
Post by Steve Kinney
People who grew up with the Interet, not so much.
You want more age-based 'analysis'? The old farts you
mentioned have raised generations of clueless young retards.
I didn't start the "age based" comments, but srsly, it doesn't
take THAT much effort to find plenty of clever young radicals to
play with IRL -
I don't think there are many radicals around here, either young
or old =/ Maybe I should move...


if you're OK with exposing your identity as a
Post by Steve Kinney
"political dissident" on teh interwebs.
I kinda suspect I already did =P
Post by Steve Kinney
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=9n9b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Kinney
2015-12-12 17:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by juan
This may be useful for targeting and calibration of
propaganda, and advance deployment of physical assets to
counter populist political actions. But so far, Big Brother
seems to suck at that kind of work...
I don't think there's been a real 'on the field' test yet.
I don't think network surveillance had much to do with it, but in
terms of political warfare 'on the field', I believe I have seen
examples recently. Example:

When the grand jury verdict clearing the cop who shot Michael
Brown was announced, there was a very large but orderly
demonstration in downtown Ferguson. We know this because people
who were present posted photos and videos as it happened.
According to realtime reports posted from the scene, crowd was
ordered to disperse then immediately tear gassed. That wasn't the
"hot story" covered by the press corps, however.

Mass media news outlets reported rioting: USA Today used the
headline "Ferguson Burning." But that didn't happen. The only
"civil disturbance" was the CW attack on the crowd downtown.

The material events referenced by the propaganda narrative were
consistent with one or two mobile teams armed with molotovs and
M-80 firecrackers leading the TV cameras on a merry chase away
from the crowd downtown by simulating gunfire and setting fires:
The isolated fires were not associated with disorderly crowds or
looting. There were numerous reports of gunfire but no injuries or
reports of people seen carrying guns or shooting. The biggest
fires were at an auto parts store, and a used car dealership where
a row of cars were burned (the owner presumably got the full
insured value of some stock that wasn't moving). One police car
apparently burned for over an hour, as if prepared in advance to
do so in case it took longer than expected for TV news crews to
arrive.

In this instance, it is very possible that network surveillance
enabled our Security Services to determine in advance that there
would be a large crowd that night, at a well organized
self-policing event unlikely to produce violence or property
damage useful to the State's propaganda mission. Anyone could
have predicted the crowd, but its orderly behavior was not a
likely guess unless the organizers and associated social
networking traffic were under surveillance.
rysiek
2015-12-12 13:22:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Kinney
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:54:14 -0500 Steve Kinney
The disadvantages of a world with little or no privacy are
counterbalanced by significant advantages that are inherent
in a world of "networked everything."
...such as?
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's products
and services, comparison shopping, commercial and educational
research, distributing propaganda, conventional and radical
political organizing, 24/7 access to a library that dwarfs all
previous ones in history combined...
Why exactly is that not compatible with privacy? I am doing quite well without
Facebook accout. "Networked anything" does not have to mean "...and no control
over your data".

You're basically doing both a straw-man (i.e. making it seem as if privacy
supporters want to live in a world without the Internet), and a false
dichotomy (i.e. making it seem as if you can't have privacy and Internet). Not
cool.

And, more importantly, not true.
--
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
Steve Kinney
2015-12-12 17:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by rysiek
Post by Steve Kinney
Oh, a few little things... Job hunting, marketing one's
products and services, comparison shopping, commercial and
educational research, distributing propaganda, conventional
and radical political organizing, 24/7 access to a library
that dwarfs all previous ones in history combined...
Why exactly is that not compatible with privacy? I am doing
quite well without Facebook accout. "Networked anything" does
not have to mean "...and no control over your data".
Collection of metadata sufficient to reconstruct all of the above
activities in detail is not compatible with privacy. Neither is
full take collection triggered by rule sets defining "interesting"
behavior, i.e. the use of 'privacy enhancing' technologies,
reading about Linux, etc. (per published USG docs that are
"generally accepted" as real). You don't have to act like an
idiot to lose your "privacy," and relative to State actors it
already happened.
Post by rysiek
You're basically doing both a straw-man (i.e. making it seem as
if privacy supporters want to live in a world without the
Internet), and a false dichotomy (i.e. making it seem as if you
can't have privacy and Internet). Not cool.
And, more importantly, not true.
You can have some semblance of privacy on the Internet, for
instance reducing the take of commercial surveillance operations
by selectively blocking ad servers and whitelising a limited
number of sites to run Javascript in your browser. You can have
more by using technologies that are "too hard" or "too
inconvenient" for non-specialists to put up with, i.e. TOR, i2p,
GPG, etc.

Privacy supporters who understand network security, understand
that any activity they want to conceal from all surveillance
actors must either be conducted off the network, or via
"anonymizing technology" that degrades network access to a lesser
or greater extent (100% in instances involving two way
communication with people who do not know or care about these
matters), while being observed and recorded by actors hostile to
privacy.

If CPunks subscribers don't know that, what chance of 'privacy'
does the greater unwashed publick stand?

:o)
rysiek
2015-12-14 02:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Kinney
Privacy supporters who understand network security, understand
that any activity they want to conceal from all surveillance
actors must either be conducted off the network, or via
"anonymizing technology" that degrades network access to a lesser
or greater extent (100% in instances involving two way
communication with people who do not know or care about these
matters), while being observed and recorded by actors hostile to
privacy.
I still don't see how that makes it "impossible" -- just very, very hard at
the moment.
--
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
grarpamp
2015-12-14 04:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Kinney
Old Farts have major problems wrapping their heads around the
concept that a world where privacy is shrinking fast and expected
to nearly disappear is a Good Thing. People who grew up with the
Interet, not so much.
http://youtu.be/6c-RbGZBnBI
Probably because Old Farts lived a conscious period of years where
the only remote connection to any other human being was via voice
telephone or snail mail, and even then it was between family
and business situations, not amongst masses of new randoms.
They were, and knew, the mechanisms and value of real in-person
humanity and its associated lines. It was only in the 1990's that
masses of people began to encounter the internet hands on, mostly
at school. Such that anyone today under 30 years old
did not have any non internet period of conscious. They
therefore have no basis on which to evaluate the huge shift they
were born into and the ongoing change being foisted upon them.

Surveillance, databasing, DNA, drones, lack of privacy, etc... all
being dropped upon humans in under 30 years... is going to have
massive impact upon the evolutionary biological nature of humans and
humanity that we simply cannot comprehend, predict, or control...
some of it will be good. But as when someone jams a camera in your
face... these types of things are biological stressors... which are
generally bad, even if and after the pressure is removed.

Old Farts know and lived history, some literally before the
transistor... and they are perfectly well capable of telling you
exactly what's goin on. Only question is, are you brave enough to
ask, to behold, to comprehend the answer... and what are you going
to do with what they tell you?

Some of them are probably on youtube talking or being interviewed
about it... both good and bad.
juan
2015-12-11 19:39:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:38:47 +0000
Post by Zenaan Harkness
Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic.
https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/
Privacy is among values “that simply are unsustainable… in the face of
the reality of technological change; the reality of the deep state
with a military-industrial complex and the reality of Islamic
terrorism, which is legitimizing that sector in a way that it’s
behaving,” he stressed.
Some notes :

RT is a propaganda organization working for the russian state.
However, their 'anti western' propaganda isn't ordinary
propaganda because what they say (about 'the west') is usually
true. RT propaganda takes the form of libertarian criticism
(with the caveat of course that it's directed against 'western'
states...never against the russian state)

I haven't checked the whole interview, but going by the above
quote, Assange seems to be forgetting his libertarian (or civil
libertarian, whatever) leaning and instead parroting the
pentagon/kremlin line on 'islamic terrorism'.

But in reality, "the reality of Islamic terrorism," is close to
the reality of the bogeyman.


Considering the extent of western crimes and imperialism, there
should be a lot more 'terrorism' coming from the victims. Oddly
enough, there isn't. So one can either believe that captain
americunt is saving the universe...or else, the terrorist don't
really exist. Except of course as false flag ops.
d***@geer.org
2015-12-20 01:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Assange is entirely correct. The reason is the distribution
curve for sensors and, in particular, everything -- and I mean
everything -- about "personalization" is simply surveillance.
I may be able to hide from The Man, but I cannot hide from my
friends and neighbors, and they are increasingly festooned with
the infrastructure of total information awareness. Poindexter
was simply ahead of his time. The private sector will do with
bread & circus what the mil sector can not do with black budgets;
the private sector will own 95% of the listening posts and will
buy their freedom of motion with yours.

--dan
Shelley
2015-12-20 03:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@geer.org
Assange is entirely correct. The reason is the distribution
curve for sensors and, in particular, everything -- and I mean
everything -- about "personalization" is simply surveillance.
I may be able to hide from The Man, but I cannot hide from my
friends and neighbors, and they are increasingly festooned with
the infrastructure of total information awareness. Poindexter
was simply ahead of his time. The private sector will do with
bread & circus what the mil sector can not do with black budgets;
the private sector will own 95% of the listening posts and will
buy their freedom of motion with yours.
--dan
It's deeply unsettling for me to admit that Dan correct about this, but
there it is.

I don't use Failbook (as I'm sure you *all* know by now) and yet I have
received disturbing email from the Fuckerberg empire encouraging me to sign
up so that I may "connect" with "people I might know." This is because some
of my friends who use it were not s-m-r-t enough to disallow the harvesting
of their contacts.

One name that was suggested was someone I hadn't spoken with in well over a
decade... there was simply no way they could have had my email address
among their contacts, because that email address didn't exist during the
time I knew them. Failbook is omniscient!

There are several more instances in which my privacy was invaded or
compromised due to the carelessness or ignorance of others, despite trying
to maintain my nearly-zero online footprint online (in my legal name. Of
course I may be selectively found pseudonymously.) That's not counting the
countless Big Data database breaches which have put my medical and
financial PII at risk.

The death of privacy is not going to be 1984'd; we already live within A
Brave New World, and it's being built one narcissistic,
geolocation-enabled, duck-faced selfie and status update check-in at a damn
time. Why would the TLAs waste any more* money on invasive data collection
when people put their info and everyone else's out there, sold for the use
of "free" email and apps? Can't really blame them for plucking the
lowest-hanging fruit.

*In-Q-Tel's ROI on that initial Facebook seed money must be positively
unquantifiable.

-S

Loading...