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

[carlo von lynX]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:57:11PM +0200, Cal. wrote:
> You didn't address my point at all.

Don't say that only to make yourself sound good.

> What you suggested is to use *individual* protection and anonymity

No, I suggested to change web browsers for the majority of humanity.
I spoke to some Mozilla devs yesterday.

> 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.

Targeted surveillance is less interesting than the problems caused by
mass surveillance, and it is correct that some techniques formerly
used for targeted surveillance (like traffic pattern correlation) have
been automated sufficiently to become mass surveillance tools.
So what are you trying to tell us here we didn't already know?

> 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).

You have no idea about me, but maybe you are talking about yourself.
Still you are off-topic since I wasn't ever talking of myself or other
individuals.

> 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.

This is incompetent rambling on a topic we weren't talking about.
If you think and insist to think I was talking of targeted surveillance
even after I told you I wasn't your competence is lagging behind.
Please refrain from contributing further to this thread.


> 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?