tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5737865337348106375..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Surveillance: A Golden Age or Dark Days?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33410265480715381082015-10-07T13:31:38.397-07:002015-10-07T13:31:38.397-07:00I take your point, and maybe I'm a little too ...I take your point, and maybe I'm a little too sensitive on that issue sometimes. Sorry to derail a good talk.KBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85525503812743356982015-10-07T13:19:07.124-07:002015-10-07T13:19:07.124-07:00@KB I did say "many, but not all".
I am...@KB I did say "many, but not all".<br /><br />I am not dissing military people. It is a case of economics and how long you are going to have the people for. A lot of ex-military people transfer to information security and do well at it because of their mindset as much as their education.<br /><br />Also a lot of corporate software tools like Core Impact probably don't achieve more than a skilled person with Kali or Burpsuite but they cost a lot more. But they have an easy to use Gui and are point and click. Paul Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07542509637337615962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13092653840213364532015-10-07T13:01:55.137-07:002015-10-07T13:01:55.137-07:00@Paul harper
"It is the ineffective and damag...@Paul harper<br />"It is the ineffective and damaging bulk surveillance I take issue with."<br /><br />Same, but for different reasons. When I was an analyst, I didn't want all that crap, nor did anyone else in my office. The signal to noise was awful, and not worth diving into a haystack of needles to find one particular needle. The collection you're referring to was stood up in reaction to one use case (9/11), with nary a thought as to how it might help anyone else. (It didn't.)<br /><br />BUT!<br />The sort of oversight Dr. Brin talks about was at an all-time low when I was there, meaning no one ever had to answer for such low efficacy. No one ever had to testify as to why 98% of this data was never touched. The agency only had to answer to politicians demanding Something Be Done, and so it was. Which incidentally accounts for officials' plaintive wails that they were just doing their jobs, however maddening that is to you and me. I would have killed for an IG to hold their feet to the fire on only collecting from a source likely to pay dividends.<br /><br />"They will have moved on since then. "<br />You underestimate the degree of factionalism and paralyzing fear an organization of 60K can exhibit. I would point to the recent withdrawal of the CIA from China as an example of prioritizing one's org over its actual mission. I know the absurd money we spend on these agencies suggests it must be reaping some returns, somewhere. . .but I don't think that necessarily follows.<br /><br />"designed to be easy enough for an enlisted military person with limited training to use."<br />Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. Seriously though, I had two years of training, and later brought four years of experience to the table when I went civilian. And I was one of the least educated, least qualified in my office. Sorry to nitpick, but it can be irksome when folks bring slightly outdated views of the military to a discussion.<br /><br /><br />KBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38714633575055355552015-10-07T07:11:32.507-07:002015-10-07T07:11:32.507-07:00Sorry if I appeared snarky in my initial comment. ...Sorry if I appeared snarky in my initial comment. That was not my intent. As noted in this article, the tone of electronic communication can be lost. http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179<br /><br />The conclusion I continue to draw from the "Tor Stinks" slide (among others), is that the NSA has limitations on its ability to crack properly implemented encryption and to analyse all the data that it gathers. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document Inside NSA, Officials Privately Criticise "Collect it All" Surveillance: https://theintercept.com/2015/05/28/nsa-officials-privately-criticize-collect-it-all-surveillance/<br /><br />The keyword is properly implemented. This is why the NSA and others tend to attack the endpoints or to socially engineer their targets rather than attacking encryption. Plus many, but not all, of their attack tools are just dumbed down gui versions of programs like Metasploit, but designed to be easy enough for an enlisted military person with limited training to use. I am still not seeing any . <br /><br />Erin Schram's anecdote was interesting and makes a lot of sense.<br /><br />It has to be said that those Snowden slides were snapshots of the NSA/Five Eyes from several years back now. The Five Eyes are well resourced and have some smart people working for them. They will have moved on since then. <br /><br />As in the exchange in the recent moderated discussion you had with Ramez Naam and Peter Schwarz, the only evidence I see from your side is "That's just my personal belief..." See exchange after 40:00 - 48 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClXOcx6d6pY<br /><br />This seems out of character for you. I can't imagine you relying on your personal belief on other topics. One of the reasons I read your blog is you usually have good evidence for your views.<br /><br />I agree that there is an important role for sousveillance for looking back at power. <br /><br />But I lean to Ramez Naam's view that we should do both.<br /><br />Finally (in case I come across this way) I would like to state I am not one of the people who think the staff of the NSA and the Five Eyes (or other PPC's) wake up in the morning and think "How can we subvert the US Constitution and the Magna Carta?" Those agencies have played a huge role in preventing nuclear war with their activities related to verification. The PPC's will continue to be able to do targeted surveillance. It is the ineffective and damaging bulk surveillance I take issue with.<br /><br />My main issue with the PPC's is that they are deliberately undermining the security of the Internet for all, in order to make surveillance convenient. As we move into an Internet of Things this will not be a good thing. So this comment doesn't turn into a novel see Shane Harris: http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364718523/an-in-depth-look-at-the-u-s-cyber-war-the-military-alliance-and-its-pitfalls or Peter W. Singer http://www.pwsinger.com/ <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Paul Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07542509637337615962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16576810954013830402015-10-06T05:11:18.216-07:002015-10-06T05:11:18.216-07:00Perhaps they will try to build bridges out of them...Perhaps they will try to build bridges out of them, like the famous Alaskan/Republican bridge to nowhere.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-427931042274986042015-10-05T15:09:36.236-07:002015-10-05T15:09:36.236-07:00So, does a climate scientist weigh more than a duc...So, does a climate scientist weigh more than a duck? Because I hear a witch hunt.<br /><br /><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2015/10/turnabout-house-republicans-say-they-ll-investigate-climate-scientist-requesting" rel="nofollow">In turnabout, House Republicans say they’ll investigate climate scientist requesting federal investigation </a>sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73337856434475032292015-10-05T14:46:20.042-07:002015-10-05T14:46:20.042-07:00Once was the day when the term 'progressive...<br />Once was the day when the term 'progressive' (aka 'leftism; socialism') coincided with 'liberal' US idealism ( aka 'favouring individual liberty') , but those days are long gone, brought down by a greater than 80 year trend toward institutionalised New Deal social policies, allowing for more irony as US Progressives (Dems) have traded agendas with US Conservatives (GOPs), because it is now the once-conservative GOP which wishes for 'change' and a new social direction, whereas it is now the once-progressive Dems who are made 'resistant to change' (aka 'conservative') by their desire for ever-increasing conformity, 'more of the same' and 'business as usual'. <br /><br />In part, this explains why US Republican party has fallen into chaos & disarray and why, slowly but surely, it has (and will) become increasingly radicalised, while the US Democrats have (and will) become increasingly inflexible, stodgy & uncreative conformists, the same process being mirrored (yet more advanced) in the EU's incredibly self-destructive & doctrinaire immigration policies, leading to the inevitable rise of the Jackbooted Progressive in both locales.<br /><br />I would point out, also, that the days of internet encryption are numbered, as the liberal-minded and/or criminal element revert back to analog communication, most likely through the use of untraceable 'burner' cell phones, in a manner most analogous to the internet's 'reCAPTCHA' system.<br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8131398788441811152015-10-05T10:48:42.028-07:002015-10-05T10:48:42.028-07:00Duncan, I suppose it is to your credit you don'...Duncan, I suppose it is to your credit you don't know!<br /><br />It is pretty easy to "spoof" the origination point, and only a little more complicated to completely hide both behind anonymizers. Even if they screw that up, while there might be a trail it takes a lot of work to figure out something like where an email started and ended up. For example, communications are broken up into packages which go all over hither and yon to end up at the final place. It doesn't need to be perfectly secure solution, it only needs to be hard enough to track down to allow the bad guys to move in the meantime. There is an unbelievably huge amount of data moving around, soit is the proverbial needle in the haystack problem.<br /><br />I don't know much about it my own self, but I had a friend who was in the "white hat" hacker biz that passed this along to me.SteveOnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79960422950536000202015-10-05T08:14:28.746-07:002015-10-05T08:14:28.746-07:00Duncan, carrier pigeons can only go so far. What o...Duncan, carrier pigeons can only go so far. What other methods do you have in mind? I suppose the postal service is an option...Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79760809508601640172015-10-05T07:59:37.128-07:002015-10-05T07:59:37.128-07:00Here's an alternative to Facebook. It's ba...Here's an alternative to Facebook. It's basically like ProComm used to be, private from everyone except your carrier and certainly not "secure" but at least as far as I know, no long list of corporations have free reign over your routine communications.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RetroShareJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19877256525577195442015-10-05T07:52:49.370-07:002015-10-05T07:52:49.370-07:00What was the basis of the Silk Road site? I guess ...What was the basis of the Silk Road site? I guess plenty were using it, but I'm no expert.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11859213891560490932015-10-05T03:57:10.498-07:002015-10-05T03:57:10.498-07:00I just don't buy it
If I wanted to communicat...I just don't buy it<br /><br />If I wanted to communicate with my criminal gangs around the world the LAST way I would do it is by encrypted computer communications<br /><br />Think about it - you are relying on your henchmen to be smart and computer literate while sending messages that leave what appears to be everlasting evidence of their passage <br /><br />There are many ways of sending information that are much more secure and less risky especially if your henchmen are NOT computer wiz kids<br /><br />Yes there are crimes that computers are used for<br />Hacking, denial of service, Spam...<br /><br /> duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-543361960506319552015-10-05T03:39:11.366-07:002015-10-05T03:39:11.366-07:00Imagine torrent software such that you receive dou...Imagine torrent software such that you receive double encrypted packets, decrypt and re-encrypt it, and pass it along not knowing whose it is or what's in it. In return others do this for yours. Your secure comm happens to be sweet sexy-talk with your girlfriend. The other stuff you're re-transmitting is from heroin smugglers and human traffickers. I don't want to participate, even if I give up the use of this method for my own secure comm.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54662214448966843402015-10-04T15:17:33.131-07:002015-10-04T15:17:33.131-07:00locumranch:
Irony abounds in your replies, especi...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Irony abounds in your replies, especially the accusation that I am an 'Old Luddite', as the Luddites were anti-oligarchic UNION men and, as such, were the forefathers of what has become Modern Progressivism, so those of you who condemn my conservative views as Luddism are (in essence) by accusing me of being too progressive.<br /></i><br /><br />You may be "liberal" in a sense, valuing human dignity above corporate efficiency, but that's hardly a "progressive" position, as you are attempting to stand athwart history yelling "Stop!", one definition of conservatism.<br /><br />If anything, you've identified a realm in which progressivism and liberalism are opposed.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64497326211671967502015-10-04T12:36:57.195-07:002015-10-04T12:36:57.195-07:00Duncan,
Re: Hijacked toasters sending spam.
You&#...Duncan,<br />Re: Hijacked toasters sending spam.<br /><br />You're about a decade behind. There's a multi-million dollar industry leasing out zombie botnets of hijacked computers. Millions of hijacked computers acting as a distributed super-computer under the hackers' (or their clients') command. Pretty much every major hack, denial-of-service attach, every DNS-server redirect attack, etc etc, uses botnets, including state-sponsored hacking/DDOS. It's not just anonymity, it's power. The more machines they control, the easier it is to brute-force hack into more protected systems, and to scan/attack more computers to add to their network.<br /><br />(In addition, there's apparently a lucrative trade in computer ransom. When your system is hacked (usually via that zombie-net), they encrypt your files and then send you a message with a price and a method of payment (usually using hijacked bank accounts and international transfers. These days, probably bit-coin plays a role.) So maybe think about how long it's been since you backed-up. ...And how long since you've checked your backups on an independent system, since the crypto system are smart enough not to immediately trigger the shut-down, it seamlessly encrypts and decrypts drives you connect to your computer for awhile before stopping working. You try to restore from backup, oops, you backup drive(s) are also encrypted.)<br /><br />Once you start putting billions of (inevitably) poorly secured, always connected computers-in-mundane-devices out there, they will inevitably serve as the core of the next generation of zombie botnets.<br /><br /><i>"Anyone who connects..."</i><br /><br />You often don't have a choice any more. You buy a printer, it has wi-fi, even if you plug it in. You buy a camera, it has wi-fi, bluetooth, and seeks out nearby networks automatically (to make things "easier" for you). It will only get worse.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13833631781786155572015-10-04T10:56:43.669-07:002015-10-04T10:56:43.669-07:00Alfred, the whole purpose of transparency is to al...Alfred, the whole purpose of transparency is to allow reciprocal accountability and the principal benefit is catching malefactors. The scenario you presented is based upon the premise that the criminals are concealed behind cypher fog or their own. That is what allows them to commit predation. Removing them from the societal ecosystem is better protection than cyber walls used by the public, of questionable provenance and whose effectiveness they (inherently) cannot verify.<br /><br />Mind you I am happy to negotiate pragmatic screens for individuals and public use in the real world. I am no nakedness fanatic. I simply know that it is over the long run more effective to concentrate on holding badguys accountable for their actions that crouching behind shields that may be made of paper.<br /><br />As for IGUS, the Inspector General of the US would be almost completely separate from what we now call “government” with a budget approved ten years at a time and hence not manipulable by Congress or the Administration. And in every mention of IGUS I add “this is not enough! There should also be randomly chosen citizens who get to look under some of the layers and report back to the rest of us.:<br /><br />One of these days this guy locum refers to as "our host" (as in "our lord?") should speak for himself here. He sounds like a dogmatist, a zero-sum, would-be oppressor and imposer of progressive uniformity and a very unpleasant fellow, who promotes lots of concepts that are diametrically opposite to my own... My suspicion is that he's made of straw, but he is so far away from me that I have to squint at him w-a-a-ay over there!<br /><br />I think I'm gonna ignore this drool for a while.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41979041888130543262015-10-04T09:37:12.944-07:002015-10-04T09:37:12.944-07:00Irony abounds in your replies, especially the acc...<br />Irony abounds in your replies, especially the accusation that I am an 'Old Luddite', as the Luddites were anti-oligarchic UNION men and, as such, were the forefathers of what has become Modern Progressivism, so those of you who condemn my conservative views as Luddism are (in essence) by accusing me of being too progressive.<br /><br />Alfred then sums up my views succinctly: Of "plausible-pragmatic proposals for positive-assertive actions', our host offers "an approach to dealing with those threats, but not a solution" which consists of (1) 'going with the flow' (how stereotypically Californian!) rather than resisting the technological tide. (2) viewing reality through positive sum rose-coloured glasses and (3) by "maximiz(ing) diversity of competitive-cooperative opportunity (by using bigger government as a) cheating prevention system (which) we in turn must hold it accountable or it will become a nest of cheaters", a very conservative view that amounts to 'more of the same' system that we currently have in the West (a view I agree with, btw), giving rise to even more irony in these discourses.<br /><br />I am a Luddite insomuch as this: I believe that technology exists to serve man rather than man exists to serve technology, that (either) we must seize the opportunity to harness those new technologies that are harmful to our wellbeing, repudiate them in part and/or entirety or, through (what amounts to) worship, allow them to enslave us as dependent gears in our own machinations.<br /><br />Again, I give you Oppenheimer's Atom Bomb as the prime example: We (either) repudiate it as the 'Destroyer of Worlds'; we serve it as a fickle, untrustworthy & semi-divine nuclear master (as in Fukushima); or we harness it to take us to the stars (as in Project Orion). The choice is ours, knowing that every (metaphorical) blade we create is double-edged, cutting both ways with the capacity to either free us or enslave us (as in 'kill or cure').<br /><br />Best<br />______<br />David appears to fall into the Worshipper-Slave class (perhaps, though, as a priest rather than a little person) -- as evidenced by his Internet that becomes Gaia/goddess in 'Earth' -- whereas I prefer Master (first) or Repudiator (second).<br /> locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30268883032320376512015-10-04T08:00:52.088-07:002015-10-04T08:00:52.088-07:00Off today's topic, but of interest here:
As y...Off today's topic, but of interest here:<br /><br />As you all may have heard, there was another mass shooting, this time at a community college in Oregon. A good trend: the idea of not mentioning the culprit's name, while certainly not universal, is getting real traction.<br /><br />I listen to an awesome liberal talk-radio station in Asheville, North Carolina, and we really need more than a few such channels to counter the universal coverage of right-wing talk radio BUT I digress... anyway, on the half hour they have a brief headline feed from ABC News, and I noticed that I could listen to both the ABC feed and the talk show in between, which was discussing the incident, and never once heard the perpetrator's name!<br /><br />Never once! I think the host of the particular program I noticed was Thom Hartmann, and he explicitly refused to mention the name; the feed did likewise; and we have the local sheriff out there expressing the same sentiment.<br /><br />Good for them.TCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08153506222271955110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15936192254836681502015-10-04T07:07:12.617-07:002015-10-04T07:07:12.617-07:00Duncan, a clever enough hacker can steal financial...Duncan, a clever enough hacker can steal financial information, which could then be used to funnel information into organized crime or terrorism (or even the GOP). I have heard some concerns that hackers could get into the operating systems of the up-and-coming self-driving cars and use them as assassination tools. Maybe someone could hack into a substantially automated home and set the toaster to run continuously in the middle of the night, causing a fire. The possibilities are there, even though few may apply to you personally.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19430976639812078532015-10-04T03:40:07.511-07:002015-10-04T03:40:07.511-07:00Hi Jumper
I had to google "the dark web"...Hi Jumper<br />I had to google "the dark web"<br />And I still don't see how my "assets" can be used for nefarious purposes,<br />Spam and anonymity I can see<br />But even those are more dependent on malware than on any form of personal encryption<br /><br /><br />"your home security system, your baby cam, and your smart thermostat"<br />Anybody who puts any active system on an uncontrolled web is a loony!<br />My home security - passive camera system <br />Baby cam - long past that time of life<br />Smart Thermostat - I have a hydronic system with 50 tonnes of concrete as a thermal flywheel - so my thermostat is exceedingly dumb<br /><br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57994557048143248722015-10-04T03:23:08.614-07:002015-10-04T03:23:08.614-07:00Duncan, I think he means participating in the dark...Duncan, I think he means participating in the dark web.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86261187987527649232015-10-04T03:21:45.516-07:002015-10-04T03:21:45.516-07:00locumranch, you simply have chosen the wrong venue...locumranch, you simply have chosen the wrong venue for your evangel of pessimism and doom. So far this crucible hasn't caused your dross to be eliminated. Try calcium supplements? I suspect an Applewhite would do better elsewhere, that is if "success at failure ©" is the goal.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7237698435524197982015-10-04T02:46:29.903-07:002015-10-04T02:46:29.903-07:00My toaster is going to ... do terrible things to o...My toaster is going to ... do terrible things to other people?<br /><br />I can understand preventing crims from stealing such things and it is possible that somebody could take over my puny computer resources to send spam - but terrible? Human trafficking? Terrorism? duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70675518402340632642015-10-04T01:33:56.800-07:002015-10-04T01:33:56.800-07:00Locumranch,
You said
“It's as if Oppenheimer...<br />Locumranch,<br /><br />You said<br /><br />“It's as if Oppenheimer, upon letting the atomic genie out of its bottle, threw caution to the winds & advocated universal access to nuclear weapons technologies so every individual could apply MAD principles to local & international politics at whim, just as the bomb that is transparency threatens to fracture the polite lies, falsehoods & misrepresentations which form the foundation of human society, leading inevitably to disillusion, ruin, civil war & cultural meltdown.”<br /><br />This is one of the better examples of a strawman argument that I have seen. You take Dr. Brin”s position and you substitute it with your own distorted and exaggerated version and then attack this false representation to prove your point.<br /><br />The five points you give are the attack on your distorted version that you have created.<br /><br />1)“If disturbed by irretrievable information loss by the adoption of new technologies, then the solution is the adoption of newer & better technologies “<br /><br />Although it sounds like something deep in reality it means nothing. You are just stating the obvious in an wordy, pretentious way. My answer to this is “duh” or maybe “no shit, Sherlock”.<br /><br />2)“If threatened by the privacy loss inherent in transparent electronic media, then the solution is more transparency and universal loss of privacy.”<br /><br />In this you start the distortion process. You first take something he proposed (then the solution is more transparency) and then tying it to something he never said (universal loss of privacy).<br /><br />3)"If bothered by the transparency-related loss of protected freedoms, then the solution is the transparent abnegation of those protected freedoms."<br /><br />The process continues. This is where you exaggerate his position and distort its meaning. The part “transparent abnegation of those protected freedoms” is where you argue that Dr. Brin’s position advocates the renunciation of all freedoms which is something he has never said nor implied and is in total opposition to the force of his position.<br /><br />4)“If vexed by rise of Big Government bureaucracy, then the solution is more bureaucracy, increased oversight from a (hopefully) impartial Inspector General & bigger bureaucracy.”<br /><br />Here you took something he said in his post (“Methods like IGUS would offer us the win-win, allowing our professional protectors to do their jobs while ensuring they are never without independent eyes, scrutinizing their overall behavior. Supervision-sousveillance has a chance of staunching any drift, preventing PPC watchdogs transforming into wolves.”) and turned that into claiming his position promotes the creation of a huge new bureaucracy. In reality Br. Brin’s position hinges on citizen groups overseeing Big Government and not on the creation of a new bureaucracy. You cherry-picked to continue your distortion.<br /><br /><br />5)“If the locomotive that we call society is racing headlong for an inevitable crack-up, then the solution is more power to the engine, more speed & increased frontal momentum but never the judicious use of the brakes, cautious retreat or conservatism.”<br /><br /><br />You finish with a false analogy hoping to prove your point. Society is nothing like a locomotive and anyone with a bit of brain knows this yet you represent it as a universal truth.<br /><br /><br /><br />To sum it all up your strawman argument is really quit amateurish. I have seen some that are much more subtle and refined and far more difficult to counter. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and come back with a straw argument that is challenging rather than this pathetic attempt. <br />Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10999602536159562782015-10-04T00:28:20.865-07:002015-10-04T00:28:20.865-07:00...not to mention your home security system, your ......not to mention your home security system, your baby cam, and your smart thermostat.<br /><br />We are heading toward an internet of things that will mostly operate unsupervised by their owners. We can arrange for Focused individuals to watch all this stuff (shudder) or we can protect it all from being repurposed by those who would harm us. I want both protection (hiding) and equipment that hunts for those trying to repurpose my stuff (openly aggressive). Basically, I think the biological model for diversity of life applies best.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.com