[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Personal Black Box?



On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 08:32:25PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 19:40:25 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >  On Monday, October 1, 2018, 9:20:41 AM PDT, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >  > Jim, are you seriously suggesting that the total and complete surveillance state should be EVEN MORE EXTENSIVE? Are you drunk or something?
> > 
> > Actually, it's more accurate for me to claim that YOU must be drunk.  I've merely advocated that technology, in this case smartphones, be useable by people to protect themselves (and others.)  But I do so in spite of the possibility that smartphones could be misused by government, not because of that.  I said absolutely nothing about the "surveillance state", a term which conveniently you fail to define.
> 
> 
> 	So I have to define "surveillance state" because nobody here is aware of the existence of the surveillance state, especially because this is a (the) crypto anarchist mailing list.
> 
> 	Are you trying to troll me Jim? =)
> 
> 
> 
> > The first electrical burglar alarm was patented in 1852.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Holmes_(inventor)     That allowed "surveillance", of a very primitive type,  but it was not a part of any "surveillance state".  
> 
> 
> 	but the police and the phone companies and the 'smart' phone manufacturers are - parts of the surveillance state. 

It's likely a fair assertion "all current mobile phone hardware must
be considered compromised by the deep state".  An initial (though
likely as yet, requiring quite a few more steps) step in the right
direction may be found here:

 https://puri.sm/posts/2018-09-librem5-hardware-roadmap-announcement/

 https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/

 https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-progress-report-17/

(Still on old Galaxy S2 here, waiting for these guys ...
 supporting those who make such steps is #1 goal!)



> > Smartphones, and even ordinary cell phones before them, had and have security issues.  But to argue that ANY use of them, by individuals to protect themselves, somehow becomes part of the "surveillance state" is nonsense.  
> 
> 
> 	"a quick 911-call if necessary." <--- isn't that the magical number to call the pigs? 
> 
> 
> 	And I didn't argue that any use of them is part of the surveillance state - only the system you just proposed which includes sending realtime surveillance data to phone companies.
> 
> 
> >                  Jim Bell


It's hard to imagine there are NO circumstances where "call the
cops" is an appropriate call to make.

Here's a point: problems on the one hand, do not invalidate all
possible solutions which happen to overlap on the other hand - that's
an absolutist position which is likely to be a bucket of cold water
on potentially useful discussion.

On the third hand, many have used the "dichotomy dialectic" to
frequent, and useful, effect - and Jim seems like a pretty solid guy
who can stand his ground, so the black and white dichotomy is
probably usually useful when jousting with him
=D

Good luck all,