On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 14:31 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > If you embrace the system then there cannot be any subterfuge.
Technically yes. Subterfuge would be a criminal act. > Forget the criminals. No. Criminals are important here. Only an intention to be a criminal would make one attempt subterfuge and I am saying that subterfuge is the only way past the panopticon. A sham of embracing the system is essential with an intention to defeat it. The surveillers (does that word exist??) are looking out specifically for people who intend to beat the system, knowing that people will attempt just that, so there is no need even to be secretive about the intention. It is open war. Of sorts. If you are dubbed a criminal for attempting to beat surveillance, then your statement about privacy fails. You have no right to life > If you have no right to privacy, you have no right to your life shiv
