"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > ...
> > Personally I don't see a clear winning system and I don't have the eastern
> > mentality to give my data away like in Taiwan or South Corea.
> >
> > Nobody will get my moving data, that's for sure!
>
> sure?  ;-)  a couple of years ago or so the BBC had an article on their website
> (technology section, I think.  cannot -- of course -- find the bookmark now)
> which stated that the state security services here (UK) can predict a person's
> physical movement/location for 24 hours in advance, with a better than 90%
> accuracy; based on all those .. habitual actions.  and the BND won't be
> different.  I guess that we all "leak" sufficient data for those who have the
> ability to collate it.
>
> (and thanks for the light&shadows, new laptop wallpaper :-))
>
>
> regards, jr.


Of course you are right. Nobody would find interesting or unusual things in my
movement data alone. But this is part of another western value - individualism.

I feel the right to decide, if I give the data by free will - that's all.

Personally I'ld like to know, why is there so much surveillance in London. Is it
because of the terrorist attacks of 2005/2017? Even then it seems to me unusual
for a western country.

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> Interesting! I wonder what the term 'democracy' meant to the Founding
> Fathers... I suppose something godless, inimical to their own faith;
> after all, they were refugees. I don't think that the modern
> understanding of 'democracy' remotely corresponds to theirs, except,
> maybe, in the US? ;-) Certainly, the term 'liberty' means something very
> different from my own definition when I read about fringe groups like
> 'preppers'. But then the same can be said about far-right political
> parties in EU which use the term 'liberty' for their own intentions.
>
> --
> Thomas


Ah - the far right.
I germany some say - it feels like germany before the nazis - opressed by strong
left and right movements. And the middle ground had nothing interesting to offer
beside empty words.
If this is true, than the EU as a whole feels like that, especially when looking
at the coming recession...


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> ...
> I feel the right to decide, if I give the data by free will - that's all.

agree with the sentiment.  (in spite of, ironically, being an enthusiastic user
of Google.  :-))

> Personally I'ld like to know, why is there so much surveillance in London. Is it
> because of the terrorist attacks of 2005/2017?

good questions both; and not just in the UK.  I think (disclaimer: not a
historian etc) that the roots go back (at least) to medieval monarchs having
"dark arts + thugs" departments to .. maintain competitive advantage, which
became more "proper" institutions, necessarily, with the empire
building/expansion and "maintainance".

> Even then it seems to me unusual for a western country.

"By the end of the 20th century, the ECHELON surveillance network had evolved
into a global system capable of sweeping up massive amounts of private and
commercial communications, including telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data
traffic. This was done through the interception of communication bearers such as
satellite transmission and public switched telephone networks."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#ECHELON_network_disclosures_(1972%E2%80%932000)>

"According to declassified (but partly redacted) US government documents
released in 2015, in 1955, Crypto AG's founder Boris Hagelin and William
Friedman entered into an unwritten agreement concerning the C-52 encryption
machines that compromised the security of some of the purchasers."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG#Compromised_machines>

:-)

how much remains .. undisclosed?


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> > Personally I'ld like to know, why is there so much surveillance in London. Is it
> > because of the terrorist attacks of 2005/2017?
>
> good questions both; and not just in the UK.  I think (disclaimer: not a
> historian etc) that the roots go back (at least) to medieval monarchs having
> "dark arts + thugs" departments to .. maintain competitive advantage, which
> became more "proper" institutions, necessarily, with the empire
> building/expansion and "maintainance".
>
> > Even then it seems to me unusual for a western country.
>
> "By the end of the 20th century, the ECHELON surveillance network had evolved
> into a global system capable of sweeping up massive amounts of private and
> commercial communications, including telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data
> traffic. This was done through the interception of communication bearers such as
> satellite transmission and public switched telephone networks."
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#ECHELON_network_disclosures_(1972%E2%80%932000)>
>
> "According to declassified (but partly redacted) US government documents
> released in 2015, in 1955, Crypto AG's founder Boris Hagelin and William
> Friedman entered into an unwritten agreement concerning the C-52 encryption
> machines that compromised the security of some of the purchasers."
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG#Compromised_machines>
>
> :-)
>
> how much remains .. undisclosed?
>
>
> regards, jr.


Oh yes, i remember echelon - in germany we saw it as espionage from a "friendly"
side like from france and USA of course. I don't know if germany does the same.

When it became public, I saw it as a sign of descending powers.

But now in times of Alexa, I would speak openly only in Alexa-free rooms about
sensitive topics. So much to personal freedom in democracies nowadays.

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> I don't know, what kind of pure democracy USA wanted to avoid - is it anarchy or
> a democracy like in antic athen, where Socrates was sentenced to death? I
> wouldn't like either...

Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule.  The Tyranny of the Majority.
The minority are always in danger of "losing", and the majority always has
something to gain by trying to further "win".
In a constitutional Republic, there is a just and proper role of government
which has no rights - it only has justly delegated authority to be exercised by
the consent of the governed.  Anything not authorized as under the legitimate
purview of the governing democratically-elected representatives is explicitly
prohibited from their infernal meddling.
And THAT is what ensures peace, prosperity, and avoids the increasing
polarization that we see now.

There are many authors and organizations dedicated to preserving Liberty and
individual freedom, and it would be arduous to lay out the history of why
Liberty is necessary, and the philosophy and empirical evidence that shows it to
be necessary and proper.

People have Natural Rights - and it is the proper function of government to
protect and defend those Rights.   350 million Americans can't justly and
properly deny a single individual of any of their Rights just because they feel
like it, watch a movie, read a book, or fall under the powerful influence of a
cult, the media, or an international corporation.

Ken Schooland did a great job of summarizing the important concepts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
https://www.jonathangullible.com/
(flash animation by the late Kerry Pearson)

and Michael Badnarik expanded on what that means in his Constitution class.


> Nothing should be taken to its extremes! Here I "totally" agree with the
> founding fathers, if I got them correct ;-)

Well, there are Rights, and there are privileges.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit
of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

As Michael succinctly put it, "If I wanted to sleep with your wife - not every
night - I'd be reasonable - let's say just once a year - and you said ABSOLUTELY
NOT!   Not EVER!  Would you be an _extremist_ husband?"

https://badnarik.org/downloads/chapter_two.pdf
https://badnarik.org/

L. Neil Smith has equally as much to say on similar topics.




https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/92216/20-powerful-quotes-frederick-douglass

> But what we have to learn now beside all of the economic stuff?
> Personally I don't see a clear winning system and I don't have the eastern
> mentality to give my data away like in Taiwan or South Corea.

That's the whole point.   There is no "winning system" - the system adapts and
changes as we see fit to meet our needs.  Top-down authoritarian structures
don't work, they're inefficient, they're SLOW, they're usually incompetent, and
they attract corrupt power-seekers and mission-creep soon leads to the Iron Law
of Oligarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy




Much of what is blamed on "capitalism" is government corruption that was used to
enrich the powerful friends of the corrupt politicians.
Read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, and you'll get a good idea of the inner
workings of the corrupt in power.

When something is regulated, the first thing to be bought and sold are - the
regulators.

> Nobody will get my moving data, that's for sure!

I've been studying this, and have been deeply involved in this for 20+ years.
It takes a lot of time and energy and dedication - and spine.
And unfortunately I have the deep scars to prove it.


And boy they DO NOT like it when you make demands, or disagree.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> ...
> Oh yes, i remember echelon - in germany we saw it as espionage from a "friendly"
> side like from france and USA of course. I don't know if germany does the same.

Germany - would not be surprised to learn they .. colluded.

(am with (Heinrich) Heine on this: "Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht..."
:-))

> When it became public, I saw it as a sign of descending powers.
>
> But now in times of Alexa, I would speak openly only in Alexa-free rooms about
> sensitive topics. So much to personal freedom in democracies nowadays.

I cannot even understand why anyone talks to an "Alexa".  :-(  although it's
unlikely to make a difference, I have "disabled" the in-built microphones (and
user facing cameras) for laptop and (Android) tablet in settings.

"You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to
actually try it."
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfInFVPkQs>

(cannot keep up with "personal freedoms".  if I'd walked into a bank, three
months ago, with a face mask, they'd have called the police.  :-))


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 28/04/2020 om 14:55 schreef Norbert Kern:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 
>> Interesting! I wonder what the term 'democracy' meant to the Founding
>> Fathers... I suppose something godless, inimical to their own faith;
>> after all, they were refugees. I don't think that the modern
>> understanding of 'democracy' remotely corresponds to theirs, except,
>> maybe, in the US? ;-) Certainly, the term 'liberty' means something very
>> different from my own definition when I read about fringe groups like
>> 'preppers'. But then the same can be said about far-right political
>> parties in EU which use the term 'liberty' for their own intentions.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
> 
> 
> Ah - the far right.
> I germany some say - it feels like germany before the nazis - opressed by strong
> left and right movements. And the middle ground had nothing interesting to offer
> beside empty words.
> If this is true, than the EU as a whole feels like that, especially when looking
> at the coming recession...
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 
I understand your worries although I am (still) fairly optimistic about 
this. Being born in 1946, I certainly watch with some misgivings the 
ease with which far-right opinions are openly distilled into the public 
arena nowadays (not much far-left movements left it seems, comparable to 
them). This was almost unthinkable forty years ago. In itself, this is 
proper democratic functioning, giving a platform to all opinions. And 
yet, there is always the danger of the balance tipping too strongly to 
one side, especially in a time when historical awareness is dimming; 
with the exception of these very days when 75 years of peace in Europe 
are celebrated. An achievement in itself, considering our troubled history.

I cannot refrain from this: :-)
[quote from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#Lib]


this dictum with his name remains very powerful, and one still hears his 
legacy invoked through the redeclaration of this pronouncement that he 
never actually declared. Part of the deep cultural tie that joins 
Voltaire to this dictum is the fact that even while he did not write 
these precise words, they do capture, however imprecisely, the spirit of 
his philosophy of liberty.
[/quote]


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> >
> I understand your worries although I am (still) fairly optimistic about
> this. Being born in 1946, I certainly watch with some misgivings the
> ease with which far-right opinions are openly distilled into the public
> arena nowadays (not much far-left movements left it seems, comparable to
> them). This was almost unthinkable forty years ago. In itself, this is
> proper democratic functioning, giving a platform to all opinions. And
> yet, there is always the danger of the balance tipping too strongly to
> one side, especially in a time when historical awareness is dimming;
> with the exception of these very days when 75 years of peace in Europe
> are celebrated. An achievement in itself, considering our troubled history.
>
> I cannot refrain from this: :-)
> [quote from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#Lib]


> this dictum with his name remains very powerful, and one still hears his
> legacy invoked through the redeclaration of this pronouncement that he
> never actually declared. Part of the deep cultural tie that joins
> Voltaire to this dictum is the fact that even while he did not write
> these precise words, they do capture, however imprecisely, the spirit of
> his philosophy of liberty.
> [/quote]
>
>
> --
> Thomas


I like theses words too, but they need context.

By examole - between WW2 and nazis "every" opinion was allowed in germany.
Extremists from left and right took advantage from this freedom.
Since WW2 a well-fortified democracy was introduced with a very important
difference - Don't be tolerant to the intolarants.
I personally thought, this can hold up for a long time.

But since about 20 years this has changed - (intolerant) politicians use it to
discredit other opinions for ideological reasons and most media don't challenge
it anymore.

It's frustrating, but liberty isn't a fundamental value - it needs context.

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Op 29/04/2020 om 16:59 schreef Norbert Kern:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 
>>>
>> I understand your worries although I am (still) fairly optimistic about
>> this. Being born in 1946, I certainly watch with some misgivings the
>> ease with which far-right opinions are openly distilled into the public
>> arena nowadays (not much far-left movements left it seems, comparable to
>> them). This was almost unthinkable forty years ago. In itself, this is
>> proper democratic functioning, giving a platform to all opinions. And
>> yet, there is always the danger of the balance tipping too strongly to
>> one side, especially in a time when historical awareness is dimming;
>> with the exception of these very days when 75 years of peace in Europe
>> are celebrated. An achievement in itself, considering our troubled history.
>>
>> I cannot refrain from this: :-)
>> [quote from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#Lib]


>> this dictum with his name remains very powerful, and one still hears his
>> legacy invoked through the redeclaration of this pronouncement that he
>> never actually declared. Part of the deep cultural tie that joins
>> Voltaire to this dictum is the fact that even while he did not write
>> these precise words, they do capture, however imprecisely, the spirit of
>> his philosophy of liberty.
>> [/quote]
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
> 
> 
> I like theses words too, but they need context.
> 
> By examole - between WW2 and nazis "every" opinion was allowed in germany.
> Extremists from left and right took advantage from this freedom.
> Since WW2 a well-fortified democracy was introduced with a very important
> difference - Don't be tolerant to the intolarants.
> I personally thought, this can hold up for a long time.
> 
> But since about 20 years this has changed - (intolerant) politicians use it to
> discredit other opinions for ideological reasons and most media don't challenge
> it anymore.
> 
> It's frustrating, but liberty isn't a fundamental value - it needs context.
> 
> Norbert
> 
> 
Thanks for putting this in perspective. You are absolutely right and my 
own experience too.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 30/04/2020 om 08:36 schreef Thomas de Groot:

> Thanks for putting this in perspective. You are absolutely right and my 
> own experience too.
> 

Nah! That last sentence sucks imo. :-) I mean of course that my thoughts 
about this matter are identical to yours.

Brain cells are not getting better... ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message