[liberationtech] [FoRK] [zs-p2p] Thank you for choosing cyberpunk dystopia.

[Andrés Pacheco]

WAIT!!!!

Israel is a terrorist state!

Sorry for the scream, but in many respects no screaming loud enough got us the "Trump Presidency!"

Regards | Saludos,

Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
<alps at acm.org>

On Jan 5, 2017, at 7:57 AM, carlo von lynX <lynX at time.to.get.psyced.org> wrote:

>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:16:41AM -0800, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>> If we all find a way to solve the anti-terrorism problem, or at least
>>> carve out space for it to be solved, we'd be less at odds for protecting
>>> privacy etc.  There are some promising ideas I think, but all solutions
>>> so far involve painful and often unacceptable tradeoffs.
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 08:58:15PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>> A rather obvious -- but nearly entirely overlooked -- approach is
>> to refuse to be terrorized.
> 
> Pretty much agree, but so far only Israel is famous for
> following that path. Sigh.
> 
> In the law proposal for a secure Internet that some folks
> and me worked out, we see some potential in addressing the
> issue in a more systemic way:
> 
> - In order to also avoid the problem of fake news having
>  a business model and the possibility of micro-invasive 
>  influencing of electorate through bulk surveillance and
>  big data analysis plus targeted IMHO anti-constitutional
>  manipulation...
> 
> ... we propose that all social interactions on the Internet
> be end-to-end encrypted and anonymized by law.
> 
> The technologies aren't entirely capable of that yet, but
> a strong legislational interest creates the incentive for
> industry to participate in a new fair market rather than
> being cut out of it, so that is not the primary problem.
> 
> Yes, this would imply that the way Facebook & co function
> is no longer legal. Social networking has to become a
> basic function of the Internet, like TCP/IP today. I
> would love to find a way for corporations to run the
> platforms of our constitutional liberties, but I see no
> way this can ever avoid conflict with the constitutions
> of our democracies. Social interaction cannot be a product
> that is being sold to us in exchange for surveillance.
> 
> As a side effect, such a legislation also impedes SPAM,
> phishing and other kinds of "cybercrime". It also implies
> de-facto net neutrality and a few other nice things.
> 
> - In order to enable law enforcement, methods are provided
>  for LEA's to observe specific targets rather than the
>  entire population - as in accordance with the constitution.
> 
> That is *not* done by key escrow or any other method that
> de-facto depends on the good will of the LEA's as depending
> on any such good will is anti-constitutional by definition.
> We propose physical and cryptographic consensus style of
> approaches for ensuring that the number of observation
> operations stays within constitutional boundaries.
> Explaining that means copy & pasting the proposal itself.
> 
> Please, when making Internet advocacy, keep this option
> in the back of your head: One way to deal with it all can
> be to actually fix it. More on youbroketheinternet.org.
> 
> 
> -- 
>  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
>         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
>          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu.