Any extreme is suspect.
Dynamic equilibriums with a shifting homeostasis seem to be nature's way to
achieve robustness.
Anonymity / transparency extremes included.
On Mar 29, 2014 9:09 PM, "Troy Benjegerdes" <hozer@???> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:08:16PM +0000, John Hebert wrote:
> > Very interesting!
> >
> > By the way, this thread can (and probably should) be considered long and
> > tedious. Please indulge us. If you don't find it worth your while, please
> > delete and/or filter.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@???>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > This is obfuscation and is not secure. You won't know when you are found.
> > Strong encryption is proven to be more secure than obfustication.
> Regularly
> > changing a passphrase is more secure than changing to a new obfustication
> > scheme.
> >
> > Hide your traffic in plain sight inside high-frequency trading engines,
> in
> > > which the sheer volume of data overwhelms any attempt at analysis.
> >
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by "high-frequency trading engines". I doubt
> it
> > is possible to overwhelm analysis of a high volume of data by an enemy
> with
> > reasonable and sufficient resources.
>
> I guess if you want to launder money, look like a high-frequency trading
> firm,
> and then you have both plausible deniability AND made it VERY expensive for
> the attacker, because they might piss off their masters if they start
> costing
> 'legitimate' business money.
>
> Some of this is also a little bit of an attempt at side-channel
> communication to
> intelligence analyists that might be reading this to take a very hard look
> at
> financial firms. Something rotten is going on in the high frequency trades.
>
> >
> > > If you are indistinguisable from the trading patterns of a political
> > > campaign,
> > >
> >
> > What are "trading patterns of a political campaign"? How much data (and
> > randomness) do they generate?
>
> it's not entropy and randomness, that's the goal here, it's to be a
> chameleon,
> to make the human effort get spent on looking for corruption in political
> campaigns
>
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure what your point is with this paragraph.
>
> Very smart people work for the surveillance-industrial complex, and they
> are
> better at cryptography than we are.
>
>
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't it be simpler and more realistic to develop open hardware and
> > software to communicate securely and privately over a network than trying
> > to hide in high-frequency trading engines? It is possible for an
> individual
> > to be "smarter". Communities even more so. And it is also possible that
> > there are smart people that do not choose to work for opponents, such as
> > Phil Zimmerman, author of PGP.
> >
> > I agree; real and effective communication requires honest and
> free-thinking
> > individuals. It has always been so. With global spanning networks, strong
> > encryption is a _much_ better solution for establishing trust that the
> > other individual is honest.
> >
> > I take a very suspicious view of any privacy or anonymity system that
> > > requires advanced 'breakthrough' theories,
> >
> >
> > You are free to think that. But I trust mathematics and physics more
> than I
> > trust a politician that claims to have my best interests in mind.
>
> I trust that a politician only has his own selfish interests in mind ;)
>
> I trust the math and physics, but that does no good if the hardware
> executing
> the instructions is compromised. (see below)
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Open hardware is being designed, developed and built now. Knowing how to
> > think critically and being scientifically literate are reasonable
> > requirements for an individual to be accepted into a community, not to
> > mention being an informed citizen in a democracy. This kind of literacy
> is
> > much more effective at making changes happen.
> >
> >
> > > And then if you HAD the ability to do that, you probably wouldn't have
> > > any need for anonymity anyway.
> > >
> >
> > *Puzzled* Why are you assuming that? Wouldn't it be up to the individual
> > to choose to be anonymous?
>
>
> I think if we had the education, critical thinking, and equipment to
> replicate
> hardware in whatever way we see fit, in the way we can do it now with
> software,
> the individual that wished to remain anonymous could deploy their own
> personal
> surveillance agency network to look for any evidence in which their privacy
> was being invaded. Maybe this is what anonymous (the non-organization) will
> evolve into.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Er, I must be dumb, but this seems like a meaningless tautology. I
> respect
> > Brin, so I must be misunderstanding something. I'll check him out.
> >
> > If we all have no privacy, paradoxically, I believe we have more, for we
> > > can watch the watchers, ad-infinitum.
> > >
> >
> > In the "Republic", Glaucon says it would be absurd that a guard would
> need
> > a guardian. Plato says the solution is a class of guards whose souls have
> > been perfected will guard the guardians. Again, I trust math over the
> > perfection of a guardian's soul. To put it another way, we are debating
> the
> > plot of "Robocop", and I know the robots are less prone to exploits
> > (corruption) than humans are.
>
>
> Math is a tool that can be used for corrupt uses just as for good, and it
> is
> my view that we need hybrid systems of automation and motivated guardian
> souls, all watching each other, a multi-level recursion of guards guarding
> guards, and developers issuing patches, and both black-hat and white-hat
> activists pushing us further towards the never-reachable goal of
> perfection.
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > I can't really argue that point, since a non-coercive Government, Of the
> > People, By the people, and For the people has never existed. But, you are
> > free to believe that. Coercive governments, however, have stood up to
> > fascist states. Not that I support them.
>
>
> If we are to stop the cycle, we must have empathy for those who believe
> they
> must meet force with force. Some days I agree with you, some days I find
> myself
> being pulled by the siren song of being the valiant defender of the weak
> and
> powerless. All the more reason I must have nothing to hide, for as soon as
> I
> convince myself I need privacy, I will fall for the lie of the 'just this
> one
> necessary evil for the greater good'
>
> >
> > > 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 think I understand your point: political campaign funding has
> corrupted
> > US government. And, your solution is to make campaign funding transparent
> > and accountable. Not that I agree with those points, however. Note you
> are
> > requiring private keys. I don't mean to be pedantic, but didn't you just
> > say privacy is bad?
>
> I just don't see how to have privacy and freedom. But it's all a gray area,
> for example what is it about private keys that are generally okay? Because
> they protect with obstinant mathematical rigourousness?
>
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Restricting anonymity IS government by force. I feel we are discussing
> two
> > different definitions of anonymity.
>
> I am also free to avoid any dealings with anonymous people ;)
>
> My problem is that my experience has been that, in the bitcoin space, those
> that seem to desire anonymity the most are the scammers and theives who
> would like to steal my private keys and go quietly in the night.
>
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Crypto-anarchy and crypto-libertarianism means no compromises need to be
> > made as a necessary evil.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Standing in front of a tank did not stop the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
> The
> > protests caused martial law to be declared in Beijing and a massive
> > crackdown on demonstrations throughout China. Did it give more freedom to
> > Chinese citizens? I don't know. I wish I had more time to learn about it.
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > It may be a stated goal, but in actuality our foreign policy is the
> > protection and acquisition of US financial interests, NOT freedom and
> > liberty. Should I start providing a list of countries where the US
> > supported dictators?
>
>
> This my friend, is why I seek to strike with all the power that math,
> crypto, activists, and industry may muster to expose these corrupted
> financial interests for what they are, and divest myself of any business
> dealings and connections that feed this broken system.
>
> There are good souls like Snowden and Manning that have and will continue
> to expose this fraud. We need to welcome them, rather than paint the
> entire history and anything associated with it as corrupt.
>
>
> > 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?
> >
> >
> > I'll admit I'm not sure what unSYSTEM's ideals are actually. Where can I
> > read about them? If they require compromises with 'frenemies', I will go
> my
> > own way.
> >
> > My concern is experiencing liberty NOW. I will practice and protect my
> > freedom to think, speak and act as I want, when I want. I am not my
> > brother's keeper. If someone else realizes they are not free and want to
> > live freely, I welcome them. We are different in that I don't need to
> > change someone else to be free.
>
> Can you acknowledge that some people may *choose* to be bound and know
> freedom might be around the corner, and may even have been free, but
> voluntarily chosen bondage because it is more comfortable for them?
>
> We do not need to compromise our ideals, only that we are clear in what
> they are, and where we all may have common cause.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] "creative destructio…
