On 12/15/22, Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The USA does not have a constitutional right to privacy from the > government.
to the people you mean, right? They certainly, "responsibly" keep that right to themselves in addition to layers of obfuscation, secrecy, "stone walling", dilbertism, ... towards "we the people". > The only thing that comes close is the constitutional right > requiring a warrant for search and seizure of documents and property. "search and seizure" of "documents" which you read off your cell phone, are transmitted over the Internet and are produced and kept by IT companies and "property" when these days we are eigentlich the products being offered and sold, we drive computers on wheels and even microwaves are WiFi-enabled ... On 12/15/22, operation.privacyenforcem...@mailbox.org <operation.privacyenforcem...@mailbox.org> wrote: > On 1/9/84 19:84, Jeremy Hendricks message was saved by the all seeing eye: >> Please provide code examples, flow chart, or a white paper. > > Releasing anything of requested documents is not desired yet. The idea > is not patented yet and will make the developers a high value target for > a lot of agencies worldwide. > Would be smart to make plans secretly and silently. I wonder whom is it you could be possibly hiding from these days. You could put your protagonism aside and make your ideas eminently open. Disguising their objectives and goals as "scientific" endeavors, even as something which "could be used to weaken Russia" ... and it will all be fine and dandy, less potentially harming to you. On 12/14/22, operation.privacyenforcem...@mailbox.org <operation.privacyenforcem...@mailbox.org> wrote: > It is about solving a problem that counts as technically unsolveable. > The idea is about making any type of traffic correlation including > timing attacks very hard up to impossible. It also would make > statistical analyses of routed traffic, by user behaviour caused network > traffic routing much more catchier. If the product is available it will > be very hard even for government agencies and people with huge amounts > of money and access to large parts of the internet infrastructure to > reallocate traffic back to sender or destination. > Imagine agencies could not distinguish a difference between all of your > users. Does it not sound interesting? > This solutions needs to be developed to reclaim our fundamental rights > technically and enforce our right to privacy. It is right before 1984 > and we need a privacy revolution, an enforcement of privacy. Quite honestly, I very much doubt such a thing to be possible not only due to their technical aspects and that we humans are very probabilistic machines. You can make encryption as hard to beat as you can, but then "a human" (the weakest link) will have to use it. When you said "it is right before 1984", I wondered about your smarts. We are way past 1984! Just compare two-way telescreens as envisioned by George Orwell with cell phones. Athenians in a crucial moment of their history invented "democracy" as some specific social technologies in order to ensure openness and conscious participation of all members of society; when they saw themselves imminently enslaved by the hugely more powerful Persian empire (the worldsonlysuperpower of those days, they were also "good Christians" who heard God telling them things and thought to be their job to control every self-moving thing in the Universe). Compare that to what happened during the Snowden revelations when gringos realized that their own governments was spying on their supposedly "private" lives and keeping dossiers of everyone way more intrusively than the stasi, the KGB, ... all those "un-American" lowlifes in the "regions of the world" (as the NYTimes calls other sovereign countries) had ever had it in their wildest sweat dreams! A whole nation that had been evangelically fed such illusions about privacy as part of their very moral underpinning and about "not being un-American" for generations simply went like: "Oh, now I know what 'metadata' is, I thought it was some Latin dance": // __ 'State of Surveillance' with Edward Snowden and Shane Smith (VICE on HBO: Season 4, Episode 13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRWyGKBVzo ~ // __ Obama: Snooping on Americans is okay since we only collect the metadata of the phone calls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7_XLYpL_Fk ~ "privacy" is simply an odd and base joke to those cluelessly stupid enough to use it as part of their functional illusions. I mean, not only the government, even IT companies repeat to you ad nauseam that "they care about -your- privacy" and people don't even get the inside joke in such statements. I remember some time ago that people were talking a lot about the government wanting not only a monopoly on violence, but also a monopoly on truth. "we the people" don't even begin to realize that what they want is a monopoly on lies. "Truths" they find insipidly boring. "Quid est veritas?", rightfully indeed, asked someone some time ago. (John 18:37) We are all living in a click-by-click, "all tangible things" panopticon. The government has been keeping a data Doppelgänger of everyone of us real time. To them we are all rats in an all encompassing societal maze they control. People in "the control group" might be happily elusive about their placebo treatment. You want to hear about what the experimental group: "targeted individuals", has to say. People who are definitely not mentally ill have been saying since the 1990’s such things as "the government is reading my mind", "is seeing through my eyes", "I hear voices, I can go into back and forths with telling me about the most private aspects of my life", "how do they know when I forget my car keys?", . . . (some have been even driven to commit suicide based on such very wrong beliefs). I have even gone to country wide conferences these folks have organized to explain to them that it is impossible for "'the government' to read their mind" and why. Not long ago I heard some news about cell phones detecting like 5 years in advance with an accuracy that no other medical device could match (based on very minor, totally unconscious changes in your walking patterns). IT companies were selling that data to medical companies, of course, without telling their customers because "they care about their privacy" ... Sorry to all for abusing the list with what some may take as off topic themes/responses/rants ... I think it is about time we technical people start to take more responsibility towards such matters, if only because it was us who created this mess. lbrtchx
