[pp.int.general] resetthenet.. srsly? (was: Antonio)

[Cal.]

You didn't address my point at all.

What you suggested is to use *individual* protection and anonymity
means. Well, that's pointless: nsa cares about large groups of people,
not individuals, like the cia does, but then, I told you, if they are
individually monitoring you, you'll have 3+ operatives following you
at all times, and not just on the internet.

But, fact is: nobody cares about you, and certainly not the NSA. Maybe
the CIA. Most probably MISIRI. (don't ask me how I know).

As such, and as anyone not foolish knows, you can anonymize all you
want, but when they know where your traffic origins, it is pointless
to scramble exit nodes.

On 10 June 2014 18:13, carlo von lynX <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 04:13:46PM +0200, Cal. wrote:
>> I feel you are both being a bit paranoid, and a bit misdirected.
>
> Oh, it's been a while since the last time somebody underestimated
> me sufficiently to call me paranoid. Pretty much since Snowden.
>
>> There is an enormous difference between *mass* surveillance and
>> *targeted* surveillance, being that???short of running to Russia under
>> fsb "protection"???you cannot avoid targeted surveillance: that switches
>
> Educate yourself about the BULLRUN programme.
> Mass surveillance is happening also with HTTPS.
> It was probably based on heartbleed, but I don't
> expect that kind of approach to stop now.
>
> There's nothing wrong with using more opportunistic
> TLS, it's better than nothing. But the specific measures
> suggested by resetthenet are not very smart. It would
> be better to improve the situation on the browser side,
> by distributing a browser that somehow accepts cacert.org,
> or comes with a reasonable strategy to pin self-signed
> certificates. Making an advertisement campaign for
> certification authorities is a rather dumb choice of
> strategy.
>
> Certainly it's harder to challenge the powers that
> control our apparently so free and open source web
> browsers.
>
> And of course it would be better to replace the entire
> existing Internet with a rewrite from scratch, but
> that's not what I was saying. Was I?
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general