Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)
Whoops, sorry glen, I didn't read to the end of your post, missed the "*". I said what you already said. Sorry. ~~James On Apr 3, 2012 10:06 PM, "James Steiner" wrote: > Option 1, use the network more (throw out chaff), won't work, unless you > are very sophisticated about the chaff you produce. Normal unecrypted > communications are easy to filter and sort. > > The real answer is For everyone to use *encrypted* communications more. > Aka SSL/VPN everywhere. > > The more we use encrypted communications for everyday things, there is no > new pattern to detect when we use it for...other...things. > > As for the outputs like twitter, discus(forum comment system), Reddit, > etc, it is key that anonymous or pseudonymous speech remain available. > > ~~James > On Apr 3, 2012 7:32 PM, "glen" wrote: > >> ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 04/02/2012 12:08 PM: >> > What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish? >> > Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to >> learn to >> > talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else >> is >> > there? >> >> There are at least 2 other resistance routes ... possibly more. >> >> 1) Use tools like the internet _more_ ... as much as you can, and >> 2) Press for _laws_ that prevent asymmetries and the enforcement of >> those laws on asymmetric agents (like Presidents who commit crimes but >> bet -- and usually win -- that they'll never be prosecuted). >> >> (1) contributes to "security through obscurity". The more normal people >> use the media for normal activities, the more difficult it will be to >> de-anonymize (make personal) any subset of transactions. And while >> security through obscurity is terrible when used in isolation, it can >> help. [*] >> >> (2) The prevalence for openness we see in our youth is _not_ identical >> to apathy about who's snooping. The openness is, I think, a lack of >> wisdom about how asymmetric relationships can become. The problems >> don't lie in people _knowing_ that I have cats and what they look like. >> The problem lies in nefarious or all-powerful agents knowing that I >> have cats and what they look like. Any federal agency (by the very >> definition of "federal") sets up an asymmetric relation from the start. >> And _that's_ bad. Asymmetry always leads to abuse, unless it is well >> regulated. >> >> So, definitely don't just get used to it. Push for research into where >> anonymity fosters or hinders human rights. Push for open government. >> Guilt trip your friends into setting up and using GPG, Tor, BitTorrent, >> Etc. Use the internet for buying groceries and talking to grandma as >> well as downloading music and looking up bomb recipes. Etc. Do anything >> _but_ give up and get used to whatever bad situation you're in. >> >> [*] Using the commons for things other than specific "suspicious" >> activity is what the Occupy movement is all about. If we only encrypt >> our _important_ e-mails, then the NSA knows _exactly_ which e-mails to >> attack. It's so obvious I'm totally confused why more people don't >> support Occupy. We should not only protest in the commons ... we should >> also play chess there ... drink beer there ... play football there ... >> etc. >> >> -- >> glen >> >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)
Option 1, use the network more (throw out chaff), won't work, unless you are very sophisticated about the chaff you produce. Normal unecrypted communications are easy to filter and sort. The real answer is For everyone to use *encrypted* communications more. Aka SSL/VPN everywhere. The more we use encrypted communications for everyday things, there is no new pattern to detect when we use it for...other...things. As for the outputs like twitter, discus(forum comment system), Reddit, etc, it is key that anonymous or pseudonymous speech remain available. ~~James On Apr 3, 2012 7:32 PM, "glen" wrote: > ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 04/02/2012 12:08 PM: > > What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish? > > Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to > learn to > > talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else > is > > there? > > There are at least 2 other resistance routes ... possibly more. > > 1) Use tools like the internet _more_ ... as much as you can, and > 2) Press for _laws_ that prevent asymmetries and the enforcement of > those laws on asymmetric agents (like Presidents who commit crimes but > bet -- and usually win -- that they'll never be prosecuted). > > (1) contributes to "security through obscurity". The more normal people > use the media for normal activities, the more difficult it will be to > de-anonymize (make personal) any subset of transactions. And while > security through obscurity is terrible when used in isolation, it can > help. [*] > > (2) The prevalence for openness we see in our youth is _not_ identical > to apathy about who's snooping. The openness is, I think, a lack of > wisdom about how asymmetric relationships can become. The problems > don't lie in people _knowing_ that I have cats and what they look like. > The problem lies in nefarious or all-powerful agents knowing that I > have cats and what they look like. Any federal agency (by the very > definition of "federal") sets up an asymmetric relation from the start. > And _that's_ bad. Asymmetry always leads to abuse, unless it is well > regulated. > > So, definitely don't just get used to it. Push for research into where > anonymity fosters or hinders human rights. Push for open government. > Guilt trip your friends into setting up and using GPG, Tor, BitTorrent, > Etc. Use the internet for buying groceries and talking to grandma as > well as downloading music and looking up bomb recipes. Etc. Do anything > _but_ give up and get used to whatever bad situation you're in. > > [*] Using the commons for things other than specific "suspicious" > activity is what the Occupy movement is all about. If we only encrypt > our _important_ e-mails, then the NSA knows _exactly_ which e-mails to > attack. It's so obvious I'm totally confused why more people don't > support Occupy. We should not only protest in the commons ... we should > also play chess there ... drink beer there ... play football there ... etc. > > -- > glen > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 04/02/2012 12:08 PM: > What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish? > Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to learn to > talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else is > there? There are at least 2 other resistance routes ... possibly more. 1) Use tools like the internet _more_ ... as much as you can, and 2) Press for _laws_ that prevent asymmetries and the enforcement of those laws on asymmetric agents (like Presidents who commit crimes but bet -- and usually win -- that they'll never be prosecuted). (1) contributes to "security through obscurity". The more normal people use the media for normal activities, the more difficult it will be to de-anonymize (make personal) any subset of transactions. And while security through obscurity is terrible when used in isolation, it can help. [*] (2) The prevalence for openness we see in our youth is _not_ identical to apathy about who's snooping. The openness is, I think, a lack of wisdom about how asymmetric relationships can become. The problems don't lie in people _knowing_ that I have cats and what they look like. The problem lies in nefarious or all-powerful agents knowing that I have cats and what they look like. Any federal agency (by the very definition of "federal") sets up an asymmetric relation from the start. And _that's_ bad. Asymmetry always leads to abuse, unless it is well regulated. So, definitely don't just get used to it. Push for research into where anonymity fosters or hinders human rights. Push for open government. Guilt trip your friends into setting up and using GPG, Tor, BitTorrent, Etc. Use the internet for buying groceries and talking to grandma as well as downloading music and looking up bomb recipes. Etc. Do anything _but_ give up and get used to whatever bad situation you're in. [*] Using the commons for things other than specific "suspicious" activity is what the Occupy movement is all about. If we only encrypt our _important_ e-mails, then the NSA knows _exactly_ which e-mails to attack. It's so obvious I'm totally confused why more people don't support Occupy. We should not only protest in the commons ... we should also play chess there ... drink beer there ... play football there ... etc. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
