This puts a realistic perspective on the discussion.
As you state, these tools exist. Better tools can be built. My interests
are partly philosophical and partly just being a hacker; can it be done?
I'm definitely interested in reading the guide. I'll poke around for it.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Hartman
<thomas@???>wrote:
> I think anonymity is overrated, and a lot of people "think" they want
> anonymity, but aren't ready to really put the legwork / brainwork to
> be truly anonymous, especially against a state adversary.
>
> That being said, the path to anonymity with a state adversary is well
> blazed, by child pornographers and terrorists. We know these
> techniques work, because these are people everybody wants to
> de-anonymize (not just the nsa, fbi, scotland yard, your neighbors
> too), but they remain at large doing their thing. There's a guide out
> there that describes these techniques, but I can't find it at the
> moment. IIRC it's defense in depth: tor, communicate on usenet
> alt.anonymous.remailer, encrypt with everybody's public key that is
> reading the thread.
>
> Possibly some else can follow up with a link. Definitely exists /
> interesting read. But, not for the faint of heart or the lazy.
>
> In short, do you REALLY want anonymity against a state adversary? It
> can be done, but in most cases you probably don't.
>
> Perhaps you merely want anonymity against credit card companies that
> would like to harvest your email to send you special offers. Well,
> that's more doable.
>
> Just be clear on what you want.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@???>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:03:11PM +0000, John Hebert wrote:
> >> I wanted to start another thread about Troy's following comments:
> >>
> >>
> >> To continue in my apparent addiction to tilting at windmills and
> creative
> >>
> >> > destruction of groupthink wherever I encounter it, I also seem to like
> >> > getting
> >> > into arguments about anonymity, and calling into question the claims
> of
> >> > various
> >> > groups (including the unsystem Darkwallet developers) about privacy
> and
> >> > anonymity. Dissent to the majority view is the most powerful tool to
> ensure
> >> > freedom, and I seem to find myself arguing counter to the group
> consensus.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Could you expand on your thoughts about privacy and anonymity? I found
> it
> >> surprising that you call into question the Darkwallet's developer's
> stance
> >> on privacy and anonymity, as I assumed you would be on the same page.
> But,
> >> it is an opportunity for me to learn. I try to question everything, even
> >> myself!
> >
> > If you want privacy and anonymity, do what the experts do. Hide in the
> noise.
> >
> > Hide your traffic in plain sight inside high-frequency trading engines,
> in
> > which the sheer volume of data overwhelms any attempt at analysis. If you
> > are indistinguisable from the trading patterns of a political campaign,
> > then I can expect you might be able to remain anonymous.
> >
> > I have met exceedingly brilliant mathematicians and coders who work for
> Cray,
> > and they provide hardware to several TLAs in the US, and probably others
> as
> > well, AND they market hardware for the 'Big Data' market.
> >
> > If you assume that the opponent (the NSA, big corporate data, an
> organized
> > crime) have the ability to employ people who are smarter than you are,
> AND
> > the ability to infiltrate, then the only defense is simplicity, and the
> > honesty of free individuals.
> >
> > I take a very suspicious view of any privacy or anonymity system that
> requires
> > advanced 'breakthrough' theories, or depends on pre-infiltrated commodity
> > computing hardware. Only if you can build it, (or at least validate the
> design,
> > down to the silicon), can you know that the anonymity being advertised
> actually
> > works. And then if you HAD the ability to do that, you probably wouldn't
> have
> > any need for anonymity anyway.
> >
> > I also follow David Brin in his theories on transparency, and basically,
> > that the illusion of privacy only gives power to those than can hide
> their
> > invasions of privacy.
> >
> > If we all have no privacy, paradoxically, I believe we have more, for we
> > can watch the watchers, ad-infinitum.
> >
> > Back to the government.. I believe non-coercive Government, Of the
> People,
> > By the people, and For the people is the ONLY force in the world which
> can
> > stand up to totalitarian fascist states. Thus why it is critical for the
> > UnSystem to work hand-in-hand with individual politicians, and explain
> > to them why transparent campaign-finance oriented cryptocurrencies in
> which
> > every transaction, and every private key is strongly linked to a
> real-live
> > person are the only way to be free.
> >
> > I respect the Darkwallet team's intention, but it is my view that in the
> > long-run, anonymity only benefits the strongest totalitarian force-using
> > state, which uses it as a weapon to forment 'popular' revolution when the
> > puppet dictators do not go along with the plan.
> >
> > In the short term, it may be a necessary evil to combat larger coercive
> > evil, but I see no way to limit coercive evil through hiding.
> >
> > Someone must take a public stand in front of a tank, and dare the
> government
> > to run them down, and make the people who implement the coercive evil
> question
> > their loyalty to the system.
> >
> > If you are standing in the square, shoulder to shoulder with people AND
> most
> > importantly, members of your local city council, the coercive evil must
> unmask
> > itself for what it is, or shrink back into the shadows.
> >
> >> In the unsystem context, I strongly dissent to the characterization and
> >> > mythology of 'evil government'. Those of us that HAVE at one point had
> >> > @something.gov email address are likely to be your strongest
> supporters,
> >> >
> >>
> >> Now here is a topic I'd like to chew on. The US government has done more
> >> evil than good with the development of the atom bomb and the subsequent
> >> Cold War. The destruction of the fascist states before the Cold War was
> >> justified. The ongoing pseudo-occupation of those states through the
> >> continued presence of US military bases calls into question our
> >> government's commitment to "spreading liberty and freedom" around the
> >> world. And the US government's foreign policy to stop the "spread of
> >> communism" was a failure and a threat to the freedoms of US citizens.
> >>
> >> I can't say much on whether or not all systems of government are evil.
> I've
> >> mostly read about the governments of other nations. I have traveled to
> the
> >> Auvergne region of France, and found the people and culture (and
> cheese, no
> >> pun intended) there to be very pleasant. It seemed to me that the French
> >> government is committed to the well-being of its citizens. I welcome any
> >> criticism to the contrary. My stay there was only a few weeks.
> >>
> >>
> >> > and involvement and acceptance of local, state, and world government
> >> > involvement in a healthy multiple-cryptocoin ecosystem is what is
> going
> >> > to bring about fundamental change in the world.
> >>
> >>
> >> This last section is worthy of much debate. Where to begin?
> >>
> >> Some governments restrict involvement by force. Acceptance of such a
> >> government is contradictory to freedom.
> >
> > Quite. However toppling 'enemy' governments that restrict involvement of
> > their citizens by force is damn near a stated goal of the United States
> > Military Industrial Surveillance complex. Their failure is the use of
> > force to stop 'bad guys' who use force.
> >
> > So we have a potential for an uneasy truce.. Can the unSystem work with
> > the enemy of our enemies, even though this 'frenemy' might be counter to
> > our own ideals?
> >
> >> The establishment of alternative currencies does not require government
> >> involvement, especially in the quickly evolving ecosystem of the
> Internet.
> >> IMO, the current Internet closely resembles the revolutionary political
> >> environments during the 1) downfall of Western monarchies, 2) the
> European
> >> Revolutions of 1848-49 and the 3) post-Austro-Hungarian Empire
> Revolutions.
> >> My point being those revolutions were not the exclusively the direct
> effect
> >> of a totalitarian state, but instead happened in a state of political,
> >> cultural and even technological flux.
> >>
> >> What we have now, because of the Internet, is a similar opportunity to
> live
> >> in an environment of post-representational and post-geographical
> >> governments. We _now_ have effective communities that span from the
> local
> >> to the global level. I am typing these thoughts from my small home in
> San
> >> Antonio, Texas and they go out to you spread around the world. This
> >> community is participating in a nascent effort with the potential
> impact to
> >> change governments permanently, or at least piss off a lot of Wall St.
> >> bankers.
> >>
> >> Is the cooperation with any current government of a nation state
> required
> >> to fulfill the goals of unSYSTEM and Darkwallet? No. Could it help? I
> don't
> >> know. The recent historical record indicates not. We are an unknown to
> >> most, a thorn to some, and a threat to a privileged few.
> >>
> >> Here is a point to strengthen my argument:
> >>
> >> Did the evolution of open source and its communities require the
> >> involvement and acceptance of the governments of nation states? Hell
> no. In
> >> most cases, it was a fight against those governments and it continues
> >> today. It is easy to argue that open source gives people more freedom.
> In
> >> fact, the open source movement is an excellent example that people can
> give
> >> themselves more freedom without the involvement or acceptance of the
> >> governments of nation states.
> >>
> >> I posit it is pointless to wait for nation states to evolve and give
> >> individuals more liberty and freedom. And if we give away our liberty
> and
> >> freedom, for any reason, we are longer individuals. If individuality
> >> defines being human, those who give up their individuality for safety,
> >> comfort or the greater good are _no_ longer human. Humans are capable of
> >> self-government, and therefore being individuals in a larger
> self-governing
> >> community. Hopefully we can create some of the tools to help that come
> >> about.
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer'
> hozer@???
> > 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul
> grid.coop
> >
> > Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
> > nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] "creative destructio…
