Re: A secure government
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in the hands of the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al. Correct. That it is a bad thing. We don't think so. Mr Robinson: we understand the Bill of Rights applies to some unsavory types too. Do you think this is a bad thing? On the contrary. However, from the point of view of the mainstream populace, most of the times that cryptography is brought into the focus of interest, it's as the tool of an enemy or an undesirable. The only times I ever see it mentioned in the news, certainly - stego, coded messages, etc - but then I never really see much good news either :) I don't think people actually /care/ whether or not their mail is unencrypted, so long as it's no hassle for them whichever way - how many people really take notice of a small locked padlock icon in the corner of their browser? (It seems kind of disparate that sites will proudly display a huge gif to state that their connection is secure, but fail to provide hushmail-like pgp'd mail.) But given the choice between encrypting their own comms or not, many people would hesitate, and probably opt for the latter. Not necessarily just because it's another thing to click on, but because they see it has this affiliation with the bad people hiding the bad things. If they send a block of crypted text, then something will mark them out and group them as someone to monitor. Companies may try to push their secure tech as .. well, secure. People may not even know why they need it, They Just Do. But public image and ad campaigns apparently guide people more than common sense these days, and I think at the moment there's a marketing block that needs to be pushed around a bit before people will actively and knowingly encrypt things.
A secure government
Removal of sensitive information, locking down of websites, securing otherwise accessible points of data. The .gov and .mil talk of cyber-homeland-defense-strategy blah doesn't make much sense, at least not from the admittedly media-derived POV I get. In amongst the proposals for screening people, ratting out neighbours, the whole shebang, the only active preventative measures I can see being taken are more laws, and more forces to enforce them. Sure, I've heard the talk that government agencies should examine the data available to the public, and then hide it all, but there's a distinct lack of serious consideration with regards to secure communications attached to the same systems. The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in the hands of the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al. That it is a bad thing. People using it should surrender keys to the government, if you're encrypting mails then you should be viewed as having something to hide... Interfaces and usability aside, there's an air that only the wrong need ciphers. History as we see it backs this up to an extent, in the fact that secrets are presented as something in the hands of the enemy to be broken as a tool of war. Unbroken ciphers as a home tool don't seem to generate much interest. The fact of the matter is that most people don't have anything to hide, and so even if the interface was the most intuitive ever, they probably still wouldn't use it. Extra step, and all that. But it just seems stange to me that the government in all their paranoia haven't announced nationwide plans to start encrypting all government communications, to implement federal-, nay industrial-spanning secure infrastructures. In my proletarianism, maybe I'm just blind to it. Have people in sensitive positions of power actually seen an increase in taking this seriously? Is it already in such a state? The security of simple things such as .mil webpages and IP'd resources certainly doesn't convince. Or are they really not bothered, and just want to make a good headline? Further, if such a scheme were announced, could this conceivably introduce cryptotech as part of a mainstream process? Necessity is the mother of invention, and in such times, necessity is what people say it is and sell it as. As a safeguard against nations' security and/or economy, should we look to paranoid industries as the first step towards a secure, anonymous society? Hum, just me thinking aloud anyway. Apologies if this is in the archives.. crypto + govenment throws up a few results...
Re: Forget VOA -- new exec order creating Global Communications Office
roflmfaoapimp. In a scarey kinda way. Thank Allah for indepent media... Declan McCullagh wrote: New White House Office Coordinates Global Communications Why? I think we know why. If the messenger brig s amessage people don't like and then they shoot the messenger and eat the message laughing, then why not create a messenger that can't be eaten? (Some kind of Robotic Monkey maybe.) The President understands the importance of conveying America's message to the world. And yet, so lacking in vice versas. convey the truth about America and the goals we share with people everywhere. Yes, everywhere. *fetches map* [...] with greater clarity [...] disseminate truthful, accurate, and effective messages about the American people and their government. [...] convey a few simple but powerful messages. Shouldn't Saatchi Saatchi be doing this kind of thing? Maybe, as part of our shared global vision duty, we should be thinking up ways to get the message across - viral marketing, anyone? There's an entire infrastructure based on this kind of thing, why not tap into that? These will be aimed to prevent misunderstanding and conflict, build support for and among United States coalition partners, and better inform international audiences. [...] America's Message to the World [...] The President understands that reaching global audiences - especially people who are open to the truth but unsure or critical of some aspects of America - will take many years, but we must begin to make a difference now. Last time I heard someone say that, they were stood on my doorstep with a Bible in their hand. [...] (c) The Office shall work with appropriate agencies to coordinate the creation of temporary teams of communicators [within foreign countries in the paper] [...] In performing its functions, each information team shall work to disseminate accurate and timely information about topics of interest to the on-site news media, and assist media personnel in obtaining access to information, individuals, and events that reinforce the strategic communications objectives of the United States and its allies. M, unbiased reporting? One does not bend the truth. In reality, there is no truth. There is only America. Believe in America, and the truth shall flow. Ahhh. (d) The Office shall encourage the use of state-of-the-art media and technology and shall advise the United States Government of events, technologies, and other communications tools that may be available for use in conveying information. As long as that state-of-the-art[tm] media conforms to a format that allows control over its criticsm, distribution, etc... So, surprise surprise, we can expect yet further blanketing of not only Homeland News Sources, but of those abroad also. One wonders how far this control extends - is the Office granted powers to censor or control rumours that may be detrimental to the shared vision of the States? Will sites such as indymedia suddenly start disappearing in the interests of security? Now is the time of innovation through necessity. We don't need anonymity to download the latest Britney song, or to post the latest server exploit. We need systems that not only provide people with the security of knowing that they won't get picked up by the nearest black helicopter, but also that encourage the original Tao of connected technology - that anyone can publish what they want, where they want. We need more alternative news sources, rumor mills, skeptical grindstones. Reputations and webs of trust aren't just for dealer integrity or reviewer consistency, they can easily be tuned to reliability of factual information as well. He who controls the media, controls society. Looks like the precogs of information wars might finally get their day.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
Tyler Durden wrote: John Keley wrote... Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would. Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy. Fucked with. Trained up and fucked over. Whatever. BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war with Iraq is just a way to show more smart missle advertisements to the petty dictators we peddle our stuff to. Can't they just drop leaflets instead? It'd be so much nicer.
Re: Desert Spam
Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 03:44 PM 1/16/03 +0100, Anonymous wrote: Does anyone know a source for a spam list for US military? Use google. Search for @*.mil Also large bureaucracies use standard forms like First.Surname@blah or FSurname@blah Not forgetting Google's Uncle Sam seek page http://www.google.com/unclesam http://www.google.com/unclesam?hl=enlr=ie=ISO-8859-1q=military+e-mail+contact+listbtnG=Google+Search ...seems to throw up a few results. Be subtle. Ask them to disable their weapons and defect. Tell them you don't hate americans, just the regime. Maybe forward them that funny mail with all the dancing smileys a couple of times as well, just so they don't get the wrong impression. So much gets lost in text communication...
