Living with the surveillance state

Posted Oct 30, 2013 22:33 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
In reply to: Living with the surveillance state by nix
Parent article: Living with the surveillance state

> [...] on my street most of us have our front doors open most of the time
> during the summer days, sometimes even when nobody's home. Number of
> robberies: zero, despite the total absence of any technical measures
> against theft.

yet you failed to post a single address. i think that fact alone speaks for itself (and against everything you said ;) quite well.

as for Schneier, i have over 2k rss feeds, his isn't among them. that you should tell you something.

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Oct 30, 2013 23:13 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (6 responses)

yet you failed to post a single address. i think that fact alone speaks for itself (and against everything you said ;) quite well.

Well, it says something, all right. It shows that people trust their anonymity (which is form of their social protection) more than they trust their locks (which is form of their technical protection). In what kind of world this information can be used as some sort of confirmation for your crazy position I just don't know.

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Oct 30, 2013 23:37 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link]

heh, khim, still butthurt from our last encounter? ;) tell me, what is my 'crazy position'? quote my words, don't make something up as you're so wont to do. (thing is, i have not stated my position yet, only pointed out some obvious contradictions between one's words and actual actions, but i'm sure you can concoct something in your crazy mind ;).

as for the topic itself, if one doesn't value technical measures and believes in the power of some 'strong audit capability, performed out in the open' (i trust you did read the post i replied to, didn't you?) then surely disclosing addresses protected by those pointless technical measures should be fine? also not disclosing addresses is not anonimity, it's fear of getting owned (broken into) despite all those so effective social measures.

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Nov 1, 2013 21:52 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (4 responses)

Quite. I trust that the set of local burglars is small enough that the low probability of any one of them attacking a close-knit community like mine is sufficient to ensure my safety. Posting my address here is tantamount to offering a challenge to the entire world of burglars, which has quite different effects: among other things, if something is hard to burgle it will then become *more* likely to be attacked.

I am not a moron and will not compromise my safety to prove something to an anonymous blowhard like PaXTeam. (I note that PaXTeam is trying to get me to post my address when his name and indeed number remains opaque. Hypocrite.)

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Nov 1, 2013 22:46 UTC (Fri) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link] (3 responses)

so much nasty ad hominem, i'm hurt! more seriously, why don't you get familiar with the dictionary and look up what a hypocrite is. then quote me back where you think i said something that makes me one ;). asking for your address while not publishing mine isn't it: i stated already that i do *not* believe in black&white measures (only this or only that), but in a mixture of them, so keeping information secret is perfectly fine for me, as is using locks. but if someone believes that technical measures are superflous because he lives in such a nice neighbourhood, go ahead and prove it. you have yet to back up your statement with actual action. IOW, you're just trolling as usual.

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Nov 1, 2013 23:11 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

i stated already that i do *not* believe in black&white measures (only this or only that), but in a mixture of them, so keeping information secret is perfectly fine for me, as is using locks.

In that case, please stop posting until you have the ability to express yourself in a fashion that does not cause complete misunderstanding by everyone involved. Your initial response in this thread strongly implied that you agreed with the grandparent poster, that

Usually, a technical solution is superior to any social solution.

This is the arrant insanity I disagree with. From your post, I thought you agreed with it. From other responses to you it seems that I am not the only person to think so.

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Nov 2, 2013 8:05 UTC (Sat) by HIGHGuY (subscriber, #62277) [Link] (1 responses)

____Usually, a technical solution is superior to any social solution.

Well, maybe this statement missed some necessary nuances to make it acceptable for most of you.

The first would presumably be that any technical solution must be backed by a supportive social "contract". If really everybody is fine with the NSA spying on them, then you should not instate cyptography that makes it hard(er).
If people have legitimate reasons for doing something, there can be no social contract and thus such a technical solution should be optional at best.

The second would be that ultimately the social solution (when followed by everyone) and the technical solution have the same effect.
If in the ideal world of the social solution nobody cracks cryptography, then the technical solution of using cryptography everywhere is superior because it actively enforces the social solution and makes offenders 'impossible'. (With the notion of course that cryptography is merely delaying it's cracking rather than outright preventing it).

This statement actually has its roots on the workfloor. When you worked out a procedure that people should follow to prevent breaking things for everyone then applying technical measures to guide/force them into that procedure is better than relying on education only.
Of course, some users should still be allowed to force other behavior, considering they know what they're doing in these very special cases.

My opinion is that the same thoughts can apply to society as well, in some cases.
When we're all in favor of banning spying, it's better to prevent it altogether through technical measures than to rely on the goodwill of the spooks. Of course, some users should still be allowed to "spy" (think og law enforcement with a warrant), considering they have a legitimate reason to do so in these very special cases.

In this last case you could say that this would mean that the cryptography in use should be strong enough to withstand mass cracking, but weak enough to allow case-by-case cracking. Which is a hard problem too, of course.

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Nov 12, 2013 21:29 UTC (Tue) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]

"In this last case you could say that this would mean that the cryptography in use should be strong enough to withstand mass cracking, but weak enough to allow case-by-case cracking. Which is a hard problem too, of course."

I was going to respond "not so hard, just traditional spying with picked locks and video or other bug capturing keys as and when they are used by the user". But that works onlysomuch when you have mathematically unbreakable crypto available, which is not a 100% for all time assumption one can make. So you are right, it is a hard problem. Because the first thought that comes to mind is that powers-that-be can (and I suspect do) try to solve it by making the methods of breaking the crypto a kind of orwellian 'unknowledge', that they will establish as such by truly any means necessary.

It's a jungle out there kids...

Living with the surveillance state

Posted Nov 1, 2013 21:49 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

It's nice to know you can't read. I explained quite clearly why posting addresses is foolish.