On Monday, October 1, 2018, 4:30:38 PM PDT, juan <[email protected]>
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:
>
>
> 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.
No. The "surveillance state" arguably exists, although what actually makes it
up is debateable.
>> 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.
Again, you need to define what you believe. None of this is black-and-white.
>> 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?
I think you are merely playing with the argument. I didn't exclude the
possibility that this couldn't also (or alternately) amount to some sort of
privatized system.
"the phone companies" are the people who purport to, and do, accept cell-phone
data in people's neighborhoods. We cannot instantly change that fact. (some
communities have WiFi clouds; even better.) Who else would this system
transmit data to, with current technology and installations?
Don't insert your head up your ass. I DIDN'T say that this "realtime
surveillance data" would be completely UNENCRYPTED. Anyone who pays attention
to the CP list should recognize that there are some rather simple protections
which can be inserted (given the specific situation) to deter or prevent
misuse, or by delay make such immediate use impossible, yet allow the intended
uses to be implemented. A weak form of encryption that could be cracked within
minutes (not milliseconds) would prohibit real-time misuse. Or perhaps a
trusted third-party could issue "keys" which were automatically unlocked a
specific time period later. (seconds, minutes, whatever) Or If a trigger (an
attack, for instance) occurs, the user's phone could transmit the current
unlock-key to those holding the data, to ensure that it is available.
Also, the technology known as "EPIRB" or "ELT" could be used, with additional
hardware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon_station
Don't make discussions like this a pain. Don't automatically accuse people of
doing something, merely because they haven't provided all the details.
> 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.
See why you're a jerk? You COULD have said, "wouldn't the phone company be
able to use all this information for malicious purposes, or give it to the
government so it could misuse it? And I would have said, "Are you REALLY
suggesting that these OBVIOUS countermeasures WOULDN'T be added in any real
system?!?!"
And then the rest of us could have had a good laugh, realizing that yet again,
Juan was trolling yet again.
Jim Bell
