[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological issues relative to privacy.

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John McClure <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:23:45 -0800
Message-id: <52DAB8A1.4060203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Michael,
What does the data center being built in Utah portend to you?  Are not 
its disk drives *yet another nuclear arsenal*, a physical infrastructure 
*forever* a source of illegitimate power? My goal is to obviate /that 
data center/ -- I want to smash it and everyone who thought it was the 
right weapon against enemies of democracy. Our nuclear arsenal enables 
the most atrocious behavior imaginable; our nuclear arsenal is exactly 
why our present National Security apparatus was spawned. By gawd I don't 
want to create yet another arsenal against democracy! So please if you 
have an idea for a better architecture that eliminates the need for that 
data center, please suggest.    (01)

Wrt anonymity, once upon a time, neither cars nor drivers were required 
to be licensed. Telephones were party lines. Income and wealth were 
anonymous (hell there's a proposal out there to remove the anonynity of 
money itself). And ya know criminals demand anonynmity right? And we 
can't monitor your so-called spooks if they are anonymous.  But most 
important is that privacy cannot be granted to anonymous owners - how 
could that possibly happen? These are not word games, there's a reality 
here that I'm trying honestly to figure how best to deal with it. Cries 
for anonymity! anonymity! seem sophomoric if not downright childish to 
me on closer examination (and I've been saying just that easy thing for 
a long time too).    (02)

Wrt red-flag words like 'state surveillance' -- I do think the more 
appropriate red flag term for the proposed architecture is 'selective 
snitching'. I see its operational mechanisms required to be on all 
servers awarded fixed IP addresses (oops, there's another bit of 
non-anonymity, right)  and enforced transactionally by their ISPs (who 
have their own 'licensing' process). This is precisely the SS7 protocol 
that I've mentioned in a previous note, that I believe is now necessary 
to design and build; it is a 'privacy platform'.    (03)

regards/jmc    (04)

On 1/18/2014 3:48 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> Hello John
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 03:46:11PM -0800, John McClure wrote:
>> With a privacy infrastructure of this nature in place, FISA
>> authorizations can then cause a specific person's privacy profile (so to
>> speak) to be filtered in a manner that requires recipients to echo
>> communications with that person to the NSC. In this way, NSC no longer
>> has need to saddle every damn router on the Internet and collect every
>> damn GET/PUSH and do their best to break every damn encryption simply
>> because they have no capacity otherwise to capture all communications of
>> that person.
> If I understand you right, you want to ban anonymous communication,
> install a global surveillance infrastructure and give the spooks direct
> access to it - moderated by FISA court orders.
> This does not strike me as an improvement over the current situation.
> What I would want is that surveillance activities are checked and implemented
> by people outside the national security community - the staff of the
> IT infrastructure companies. With a duty to publish the extent of these
> activities.
> I do not see how a privacy ontology fits into surveillance by the state.
> Regards,
> Michael Brunnbauer
>    (05)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>