[cryptome] Re: something to mull over

  • From: doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:34:05 +0100

For NSA software "normal" and "extreme" are objective, scientific facts, contained within a key word or category. The difference between the two is presumably decided by the use of some great mysterious, complicated and lengthy algorithm, designed by the worlds greatest and most expensive mathematicians and computers, which is placed, presumably in a black box inside the subjects and objects categories in the minds of the head of the nation state, and his advisers.

To be normal is to be Hilary Clinton, who, in her previous function as head of foreign affairs, travelled the world and encouraged people in foreign lands who are struggling against their fascist governments, to try and get some sort of justice, to use "unbreakable" anonymous U.S. software and encryption, as part of the liberation struggle. Normal encourages the same US companies to sell the "antidote" to such software to the security services of the nation states of the liberation strugglers, so that they can identify, trap and remove such extremists. Normal, is genuinely not to know (she doesn't say anything about it in her recent book) that such a circle has been set up and to get on television making a case for how great the USA is, how it is the epitome of freedom and democracy and human rights in the world, the land of equal opportunity (if not at home) and whose duty is to bring the same democratic system to the rest of the world, and that she should be elected to lead this new revolution. Normal, is to stand for the Presidency of the United States on the record of a book.

Normal is to know that there are knowns and unknowns, and known unknowns and unknown unknowns. (That was a really clever statement of the obvious and received great kudos and plaudits from the worlds greatest politicians...well most of his friends, anyway).

The job of the intelligence services is to discover the unknown unknowns. To find this out, they have to collect all the electronic data in the world, and put it through analysis, use special software only available from expensive members and ex members of the fraternity who are experts in these matters, and then find a way of selling it to the politicians. After collecting all that private data, they then have to decide, for the purposes of sifting and sorting it out mathematically...who is normal and abnormal...what is normal and abnormal behaviour, separate them out, categorise them, keep profiles on them, and unite all aspects of their electronic and digital behaviour into one folder on a server somewhere...and keep it up to date...even if it contains errors...except they don't make mistakes...inadvertently or advertently...unless it gets pointed out...and even then...

I hope I am being clear here...and the way they do that is to class all those people, nation states, organisations, corporations, friends and associates who they know...at that particular time, as friends, and anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest way or are non "u"...as abnormal, or enemies. In a phrase..."the objective appliance of science"

On 08/07/14 01:28, Shaun O'Connor wrote:
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..
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?


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


Other related posts: