On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:35:15PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote: > It's only a matter of time - when will the cost of batteries beat > peak pricing, combined with the local generation that needs not > pushing back. Then the house will suck the power at constant rate > 24/7 (if it's not generating it all), and the utility won't be able > to see patterns.
Thank you. That is reassuring news. After writing I also thought about solar panels etc, so electricity does offer some ways to avoid the default scenario. I wonder how many people will make use of such a path, or if, again, the vast majority will indeed adhere to complete observation while a few excentrics will make themselves interesting by using independent power management. It's like using Tor to try to impose civil rights on an infra- structure that refuses to. It's not democracy if it singles you out. But the electricity story was just what triggered my writing. The *real* point I'm trying to make is that beyond laws that just claim what we want (which already exist as 'basic law', 'common sense' or 'constitution') and then somehow not be respected we could have more laws that enforce our rights by requiring technologies to be used in certain ways. In particular I want to stress the untapped potential of requiring specific protocol messages with specific contents, that is - denying companies the ability to send encrypted or otherwise proprietary binary blobs from home devices to company servers, depriving the citizen-owner any access to what is being transmitted. This could be forbidden, introducing a new kind of digital civil transparency. Another similar approach would be to deny anyone but the citizen the right to execute cryptography in their name: A proprietary tool like Windows 10 must not use cryptography to impose company interests on the user - it must submit its content in transparent form to the citizen's choice of encryption service, which would typically be a free software firewall/routing stack running in the house or in form of a VM hyperviser implementing encryption according to the laws and by design allowing the owner to exercise legitimate control. That I wonder if somebody has thought of before, with pros and cons, or if it is indeed a completely new perspective worth pursuing. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:21:22AM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote: > It doesn't have to be this way. Not only can an Internet > be devised and required by law that ensures end-to-end > authenticity (stopping Internet scam) and provides inti- > macy, freedom of association and expression -- it can > also be designed to be reproducible, transparent, offe- > ring guarantees down to the level of protocol details. <...> -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/ # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: