On a tangentially related note:
With regard to Snowden and his leaks what amazes me in all of this is how most
of the general public don't appear to be bothered by the fact that a
billionaire has managed to purchase access to the data set and is managing to
withhold the publication of any of it so as to extract the maximum return and
is managing to do so with the help and approval of some of the most ardent
supporters of leaking documents (or so their public persona suggests)
I could understand releasing the documents over a 6-18 month period with
newspapers/blogs/anyone(!) writing it up so as to provide maximal sustained
public interest after which everything is released, we are now so far past that
point that 'Snowden' is a legitimate tag in articles as well as its' own genre
and any political/public change for good that could have been generated is gone.
It does bring out the lunatic conspiracy theorist in my head and ask, what if
the USG are the puppet masters of first look media and no-one is ever going to
see the full release.
Snowden must be pissed off, he took a huge risk to get this stuff out and
allegedly asked Greenwald not to release it all at once.
He's now stuck in Russia with his only option to go back to America and sit in
prison for the rest of his natural life over the documents he stole, of which
99% (a guess) has never been seen and probably won't ever be seen.
H would have been better just leaking PRISM and facing the (relatively)
miniscule judicial/legal backlash, served his time and then been able to live
his life in the US and become a martyr for 'the cause' putting him into a
situation whereby he can preach to the converted and make his millions.
Oli
-----Original Message-----
From: cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cryptome-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of John Young
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 5:28 PM
To: Notify; cryptography@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
cypherpunks@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptography] Apple's refusal, crypto wars shifting to
OS/device wars
It's good to see The Intercept and others smell a
rat with the fake fight between
Apple and the USG (hardly only the FBI). Crediting Snowden and his flacks
with this phony crypto war is a bit much, though, opposition to government
instrusions around the world have been persistent for decades, especially
against the ever increasing digital violations and forever failing protections
against them. "Strong crypto is hard to do while making it easy for users."
What is most needed from the Snowden 90% still-secret wad are defenses
against the USG now that alarms have been repeatedly clanged about redacted
and incomplete offenses. Most peculiar that almost no defensive measures
have been released, although Snowden may have insisted on not releasing
those as threats to US national security.
Snowden's alleged demand that outlets check with USG before releases
to assure no national harm is institutionalized in national security
reporting, but is also required by fear of prosecution of outlets and
their investors such as Omidyar, Slim, Bezo, all the major media.
Withholding the 90% of Snowden material which he claims was given
to the public, is damnable betrayal of the public for monetary and
professional benefits. In this way the Snowden material has been
handled like the USG handles it, as if it is owned by the handlers,
not by the ones who paid for it.
It would not be off-base to accuse the Snowden handlers of what
Apple and the USG are doing, engaging in a fake fight "in the public
interest" for pecuniary gain. Privacy and civil liberties are being
peddled as commercial products, cheered yesterday by Apple
investors.
The DNI's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is as much
a marketing scam as the American Civil Liberties Union, same
kind of people populate both, testify in Congress, meet with
POTUS, work the lecture circuit.
At 11:05 AM 2/27/2016, you wrote:
John Young wrote: > USG is not USA. Apple is not
its buyers. USG v Apple is not about citizens
and privacy. It's about secretkeepers against
the public. Therefore, except for members of
“the public†who have no secrets (no credit
card PINs, no private medical conditions, no
private relationships, no private future plans,
no private original ideas, no private and
unpopular political views, etc.), “it’s
about secretkeepers†against themselves? I
suppose then we should all file amicus briefs on
both sides? John Young wrote: > Govs may concede
crypto public protection to assure other means
remain effective. Promoting public crypto as a
cloak appears to be the campaign underway, now
as in the 1990s, so beguiling to crypto
advocates to claim a win (for the
industry-org-edu to continue doing openly and
secretly what it does best). This has been
addressed previously and yesterday by an article
at The Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/26/fbi-vs-apple-post-crypto-wars/ ;
After the 2013 Snowden revelations, asmainstream technology companies started
spreading encryption by putting it in popular
consumer products, the wars erupted again. Law
enforcement officials, led by FBI Director James
Comey, loudly insisted that U.S. companies
should build backdoors to break the encryption
just for them. > > That won’t happen because
what these law enforcement officials are asking
for isn’t possible (any backdoor can be used
by hackers, too) and wouldn’t be effective
(because encryption is widely available globally
now). They’ve succeeded in slowing the spread
of unbreakable encryption by intimidating tech
companies that might otherwise be rolling it out
faster, but not much else. > > Indeed, as almost
everyone else acknowledges, unbreakable
encryption is here to stay. > > Tech privacy
advocates continue to remain vigilant about
encryption, actively pointing out the
inadequacies and impossibilities of the
anti-encryption movement, and jumping on any
sign of backsliding. > > But even as they have
stayed focused on defending encryption, the
government has been shifting its focus to
something else. > > The ongoing, very public
dispute between Apple and the FBI, in fact,
marks a key inflection point — at least as far
as the puublic’s understanding of the
issue. > > You might say we’re entering the
Post-Crypto phase of the Crypto Wars. Think
about it: The more we learn about the FBI’s
demand that Apple help it hack into a
password-protected iPhone, the more it looks
like part of a concerted, long-term effort by
the government to find new ways around
unbreakable encryption — rather than try to
break it. Withoutt Ed Snowden’s
whistle-blowing, Glenn Greenwald’s, Laura
Poitras’ and Ewen MacAskill’s journalism,
reporting by the Intercept and by the Washington
Post’s Bart Gellman, and Apple’s refusal,
“the public†would not be discussing this at
all.
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
