interesting article on the "war for the internet" -- from "vanityfair," of all things!

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/internet-regulation-war-sopa-pipa-defcon-hacking

On 2012-05-07 13:31, phanisvara das wrote:
> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/internet-regulation-war-sopa-pipa-defcon-hacking
>

I started reading it, is interesting. But it is very long! Long and with
only one photo at the start. And it is six pages, and I have only started
page 1…


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)

On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:38:06 +0530, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:

> On 2012-05-07 13:31, phanisvara das wrote:
>> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/internet-regulation-war-sopa-pipa-defcon-hacking
>>
>
> I started reading it, is interesting. But it is very long! Long and with
> only one photo at the start. And it is six pages, and I have only started
> page 1…
>

i made it actually up to page 4, and am planning to read the rest later
(perhaps). nothing really new, but put together in a convincing way.


phani.

Very interesting, thank you.

On 5/7/2012 4:31 AM, phanisvara das wrote:
> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/internet-regulation-war-sopa-pipa-defcon-hacking
>

It confirm what i think for most of the internet.
Anonymity is an illusion. I believe that you can think you hide but
someone will know thats you.

It will be interesting to see who eventually will win this war.

I broke with Facebook for some time now. What Facebook brought was the
real name to the internet, for the most part.
If people have the option to hide, they will mostly. It may be good
reason but most are just to talk or behave like they would not dare in
real life.

Now i am in Google+ but its essentially the same.
If you think about it. 900 million people joined the side so far.
Amazing. And from what i hear, its sometimes even essential to be
present there.

Anyway, yes most was known, but i think the article give a good history
lesson and a different way of thinking how it became what it is.
And where the journey may will lead to.

This sentence was a catcher to me
“The ease with which the Iranian government spied on its own
citizens—using techniques that anyone could deploy, with free and
open-source software—showed the fundamental insecurity of all
unencrypted data (which is almost all data) on the Internet.”

You don’t know if thats a compliment or a nail to the coffin.

Anywho, great article. I think it out of the same house that publishes
Wired (which i read monthly).


ACCESS DENIED…
Linux Counter: 548299 https://linuxcounter.net/

/_/
/ o o
/~
=ø= /
(______)__m_m) el cato

On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:54:03 +0530, JoergJaeger
<JoergJaeger@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:

> On 5/7/2012 4:31 AM, phanisvara das wrote:
>> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/internet-regulation-war-sopa-pipa-defcon-hacking
>>
>
> It confirm what i think for most of the internet.
> Anonymity is an illusion. I believe that you can think you hide but
> someone will know thats you.

i always believed that there’s nothing anonymous, except what you keep
disconnected from any internet or wifi – and even then there’s freak
chances, like someone from a close location monitoring electromagnetic
radiation off your PC bus, or reading your keystrokes off a coffee pot, if
‘they’ really want to know what you’re up to. you put it on the web,
anywhere, in any form, and it’s public knowledge, potentially.

> It will be interesting to see who eventually will win this war.

i’m afraid not. there was never really any question who contols things,
who can switch everything off, or part of it, as they please. the real
information that’s available, those opposition and protest movements
organizing themselves, or even criminals exploiting the net, that’s being
tolerated because of the big advantages it provides for “them.”

(if “they” are the 33deg masons, the jewish banker cabbale, or our unknown
alien overlords i don’t really know or care. it’s “them” who really decide
what’s going on, who provide the money for obama as well as romney, and
shoot them again (john f.k.) when they don’t live up to their
expectations. it’s “them” who fund politics, wars, medicines and diseases,
and who profit from all of that, no matter the outcome.)

the advantages for “them” are obvious: it’s easier to keep tabs on people
who happily provide everything you could ever ask on facebook, than having
to pay their building supervisor to rat on them. it’s easier to listen to
people who think they’re safe behind SSL encryption than to actually have
to infiltrate their ranks. and it expands the opportunities for large
scale brain-washing, better than tv or hollywood.

> I broke with Facebook for some time now. What Facebook brought was the
> real name to the internet, for the most part.
> If people have the option to hide, they will mostly. It may be good
> reason but most are just to talk or behave like they would not dare in
> real life.

here in the west, the “need for privacy” is, IMO, largely overrated. if
somebody calls me on the phone, he’ll introduce himself, or i’ll ask for
his name (and the number i’ve already got). if i meet somebody on the
road, i see who’s in front of me (and if i want to, can follow them home).
so why should i insist that those who i’m talking to on the internet not
know who i really am? (if i want to do something illegal or sneaky, then
i’ll use a fake name, like in real life, and if i’m clever enough, will
get away with it, at least for a while.)

> Now i am in Google+ but its essentially the same.
> If you think about it. 900 million people joined the side so far.
> Amazing. And from what i hear, its sometimes even essential to be
> present there.

i’m using both, FB & G+. the first because many of my real-life friends
are there, and even though i don’t like the medium, i like them, so i
accept the inconvenience to stay easily in touch with them. and on G+
there’s much more interesting information on tech. and other matters, so
i’ll stick around there, too. and it helps, of course, that i dont’ feel
that “need for privacy” that is so important for many others. anything i
really dont’ want to be known, i keep to myself.

> Anyway, yes most was known, but i think the article give a good history
> lesson and a different way of thinking how it became what it is.
> And where the journey may will lead to.

yes, made me think of the whole issue in a different way, see it in a
broader perspective.

> This sentence was a catcher to me
> “The ease with which the Iranian government spied on its own
> citizens—using techniques that anyone could deploy, with free and
> open-source software—showed the fundamental insecurity of all
> unencrypted data (which is almost all data) on the Internet.”
>
> You don’t know if thats a compliment or a nail to the coffin.
>
> Anywho, great article. I think it out of the same house that publishes
> Wired (which i read monthly).

ah, that’s interesting, and explains why there’s so much sense to be found
in a publication i never even looked at. have to look at ‘vanity fair’
again some time soon.


phani.