5 ms·

The folks at https://www.random.org/ https://www.random.org/ and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ. They do, in fact, have a paid service t

The folks at https://www.random.org/ https://www.random.org/ and similar true-randomness providers would beg to differ. They do, in fact, have a paid service to deliver what appears to be random noise as a message, then store that noise in their archive for subsequent re-verification. I recall seeing videos of lava lamps and handfuls of d6 dice on a vibrating table, broadcast live over the internet, purely for their utility as potential sources for truly random numbers. I can easily see a case for sending randomness in a client-server game with protections against cheating and bandwidth restrictions. The randomness server sends the same chunk of noise to game client and game server, and the game client sends user commands to the game server. As long as the user isn't cheating, the official server copy of the game state and the client copy remain in sync.

adventured 10y ago
Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately. At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break some arbitrary law, given enough time, at which point you're done.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of exercising free speech and security in their papers and effects, it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.
  - bitwize 10y ago
    And once that person rebels, according to Presidential Decision Directive XXX, the government may consider that person an unlawful enemy combatant, apprehend them without a warrant, and incarcerate them at Secure Facility [REDACTED] for interrogation and/or neutralization by means of [REDACTED]. If they are ever heard about again, it will be because the government "found" ISIS materials, CP, or other bad stuff on their computer.

adventured 10y ago

Given the scenario in question, that only helps you at layer one of the surveillance process and only for a very brief time. You're now a suspect to be watched intricately. At layer two, they begin digging into your life, tapping everything they can, following you, and most likely eventually getting a warrant or equivalent to enter your home and seize your property. There's no scenario under which you don't break some arbitrary law, given enough time, at which point you're done.

logfromblammo 10y ago
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the state begins persecuting a citizen based on a suspicion of exercising free speech and security in their papers and effects, it is ethically correct for that person to rebel.
- bitwize 10y ago
  And once that person rebels, according to Presidential Decision Directive XXX, the government may consider that person an unlawful enemy combatant, apprehend them without a warrant, and incarcerate them at Secure Facility [REDACTED] for interrogation and/or neutralization by means of [REDACTED]. If they are ever heard about again, it will be because the government "found" ISIS materials, CP, or other bad stuff on their computer.