But you see I am doing something wrong. I am trying to provide privacy, anonymity, and fuel local economies. But it is not as much the state that is a concern, it is finding others who don’t just complain about what the state does, but are willing to be slightly inconvenienced to do things for their own benefit and the benefit of their family and friends.
We feel secure on the web when we see the locked icon, but that is simply flatulence as describe with “Suckered by Encryption” (http://ShofarNexus.com/2023-11-17+1). You think you are too unimportant for the state to take notice of you, but they do.
A great example is Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who remains in prison for years under no charge. Why? He is a warning to other journalists not to do journalism that makes the overlords look bad. Apply that idea to any field. A high profile person is ostracized and the rest notice and live in fear. Do you live in fear?
My field in communications security and I am trying to build an ecosystem for actual privacy. Do you know how many who have a technical background are willing to converse with me? You won’t need most of your fingers on one hand to count them. The best line I got was “you are on the wrong side of the NSA”. Yes, I am. Care to join me?
Sure, but here's the thing. Anything in the digital/cyber medium is compromised. Back in '98, I went back home to California for a time. My father, retired from the State of California DOC worked part time as an investigator for various interests. One afternoon we were discussing one of his investigations and he told me that there's nowhere to hide anymore. If you engage in commerce of any kind within your community, you leave information. Taxes, utilities, rent/mortgages, car loans, vehicle registration, even trips to the Post Office, or doing business with any of the package movers, UPS, DHL, FedEx, or any of the hundreds of businesses that require personal information, name, address, phone number, leaves a digital trail.
He asked me to give him the name of someone I hadn't seen since high school in the '70's. Anyone at all. It didn't need to be anyone I spent time with, just their name and what year they might have graduated. He told me to give him a couple hours and come back. Roughly three hours later, he told me using a credit card and internet access, he found the person in question. Their current address, their phone number, number of vehicles owned with make model and year, who they paid for insurance, a DWI conviction, they were divorced and had their water and electric shut off three times in the passed two years.
That was 25 years ago, the technology has only gotten more pervasive in that time. I've got a laptop that is always on while I'm awake. I have an Xbox and a newer TV. As far as anyone looking knows, I'm always in my living room, occasionally commenting on things like this and a few times a week I swipe a card at a gas station, supermarket, or McDonalds, I've got a weakness for the occasional Quarter Pounder with cheese. What no one really knows is who I interact with while traveling to and from these places. I don't own a cellphone and won't. Messages on paper, or the spoken work in semiprivate settings, such as parking lots or restaurants, still carry a modicum of discretion. I have a five year old pickup that can be shut off at someones request, but I also have another that would still be operable after an EMP.
Johnny Mnemonic, a 1995 film had the Lo-Teks, people that lived below the cyberspace that ran the world. That's how you survive, hide, oppose. Become either entirely predicable, or immune to the measures that will certainly become more intrusive as time passes. I had some success staying off the radar, so to speak, taking care of some logistic needs for a couple gentlemen I knew that worked with the Peshmerga some years back. Cash and carry, dead drops, and in person communication, kept unwanted attention at bay. But even that might be hard to do today, given the leaps and bounds the surveillance technology has experienced.
Nothing wrong with keeping your head down and your mouth shut. Sometimes old school is the best school. Hell, I;m thinking about breeding pigeons.
All great points. We can do all we can to make it more difficult, and we can certainly avoid some of the surveillance if we are willing to accept what most would consider inconvenience. But it is difficult (near impossible) to be completely anonymous or invisible. There is far too much information gathered, and much gets sold, collected, and correlated by larger entities, including (unconstitutionally) the government.
There is the option of not using technology to reduce your footprint, but there is also the option of using technology in such a way that you gain much of the benefits without leaving a footprint. This can be done, but show me one who is willing to pursue it.
It is so easy to find those who will run for the hills. Even more you can find those who simply give up. But there are indeed some, a remnant that wants to live free without giving up on technology.
So if you know someone technically adept, or principled and a good communicator, contact me. Solutions are possible if they are pursued.
There was a guy in my circle of friends back in the late 90s who worked for the CIA between the early 80s until about '93. We called him Paranoid Mike. His favorite expression was, "If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention." He dropped off the grid in '93. He had started out as a code cracker for the CIA and started into computer "wizardry" , as he liked to call it.
He told us that he was tracking people's movements in real time in the later part of the 80s and that the advances of tech were going to make privacy impossible in the very near future.( I was introduced to him around 98 or so. )
There are things we DO know about, but it's the things we DON'T know about that we need to be concerned with.
You are absolutely right that most people do not understand the "no expectation of privacy" statement. They do not know how to separate private citizens on the street or at the beach using a video camera or taking pictures versus the GOVERNMENT using cameras to track your movements ALL OVER TOWN. And lets not forget the satellites in space that can zoom in on targets for bombing missions and so forth.
But, as has been pointed out in several of your current writings, MOST people have NO CLUE how our government is SUPPOSED to operate. They have no idea how UN-constitutional it is for the powers that be in DC to keep giving themselves MORE and MORE control over We the People.
The problem isn't the data collected (even though it shouldn't be), but with how that data is used. In other words if the government did no harm, then invasion of our privacy wouldn't be a concern. However, as we've clearly seen the government has become tyrannical. Mandates are issued (with no legal basis) and surveillance is used to see if people are complying.
Perhaps an even bigger threat are the huge corporations that are using our data to manipulate and exploit us.
So yes, apply the fourth amendment and stop spying on us. But that's only a small portion of the problem with our modern society. As you point out in your articles, the population has no clue about the intent and meaning of the Constitution. With ignorant citizens we get an ignorant society and abuse of power (by government and corporations).
While I agree with most of what you said, there is one point with which I cannot. Whether the government has purpose top do harm or not is completely irrelevant. Whether the government had become tyrannical is completely irrelevant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from surveilling citizens without a fully sworn warrant based on oath and evidence. Saying if they "did no harm" is just another way of rationalizing government violating the Constitution. This is how they get away with what they do. "It's for the greater/common good." "It's a matter of national security." "We need to avert a crisis." Sorry, there are no exceptions. As Justice Scalia said, the first days what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. It is a legal document, and it says our right to be secure in our persons shall not be violated.
Theory and reality are two different things. What should be done vs what is done don't coincide a lot. I'm accepting of the flaws of human nature and thus a flawed government. I'll tolerate a little corruption, but when it becomes excessive (like it did in 2020) then it's hard to understand why 99% of the population is just okay with it and rolls over and lets tyranny run rampant.
My leaning is toward freedom, but I accept that others have an emphasis on "safety". Thus I'm "okay" with surveillance cameras in public as long as they are ONLY used to fight crime. When they become tools of government crime however... that's the evil future we are in now.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Surveillance cameras in public are *never* ok. Again, we cannot rationalize government overstepping their bounds. The Constitution is very explicit and strict regarding government's powers and responsibilities; surveilling the public is not among them.
Wouldn't there possibly be a benefit to capturing criminals? Burglars? You want your home safe from robbery don't you? Isn't it a good thing to deter crime?
I prefer to deter crime by being armed and owning dogs. I don't need government watching *everyone* to protect me (because they can't protect me anyway). If I want someone keeping my home safe, that falls on me, not government. This is a principle that has been lost over the many generations since the country was founded - self-reliance. I've actually been planning an article on that.
There are nuances... not everyone wishes to live with dogs. Some of us take vacations and would like our homes safe when we are gone (woe be to the burglar that intrudes while I'm here!).
Yes, self reliance is absolutely awesome, but there is value to community cooperation too.
Considering the fact that the extent of any public school civics class has been boiled down to the trope that the Constitution is outdated and because it was written by some old white guys it is no longer relevant, it isn't difficult to figure out why people don't understand, or more possibly don't care....because "if you're not doing anything wrong..."
I was one of those who agreed to this. After what I saw with my own eyes in NYC after 9/11, I welcomed the intrusion. I eventually came to and realized how wrong I was and came across a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin, “those who would sacrifice liberty for a temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. It was then I knew that I fu……….
But you see I am doing something wrong. I am trying to provide privacy, anonymity, and fuel local economies. But it is not as much the state that is a concern, it is finding others who don’t just complain about what the state does, but are willing to be slightly inconvenienced to do things for their own benefit and the benefit of their family and friends.
We feel secure on the web when we see the locked icon, but that is simply flatulence as describe with “Suckered by Encryption” (http://ShofarNexus.com/2023-11-17+1). You think you are too unimportant for the state to take notice of you, but they do.
A great example is Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who remains in prison for years under no charge. Why? He is a warning to other journalists not to do journalism that makes the overlords look bad. Apply that idea to any field. A high profile person is ostracized and the rest notice and live in fear. Do you live in fear?
My field in communications security and I am trying to build an ecosystem for actual privacy. Do you know how many who have a technical background are willing to converse with me? You won’t need most of your fingers on one hand to count them. The best line I got was “you are on the wrong side of the NSA”. Yes, I am. Care to join me?
Sure, but here's the thing. Anything in the digital/cyber medium is compromised. Back in '98, I went back home to California for a time. My father, retired from the State of California DOC worked part time as an investigator for various interests. One afternoon we were discussing one of his investigations and he told me that there's nowhere to hide anymore. If you engage in commerce of any kind within your community, you leave information. Taxes, utilities, rent/mortgages, car loans, vehicle registration, even trips to the Post Office, or doing business with any of the package movers, UPS, DHL, FedEx, or any of the hundreds of businesses that require personal information, name, address, phone number, leaves a digital trail.
He asked me to give him the name of someone I hadn't seen since high school in the '70's. Anyone at all. It didn't need to be anyone I spent time with, just their name and what year they might have graduated. He told me to give him a couple hours and come back. Roughly three hours later, he told me using a credit card and internet access, he found the person in question. Their current address, their phone number, number of vehicles owned with make model and year, who they paid for insurance, a DWI conviction, they were divorced and had their water and electric shut off three times in the passed two years.
That was 25 years ago, the technology has only gotten more pervasive in that time. I've got a laptop that is always on while I'm awake. I have an Xbox and a newer TV. As far as anyone looking knows, I'm always in my living room, occasionally commenting on things like this and a few times a week I swipe a card at a gas station, supermarket, or McDonalds, I've got a weakness for the occasional Quarter Pounder with cheese. What no one really knows is who I interact with while traveling to and from these places. I don't own a cellphone and won't. Messages on paper, or the spoken work in semiprivate settings, such as parking lots or restaurants, still carry a modicum of discretion. I have a five year old pickup that can be shut off at someones request, but I also have another that would still be operable after an EMP.
Johnny Mnemonic, a 1995 film had the Lo-Teks, people that lived below the cyberspace that ran the world. That's how you survive, hide, oppose. Become either entirely predicable, or immune to the measures that will certainly become more intrusive as time passes. I had some success staying off the radar, so to speak, taking care of some logistic needs for a couple gentlemen I knew that worked with the Peshmerga some years back. Cash and carry, dead drops, and in person communication, kept unwanted attention at bay. But even that might be hard to do today, given the leaps and bounds the surveillance technology has experienced.
Nothing wrong with keeping your head down and your mouth shut. Sometimes old school is the best school. Hell, I;m thinking about breeding pigeons.
All great points. We can do all we can to make it more difficult, and we can certainly avoid some of the surveillance if we are willing to accept what most would consider inconvenience. But it is difficult (near impossible) to be completely anonymous or invisible. There is far too much information gathered, and much gets sold, collected, and correlated by larger entities, including (unconstitutionally) the government.
Steve,
There is the option of not using technology to reduce your footprint, but there is also the option of using technology in such a way that you gain much of the benefits without leaving a footprint. This can be done, but show me one who is willing to pursue it.
It is so easy to find those who will run for the hills. Even more you can find those who simply give up. But there are indeed some, a remnant that wants to live free without giving up on technology.
So if you know someone technically adept, or principled and a good communicator, contact me. Solutions are possible if they are pursued.
There was a guy in my circle of friends back in the late 90s who worked for the CIA between the early 80s until about '93. We called him Paranoid Mike. His favorite expression was, "If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention." He dropped off the grid in '93. He had started out as a code cracker for the CIA and started into computer "wizardry" , as he liked to call it.
He told us that he was tracking people's movements in real time in the later part of the 80s and that the advances of tech were going to make privacy impossible in the very near future.( I was introduced to him around 98 or so. )
There are things we DO know about, but it's the things we DON'T know about that we need to be concerned with.
You are absolutely right that most people do not understand the "no expectation of privacy" statement. They do not know how to separate private citizens on the street or at the beach using a video camera or taking pictures versus the GOVERNMENT using cameras to track your movements ALL OVER TOWN. And lets not forget the satellites in space that can zoom in on targets for bombing missions and so forth.
But, as has been pointed out in several of your current writings, MOST people have NO CLUE how our government is SUPPOSED to operate. They have no idea how UN-constitutional it is for the powers that be in DC to keep giving themselves MORE and MORE control over We the People.
The problem isn't the data collected (even though it shouldn't be), but with how that data is used. In other words if the government did no harm, then invasion of our privacy wouldn't be a concern. However, as we've clearly seen the government has become tyrannical. Mandates are issued (with no legal basis) and surveillance is used to see if people are complying.
Perhaps an even bigger threat are the huge corporations that are using our data to manipulate and exploit us.
So yes, apply the fourth amendment and stop spying on us. But that's only a small portion of the problem with our modern society. As you point out in your articles, the population has no clue about the intent and meaning of the Constitution. With ignorant citizens we get an ignorant society and abuse of power (by government and corporations).
While I agree with most of what you said, there is one point with which I cannot. Whether the government has purpose top do harm or not is completely irrelevant. Whether the government had become tyrannical is completely irrelevant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from surveilling citizens without a fully sworn warrant based on oath and evidence. Saying if they "did no harm" is just another way of rationalizing government violating the Constitution. This is how they get away with what they do. "It's for the greater/common good." "It's a matter of national security." "We need to avert a crisis." Sorry, there are no exceptions. As Justice Scalia said, the first days what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. It is a legal document, and it says our right to be secure in our persons shall not be violated.
Oh I agree.
Theory and reality are two different things. What should be done vs what is done don't coincide a lot. I'm accepting of the flaws of human nature and thus a flawed government. I'll tolerate a little corruption, but when it becomes excessive (like it did in 2020) then it's hard to understand why 99% of the population is just okay with it and rolls over and lets tyranny run rampant.
My leaning is toward freedom, but I accept that others have an emphasis on "safety". Thus I'm "okay" with surveillance cameras in public as long as they are ONLY used to fight crime. When they become tools of government crime however... that's the evil future we are in now.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Surveillance cameras in public are *never* ok. Again, we cannot rationalize government overstepping their bounds. The Constitution is very explicit and strict regarding government's powers and responsibilities; surveilling the public is not among them.
Yes, it's a great quote and I agree with it.
Wouldn't there possibly be a benefit to capturing criminals? Burglars? You want your home safe from robbery don't you? Isn't it a good thing to deter crime?
I prefer to deter crime by being armed and owning dogs. I don't need government watching *everyone* to protect me (because they can't protect me anyway). If I want someone keeping my home safe, that falls on me, not government. This is a principle that has been lost over the many generations since the country was founded - self-reliance. I've actually been planning an article on that.
There are nuances... not everyone wishes to live with dogs. Some of us take vacations and would like our homes safe when we are gone (woe be to the burglar that intrudes while I'm here!).
Yes, self reliance is absolutely awesome, but there is value to community cooperation too.
Considering the fact that the extent of any public school civics class has been boiled down to the trope that the Constitution is outdated and because it was written by some old white guys it is no longer relevant, it isn't difficult to figure out why people don't understand, or more possibly don't care....because "if you're not doing anything wrong..."
Don't forget that those old white men also owned slaves so there is NO WAY they could have done anything good.
Even if they didn't...Old! White! Guys! 🙄
I was one of those who agreed to this. After what I saw with my own eyes in NYC after 9/11, I welcomed the intrusion. I eventually came to and realized how wrong I was and came across a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin, “those who would sacrifice liberty for a temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. It was then I knew that I fu……….