The establishment wants me to upgrade

[moonshadow]

Those could only happen if the software running them is propietary, as written here. That is why I only run free and open source software, as I have access to the software's source code I can be sure it is not doing anything wrong like spying on me for example.

And also, no one can shut the whole internet down as it is a decentralized worldwide network. Restricting internet access within one country's borders is the worst they could do.

Regarding propietary software... don't think for a minute that your source code is safe from the authorities. They are after all the ones who issue copyright law, and don't think for a second they wont break their own rules. The worlds governments have little regard for our property, intellectual or not. The fact that it's open source just makes it that much easier.

I realize you're in the Phillipines, but I'll bet you if you start using certain key words and phrases in your telecommunications, western authorities will be tracking you like white on rice. They've got satillites in the sky that can follow you anywhere.

As far as the internet. Well, if all of the western allies banded together and shut down their portions of the world wide network, basically all that would be left would just be smaller local networks. The essence of what the world wide web is, would basically be finished. Not only that, but military action can disrupt untold amounts of infrastructure. You can't run servers without electricity. So you shut down the home servers, and bomb the hell out of any country that tries to stop you....

Like I said... the internet is shut down.

Put the Kool Aid down and get your tin foil hat on. You're not safe anywhere, anymore. The only one you can trust, is yourself.

[crfriend]

Regarding propietary software... don't think for a minute that your source code is safe from the authorities.

Indeed, take a look at the amount of code that the NSA (aka "No Such Agency") has submitted -- and had accepted into -- the Linux source tree over the years including some very important bits like cryptography and module-level security. Does this mean that it's covert code designed to short-circuit users' security? After all, it has been vetted by some very good minds in the crypto world -- and not from the USA. Is it "suspicious"? I regard it so, especially since the NSA backed down on making strong cryptography outright illegal a few years ago.

Face it, in this day and age there's precisely nothing an average individual can do that'll have a lick of effect against a state -- and states know that. Making it possible for cars to be cracked and shut down (or otherwise malfunction) could make it easier for police to stop a car, but it's also trivially easy for them to just shoot the driver, as is common practise now in the USA. So, the holes in cars are entirely likely just that -- holes -- and those are there because proper attention to detail isn't being paid. As an example of this is that Boeing 787s (yes, the "Dreamliner") have to be powered down completely and cold-booted every 248 days to keep a 32-bit counter from wrapping and causing 3 three redundant computers from locking up in parallel and powering down the aeroplane in flight -- and that was code that was very heavily vetted indeed. Stuff running in the "entertainment systems" in cars I'm sure gets a lot less attention.

So, thinking it's all a big Conspiracy is over-simplifying the problem. The real crux of it is that too few people now understand the technology properly and have come to rely upon it as magick. Magick is all well and good -- just so long as it works when one needs it. Folks here should hear me curse about the "stability controls" ("anti-lock brakes", "traction control", and the like) on my car; the magick is fine if it works -- this stuff does not work when entrusted to a skilled driver.

On "anti-lock brakes": I ran a controlled test on my car going down an icy hill several weeks back. Just for fun, I tried to stop the car on the way down: no dice -- twice! The first time I tried it "old school" with threshold braking (and in that I don't really care if one or two wheels lock up, just so long as I can retain control) -- and the ABS kicked in removing *all* braking capability. On try two, I took my foot off the brake to reset the thing, and tried it "new school" by putting my foot to the floor and letting the car sort it out. I wound up squirting out onto the road at about 15 miles to the hour. (Recall that this was a deliberate test, and I made sure that the road was entirely devoid of traffic by virtue of the time I ran the test.) I feel so much safer now thanks to the magick under the bonnet. (Going back up the hill that afternoon, the "traction control" kicked in and made sure that it was adjusting everything every which way to guarantee that I could not make the grade. I had to back down and get a good old-fashioned running start. (It ignored the switch to disable the "traction control", and there is no disabling-switch for ABS -- so much for turning the magick off when you can't trust it.)

My next car is going to run on steam -- with no bloody magick whatsoever.

So, no Conspiracy at all. Just a failure to pay attention to details -- and the Devil is always in the details.

[dillon]

I think perhaps you perceive more competence on the part of the government than it deserves.

[moonshadow]

Well, I do hope I'm wrong.

As far as our government goes... well, we've got the best government money can buy.

Anyway, I'm going to throttle off of this subject. Nothing bad, and nobody has said anything to offend me, but I just sense that I'm going to pinch someone's nerve, or someone's going to pinch mine at some point if I don't back off a little. And I like it when we all get along. (maybe it's the fluoride in the water making me somewhat passive) People think I'm crazy enough as it is!

Peace fellas!

-Moon

[Judah14]

Anyone knowledgable with computers will know that free and open source software is more secure and freedom-respecting than propietary software because the source code is available to everyone. Some people might try to exploit vulnerabilities in the code, but as everyone has access to it you could just get the original code, check it for any "nasty" features and remove them if found, then compile it yourself.

And also, preventing governments from spying on your communications is easy, as written here.

And as crfriend wrote, all this paranoia is due to lack of understanding resulting to thoughts like "I can't do anything about this problem" when there is actually a solution that knowledgable people use.

[crfriend]

Anyone knowledgable with computers will know that free and open source software is more secure and freedom-respecting than propietary software because the source code is available to everyone. Some people might try to exploit vulnerabilities in the code, but as everyone has access to it you could just get the original code, check it for any "nasty" features and remove them if found, then compile it yourself.

The problem here is that one is pitting himself and the smart folks who review the software in the first place up against the intellectual and capital resources of a state. This means that everybody on the review team needs to be smarter than the smartest programmer that the State has in its arsenal. Given just how smart the NSA is points up how difficult it'll be to figure out where the backdoors are in the NSA-submitted code which are going to be hiding in plain sight in the source.

And also, preventing governments from spying on your communications is easy, as written here.

Lots of that is just plain old common sense. The old adages of, "Know your enemy", "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." and, "Never write when you can speak; never speak when you can nod; and never nod when you can wink." come to mind. But this takes a lot of diligence, and diligence is difficult to keep up for long periods. It means things like not using the telephone or e-mail; not using computers for anything other than the most trivial and meaningles exercises unless the computers are known secure; never using a credit-card; keeping and driving an older, non-computerised (read, "non-crackable") car; not having a mobile 'phone that can't be "safed" from the outside so it disappears from the net; understanding that encryption is "less than useful" when dealing with State-level actors (it works well enough against script-kiddies, though); using non-encryption means to obfuscate communications, and air-gapping critical computers/networks (and I'm not talking with wireless here) from anything even remotely accessible from off-network. At the extreme, this is the sort of thing that will drive one paranoid. Is this the sort of life you'd like to lead? Does it sound simple? Most folks think the same thing, and the answer is, "No."

[Judah14]

At the extreme, this is the sort of thing that will drive one paranoid. Is this the sort of life you'd like to lead? Does it sound simple? Most folks think the same thing, and the answer is, "No."

Well, the guy who founded the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, lives a life just like that. And it is pointed out in one of the links in the page posted that these measures are not perfect but of course still worth a try:

Disclaimer: Using the recommended projects on this site will not guarantee that 100% of your communications will be shielded against surveillance states. Please do your own research before trusting these projects with sensitive information.