[cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case

  • From: professor rat <pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT)

Yes, its true we have some real Leninists bossing people around right now but 
my point is that so long as they're alive we can try to force them to try and 
LOOK democratic.

" Power concedes nothing without the demand..."

If fighting for freedom is unreal to you then how did we beat Apartheid and the 
USSR? The present USSA is just another " BIG LIE" regime , like they were. The 
net can beat it and even the UN.

 From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case

I dont think this is going to happen realistically. Your country is 
transforming into a Soviet style Russia. ....

From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf 
of professor rat [pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:07 p.m.
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case

So long as we have governments they must protect their citizens from spying. 
They must mandate strong encryption. This is the burning political issue of the 

 From: Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 8:37 PM
Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case

The other thing l thought was interesting was the strong rise in encrypted 
communications with many businesses offering solutions to the governments 

I still have a cell phone, but not a smart phone. So, with all the information 
about how governments collect information on people, then it is wise if you 
dont want to be giving up a lot of information, that one would consider 
possible countermeasures to this.
 For me this took the form of 2 years ago cancelling my facebook account which 
never had anything useful on it. 


From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf 
of Adrien Jolibert [jolibert@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 10:30 p.m.
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: The downside of the Snowden case

You are making a mistake.

Saw this interview just 1-2 months before Snowden. http://lesinternets.arte.tv/ 
(french for most).
Some of these interviews told us, there is data collection but for now, they 
don't know what to do with all that ciphered data.

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jeremy Compton <comptojere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think it is likely that we may see people declining their usage of electronic 
communication to lower levels. I dont use social media and l am declining my 
usage of electronic communications.
>From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf 
>of professor rat [pro2rat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:33 p.m.
>To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
>The mother of all PR disasters rolls on. Obambi seems to want to break Dubya's 
>record of downsizing the USSA to respectable proportions. Its quite a 
> From: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>Sent: Friday, 19 July 2013 11:04 PM
>Subject: [cryptome] Re: Microsoft and the NSA
>Points most valid. Public discourse on national security
>is deficient. It has become a vast racket concealed by
>secrecy and ample economic rewards.
>As global threats dwindle there is more openness
>until the next threats, then return to greater secrecy than
>before as the national security racket further advances
>more than it retreated.
>The greater the racket the greater chances it will become
>corrupt, suffer from gigantism, internal fractures and factions,
>overweaning leaders and their supporting infrastructure of
>contractors and lobbyists, and disaffected minions who get
>fed up with the corruption of their bosses and a few bravely
>go public.
>As we see lately from a tiny number of honorable grunts.
>Amazing that there are not thousands among the several
>million of natsec feeders, perhaps only 1% of which contribute
>significantly to protection of the nation -- for the rest it is
>job protection, no joking matter, or for top natsec firms
>officers fortune protection, many of whom are ex-officials,
>a sick joke which should be criminal except lawmakers
>are beneficiaries. This is amply reported, customarily to
>no effect.
>DIY national security is no joke. Now impossible due to
>secrecy bloat and exclusion of the public from participation
>in meaningful ways. NatSec is now a bastion of scoundrels,
>and natsec news coverage is complicit. The worst offenders
>are the pundits, essayists, apologists and opportunists in
>academic and policy institutions who are actually covert
>Corrpution of insufficiently-checked power is well documented
>in historical studies of the rise and fall of powerful states. Secrecy
>is essential to preventing democracy.
>Anybody who has been a grunt in any of these anti-democratic
>organizations, mil, com, edu, org, is acutely aware of abuses and
>threats of punishment for disclosures -- insiders always the
>greatest threat to power. Let us hope the abused grunts will
>continue to now and then let us in on the latest iteration of
>public opinion manipulation. But expect, by "human nature,"
>most will pitifully believe they have a shot at upward mobility
>so long as national threats endure.
>This is not to ignore that disclosing natsec corruption can
>be a successful shot at upward mobility. Natsec industry
>rewards critics who do not go too far with disclosures and
>castigates those who do -- ie, compliant media constitutionally
>blessed in contrast to "conspiracy theorists." So we have a
>small sub-set of the industry which briefs selected outsiders
>with insider golddust at lunches, by leaks, by FOIA, by anonymous
>sources, by security confabs, by securitized contracts, by
>whatever means assures friendly oversight is as cooperative
>as loyal opposition.
>At 08:02 AM 7/19/2013, you wrote:
>>On 7/18/2013 7:59 PM, John Young wrote:
>>>...its greatest enemy is its hyper-paranoia.
>>>National security is not about protecting the nation, its aim
>>>is to generate fear of its inevitable failure.
>>John, perhaps you are too pessimistic. I don't like the panopticon 
>>or the surveillance state. But with 7 billion people on the planet 
>>and the inglorious history of human nature, parts of the security 
>>programs may be needed. I would prefer that people prevent abuses of 
>>the National Security state and surveillance, rather than calling 
>>for its abolition.
>>Constructive criticism is needed and pointed questions must be 
>>raised. But in the end, it is not the nature of the State that is 
>>our primary concern; it is human nature itself. But both the 
>>behavior of both the State and the People give reasons for great concern.

Other related posts: