4 ms·

Guys. He's saying that while technology made it easy for elites to protect themselves, it's also begun making it easy for groups undermining those elites. An ex

by arjie 9y ago

Guys. He's saying that while technology made it easy for elites to protect themselves, it's also begun making it easy for groups undermining those elites. An example of the former is how easy dragnet surveillance is today. An example of the latter is how easy cryptographically secure communication is today. That's the entire essay. There's some rubbish going on in this comment section about fundamentalist Islam but it's not an important part of the article. Spare yourself the discussion.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ThomPete 9y ago
Wikileaks is based on this insight. Here is a very interesting perspective on Assange thinking. "... according to his essay, Julian Assange is trying to do something else. Because we all basically know that the US state — like all states — is basically doing a lot of basically shady things basically all the time, simply revealing the specific ways they are doing these shady things will not be, in and of itself, a necessarily good thing. In some cases, it may be a bad thing, and in many cases, the provisional good it may do will be limited in scope. The question for an ethical human being — and Assange always emphasizes his ethics — has to be the question of what exposing secrets will actually accomplish, what good it will do, what better state of affairs it will bring about. And whether you buy his argument or not, Assange has a clearly articulated vision for how Wikileaks’ activities will “carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity,” a strategy for how exposing secrets will ultimately impede the production of future secrets. The point of Wikileaks — as Assange argues — is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary. ..." Another interesting tidbit: "...This is however, not where Assange’s reasoning leads him. He decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make “leaks” a fundamental part of the conspiracy’s information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the “Collateral Murder” video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire:..." https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/ https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-a...
aaron-lebo 9y ago
He mentions Islam twice (he circles back around to it), so it is an important part of the article. Besides, what is militant Islam but the most effective harnessing of technology to undermine elites there is? To ignore that is to ignore a very practical example of this at play.
- bbcbasic 9y ago
  Not sure how it undermines elites? In fact it could be playing into their hands, as a scared population will vote for more draconian measures.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Militant Islam is very useful to elites. The U.S. particularly constantly screws around in the Middle East supporting groups that later become terrorist targets of ours. The biggest offenders have the U.S. governments' hands all over them before they became that. The U.S. protects Saudi Arabia and gives military aid despite them harboring top promoters of terrorism. The media and U.S. government here constantly warn people about terrorism with the defense contractors making billions from that and powermongers getting all kinds of laws such as Patriot Act passed when people were afraid. They also like doing this with threats from drug dealers, kidnappers, and pedophiles. There's even a meme for it they do it so much on Internet side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
jansho 9y ago
Yeah this article's a bit mixey. Side note: You know I have a Saudi friend who told me that it's incredibly patronising when the 'West' talk so much about their (lack of) rights, like as if they're so helpless and living such miserable lives ... they're practically reduced to the very black figures they were criticised to be. > because its inventor was stuck indoors waiting for her “male guardian” to drive her somewhere But yeah. Things are changing even in Saudi Arabia.. http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-prince-supports-women-driving-1.2035965 http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-prince-su...
nickpsecurity 9y ago
"An example of the former is how easy dragnet surveillance is today. An example of the latter is how easy cryptographically secure communication is today. That's the entire essay." This is the common claim. It's also super simplistic given elites control the law, the Internet backbone, the entertainment industry, copyright/patent system, and often venture capital that decides which tech will dominate next. That's why most people are on Windows, iMessage, Android, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. The incentives for and ambitions of startup founders also mean they will not likely make the system more equal with their next innovation since their goal is getting as far ahead of everyone else as possible. The percentage that have influence over markets, are aimed at improved equality/privacy/security, and setup to stay that way are so small they make successful startups look common. Tech can help change the situation but overall a tiny part of doing so. It will take legal, political, or other muscle targeted right at the elites and their control structures.

by arjie 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ThomPete 9y ago

Wikileaks is based on this insight. Here is a very interesting perspective on Assange thinking. "... according to his essay, Julian Assange is trying to do something else. Because we all basically know that the US state — like all states — is basically doing a lot of basically shady things basically all the time, simply revealing the specific ways they are doing these shady things will not be, in and of itself, a necessarily good thing. In some cases, it may be a bad thing, and in many cases, the provisional good it may do will be limited in scope. The question for an ethical human being — and Assange always emphasizes his ethics — has to be the question of what exposing secrets will actually accomplish, what good it will do, what better state of affairs it will bring about. And whether you buy his argument or not, Assange has a clearly articulated vision for how Wikileaks’ activities will “carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity,” a strategy for how exposing secrets will ultimately impede the production of future secrets. The point of Wikileaks — as Assange argues — is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary. ..." Another interesting tidbit: "...This is however, not where Assange’s reasoning leads him. He decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make “leaks” a fundamental part of the conspiracy’s information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the “Collateral Murder” video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire:..." https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/ https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-a...

aaron-lebo 9y ago

He mentions Islam twice (he circles back around to it), so it is an important part of the article. Besides, what is militant Islam but the most effective harnessing of technology to undermine elites there is? To ignore that is to ignore a very practical example of this at play.

bbcbasic 9y ago
Not sure how it undermines elites? In fact it could be playing into their hands, as a scared population will vote for more draconian measures.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
Militant Islam is very useful to elites. The U.S. particularly constantly screws around in the Middle East supporting groups that later become terrorist targets of ours. The biggest offenders have the U.S. governments' hands all over them before they became that. The U.S. protects Saudi Arabia and gives military aid despite them harboring top promoters of terrorism. The media and U.S. government here constantly warn people about terrorism with the defense contractors making billions from that and powermongers getting all kinds of laws such as Patriot Act passed when people were afraid. They also like doing this with threats from drug dealers, kidnappers, and pedophiles. There's even a meme for it they do it so much on Internet side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

jansho 9y ago

Yeah this article's a bit mixey. Side note: You know I have a Saudi friend who told me that it's incredibly patronising when the 'West' talk so much about their (lack of) rights, like as if they're so helpless and living such miserable lives ... they're practically reduced to the very black figures they were criticised to be. > because its inventor was stuck indoors waiting for her “male guardian” to drive her somewhere But yeah. Things are changing even in Saudi Arabia.. http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-prince-supports-women-driving-1.2035965 http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-prince-su...

nickpsecurity 9y ago

"An example of the former is how easy dragnet surveillance is today. An example of the latter is how easy cryptographically secure communication is today. That's the entire essay." This is the common claim. It's also super simplistic given elites control the law, the Internet backbone, the entertainment industry, copyright/patent system, and often venture capital that decides which tech will dominate next. That's why most people are on Windows, iMessage, Android, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. The incentives for and ambitions of startup founders also mean they will not likely make the system more equal with their next innovation since their goal is getting as far ahead of everyone else as possible. The percentage that have influence over markets, are aimed at improved equality/privacy/security, and setup to stay that way are so small they make successful startups look common. Tech can help change the situation but overall a tiny part of doing so. It will take legal, political, or other muscle targeted right at the elites and their control structures.