On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 19:40:25 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018, 9:20:41 AM PDT, juan <[email protected]> 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. > 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 > > >
