Search the Community

Fairly simple question. I've been steadily learning about free societies since I got into Stef. One debate I listened to with him featured an opponent who argued that: (A) Insurance companies are seemingly capable of great evil, so why would we put so much trust in them? (B) We aren't a connected enough society for economic ostracism to work. (A) seems fairly straightforward. In a free society, competition would basically keep insurance companies in line. As soon as one started acting shadily, you could jump to another one with more honest practices. I'm guessing we would see something like Yelp on steroids. (B) is more interesting. (Maybe it's my memory, and please tell me if it is) In the research I've done so far, I haven't heard a strong proposal on how this would be dealt with. My instinct is that everybody must be in a universal database. When a person violates the NAP, and refuses to play nice with a DRO, they get a flag like "Didn't keep his contract, owes ACME landscaping company $300," or "This man is accused of murder, click here to discuss and vote for his guilt or innocence in the case forum." Hell, I'm on board already. Funny anarchy is still better than statism. #snowcrash But hey, huge databases with the power to assassinate our characters, isn't that kind of asking for the maintainer of said data to abuse that power? I'm probably being incredibly short-sighted here. Feel free to respond with a copypasta about combine harvesters and ancient tree juice.

I have written an article regarding many aspects of the police use of body-worn cameras for work and during the process of researching the topic I became quite interested in the subject. After writing the article, I thought that in conclusion the motivation for the implementation of the cameras was not to provide sound evidence for use in court but rather to take advantage of a current social issue and make a profit for the "police industrial complex" while appeasing the public to an extent. The reason I came to that conclusion was because of the following: 1. Mount - results in shaky footage or if central officers arms and service weapon blocks the view. 2. Distortion Rolling shutter effect - produces a particular distortion explained here Barrel distortion from the wide angle lens - curves the outer edges of the frame making measurements and perspectives difficult. Forced perspective - due to the close-up nature of the instances where the footage will be required, the suspects features will be geometrically distorted 3. The FBI can confiscate every single server in a private data center if only one client that uses that data is considered to be committing an illegal act. By moving video data into the private sector and not on government servers they can access any other data that is housed in that center, sorry for any amazon.com customers out there. 4. Resolution - to save money on storage costs (so they can spend more of that tasty civil forfeiture money on Martini machines) the resolution will be lower than we can technically achieve and this hurts evidence and also the number of pixels forensic enhancers have to work with. To sum up my argument, I would say that if I were to design a device to record interactions between police and the public I would do it differently. Also, I want to make it clear that I think this is all an attempt at treating a symptom and not the core problem. That being said I realised that this might not be the full scope on the move to using body-worn cameras, I received an article that said that these cameras will be "making their way into Iowa schools" to protect both the student and the teacher. This is interesting and is the reason I am posting this thread. Has the government used recent instances of lethal force to introduce the idea that body-worn cameras are better for the public? Have they set a precedent that makes it socially acceptable for all government officials to wear cameras and gather data on everyone to protect "both" parties? If this is the case, then it will become a huge cost to taxpayers, pushing money into selected corporations in the same way as the military industrial complex. Worse still is the possibility of lobbyists pushing for legislation that requires the use of this technology in everyday business. I can't even think what the rape culture and human rights lobbyists will propose in order to protect us from threats that don't exist. I am just one person with limited resources, but I would love for Stef and his researchers to do a video regarding this topic.

http://www.infowars.com/google-secretly-spying-on-computer-users-via-microphones/ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computers-without-permission Private communications have been recorded in mass without consent and sent to third parties due to a feature of Google Chrome web browser called "Ok, Google". We all share concern over governmental agencies such as the NSA spying on individuals' communications (texts, phone calls, e-mails, Facebook exchanges, and more), but to what degree do we need to protect ourselves from monolithic corporations like Google, Apple, or Facebook? To what degree are these companys' stored communications shared with government agencies? I'm not fond of anyone monitoring my speech, whether it be government, corporation, or individual citizen. In the United States, there's a provision in the Constitution known as the "4th Amendment", which was spurred by the nation's founding generation having acute weariness of and hostile disdain towards a tyrannical government's desire to invade privacy via their confiscation of private documents or quartering of households. Now, in the information age, invasions of privacy of a far greater degree, perhaps perpetual recordings filed of all conversations within earshot of recording devices, are to be sent to unknown third parties for likely purposes of profit or surveillance by governments through collusive practices. Samsung Televisions are now equipped with microphones and cameras that record your conversation and facial reactions during TV viewing, and all collected data is sent to 3rd parties. If you've ever read George Orwell's 1984, then this should ring a bell, and if you possess any discernment whatsoever, raise great concern in you. I know it's fun to debate about transgenderism, and other race/gender/ethnicity/class/age/sex/hooplah sociocultural phenomena that arise in our deteriorating western society; hell, there are two forum categories with threads surrounding transgenderism alone each with hundreds of replies and thousands of views. If I'm to be honest, this irritates me. Clearly these matters touch individual lives and warrant discussion, yet out of hundreds of posts and tens of thousands of words exchanged, and much mental/emotional energy expended, little if any consensus has been achieved in these threads. I'd suppose that such issues serve the elites of this world quite well - divide and conquer at its finest, causing in-fighting and completely distracting all those engaged in debate from serious threats to individual liberty. And I propose that there are serious-as-fuck geopolitical and economic developments, such as the stability of the Dollar being thrown into question, looming potential for a war between the United States and Russia, or the threat posed to U.S. Sovereignty by legislation such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and corporate / government spying warrant just as serious a discussion. If not American, substitute the subversion of your nation's government by global financial institutions and the advancement of tyranny near you. So, that being said, what're your thoughts?

I'm excited to talk about a pair of open-source Apps which have recently become available on Google Play (Android Market): TextSecure for Private SMS/MMS. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms and RedPhone, for Secure Calls. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.redphone Both of these are by a company called Whisper Systems and are recommended by security experts (including this security intermediate) and are incredibly easy to use. Let's get these Apps on the phones of those we would communicate with! And BTW, if you have an iPhone: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531941/Even-worse-worst-nightmares-How-NSA-use-iPhone-spy-you.html

Terms and Conditions May Apply (2013) is a documentary by director Cullen Hoback that highlights online privacy and what users really agree to when they accept a website or social network’s terms and conditions. This is an important and frightening film, and shows how Google, Amzaon, Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Linkdin etc harvest our personal information and onsell it to the highest bidder, and to the government. How we don't read that wodge of text in capitals comprising "Terms and conditions" before we click "Accept" - nobody could, it would take a month per year for everything we sign. But even when that text is brief and written in plain English, it gives those corporations unprecedented power over our personal information - including the right to change the rules without telling us, to increase their power without limit and without asking again, and to keep it forever, even after we have "deleted" it. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzyafieRcWE (2min) Full movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHpvG_KUKAM (80min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHpvG_KUKAM

Interesting article: Meshnet activists rebuilding the internet from scratch http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929294.500-meshnet-activists-rebuilding-the-internet-from-scratch.html Worried about the NSA snooping on your email? Maybe you need to start creating your own personal internet.The internet is neither neutral nor private, in case you were in any doubt. The US National Security Agency can reportedly collect nearly everything a user does on the net, while internet service providers (ISPs) move traffic according to business agreements, rather than what is best for its customers. So some people have decided to take matters into their own hands, and are building their own net from scratch.Across the US, from Maryland to Seattle, work is underway to construct user-owned wireless networks that will permit secure communication without surveillance or any centralised organisation. They are known as meshnets and ultimately, if their designers get their way, they will span the country...