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

[Cal.]

Your message is full of hate. I want to feel good and give you an
opportunity to rethink it.
Il 11/giu/2014 15:20 "carlo von lynX" <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org> ha
scritto:

> 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?
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20140611/5e7663ff/attachment.html>