[cryptome] Re: something to mull over
- From: Shaun O'Connor <capricorn8159@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 01:28:06 +0100
My point exactly
"normal" is quite subjective. I suppose it all comes down to what is
acceptable as "normal" and what's not.
what a terrible mess we are all in!!
seems like the NSA. GCHQ, et all want to have their cake and eat it.
greedy buggers the lot of em.
I suppose they think it is quite alight for them to have all the privacy
tools at their disposal and be the final arbiter of what we can and
cannot use on our computers.
the irony is that one us department actually distributes privacy
soft5ware in two forms(three actually) but for the life of me I cannot
think of the name of the product or the site that distributes it but i
do know this particular agency has an internal version of same
software...hmmm, will have to see if i can remember what its called and
the url for the web site.......
On 08/07/2014 00:57, doug wrote:
> Hi Shaun,
>
> I have read the article. My thoughts are...that it comes back to what
> "norms" and "extremes" are...Now, I don't use TOR, and I don't use
> Tails, though I am now learning to use Linux Ubuntu. I don't object
> to everyone else using the software, though I can't advocate or
> encourage them to use it...because I don't use it myself. It's not
> that I am incapable of using it, it is just that in my own situation,
> I don't see a need for it. I resent the fact that anyone or any
> organisation considers me as an extremist because I use linux, or
> visit a website which advocates it or provides free downloads. I
> don't wear expensive watches, and I don't have to look at them every
> morning to see if one of my "friends" has filled it full of explosive,
> ready to blow up when I get my morning wake up call...
>
> I can't get neurotic about having a calcified brain for instance, or,
> because I can't get it up like I used to. If one doesn't have the
> capability or the memory for the past, then how can one? Instead, I
> would rather that the NSA and GCHQ and governments and whoever else
> would screw the nut and encourage people to use this kind of
> software...make anon and encrypted software the <default> position on
> all computers, and only target those who are thought to be committing
> some kind of serious crime, like money laundering, international and
> internal drugs trafficking, illegal arms dealing and illegal
> subversion of the elected nation state, with due dedicated legal
> oversight, including inspection that works. A bit like the oversight
> imposed on Saddam Hussein in Iraq over his armoury of weapons of mass
> destruction, which he didn't have, and which we went to war over...and
> are now suffering a re-emergence of the 4 Caliphates which disappeared
> over a century ago, as a consequence.
>
> However, it should be remembered that, it is those very
> organisations...i.e. those named above that carry out those very
> activities...including private and public corporations. Such a circle
> of activity is a very profitable business and they all feed off one
> another. Empty C.I.A. planes returning to the USA from VIentiane and
> surrounding countries, made the secret war in Vietnam very expensive
> to the US nations taxpayers, but if a bit of private enterprise could
> be found to return illegal drugs to the USA, and a few private
> entrepreneurs got together in syndicates to organise and distribute
> the stuff....and how the capitalist western world just loves private
> enterprise initiatives...(not that I am against capitalism)
> then...what could one do...after all mother nature always fills an
> empty space.
>
> So, the question for me is...who is it in the NSA or GCHQ or the CIA
> who decides what normal or extremism is. And how do they come to this
> decision, what criteria do they use...Is there some kind of committee
> that meets up every so often for instance, and would they condemn
> Linux servers because they are non-proprietary software, and therefore
> outside the norm, even though Linux servers are the norm and even more
> safe, secure and reliable than private software? Does this group of
> persons go along to the President or P.M. and seek his approval and
> state why Linux Journal and those who visit it are extremists I
> really don't know...what is the answer....There just seems to be no
> logic to it...
> The last point, is of course the profiling. Eventually, any anonymous
> stuff, which is given a number is united or connected to a profile,
> much like Google asks its users to "tag" a photo with a name, the time
> and place already being in the photo properties. In that way, as
> President Obama says, we can connect up the dots...we can..
> ATB
> Dougie.
> It is interesting to note that paediophilia information exchange was
> considered quite normal, even respectable in some government circles
> in the UK, and reports made to the government exposing its vile aims
> got suppressed and lost. But there you are...as I say, there is no
> logic to it and that is how it is...
>
>
>
> On 07/07/14 23:01, Shaun O'Connor wrote:
>>
>> anyone read this EFF post>?and the related stories?
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/dear-nsa-privacy-fundamental-right-not-reasonable-suspicion
>>
>> essentially what they are saying if i am interpreting it correctly is
>> that the more people who use tor, the better the case against the
>> NSA's "justification" for targeting people merely on the basis that
>> they are concerned about the pivacy of their communications. and are
>> making the relevant enquiries/searches.
>>
>> even the Linux format is treated as"an extremist" publication. by
>> the NSA.
>>
>> happy reading
>> Shaun.
>> --
>> *_PRIVACY IS A BASIC RIGHT - NOT A CONCESSION _*
>
--
*_PRIVACY IS A BASIC RIGHT - NOT A CONCESSION _*
Other related posts:
