On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 08:32:25PM -0300, Juan wrote: > 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.
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,
