[Tfug] The NET

Sun Oct 1 11:13:05 MST 2006

It is nice to have thoughtful reply. Thankyou : )

I also doubt that the government can spy on all machines. What would be the
point of hacking an Amiga? However, someone is watching the American 
population
more than is generally acknowledged, for whatever reason. And they do go to
considerable lengths to do this. This has been detected, in many ways on many
occasions by many different respectable groups. (Attachments to follow.)

Secret monitoring software is not so hard to install, especially if the user
unknowingly installs it. Then all that would be required is to remotely 
turn on
a given target. Lets think about this, how many programs from trusted sources
have I had to install on my computer simply to interact on an everyday 
basis. A
quick look through my programs shows at least twenty or thirty. Some of 
the more
commonly recognized are Adobe, IE, Opera, Netscape/Firefox, Winamp, MS Media
Player, Quicktime, Quicken, MS Office (the single biggest reason for
Microsoft's continued use), Wordperfect Office, Open Office, ESRI's ArcGIS and
ArcReader, Google's various programs, etc. This doesn't include drivers 
for the
various components, such as the printers, scanner, router, modems, 
music system,
mice, monitors, and camera, and probably other things that I have forgotten.
Even some less known programs need updating for time to time, such the system
bios, video drivers, power saving software, and of course, security software.
Any and most of which need to be updated on occasion... Many programs 
demand to
be updated; it is really rather irritating.

I don't mean to imply that the evil Bushites have done this. Far from it!
Sometimes I wonder if our glorious leader could find his way out of a barrel.
Though, he does have some clever advisors (no, not Henry Kissinger, it just
can't be). Such trojan horses have been detected long before our 
resident shrub
stole the election. Indeed, I first found out about data transmissions over
power lines a quarter century years ago, and we are still arguing over whether
or not such a system exists. This is nothing new.

It is not conspiratorial thinking to admit that secret government sponsored
groups have spent much time, imagination, and money to listen in on
computerized systems. We didn't admit either the NSA or NRO existed for how
long? These are hugely funded, full sized government agencies.

But you are right about Occam's razor. The simplest way is the best. Why would
the government go to such lengths when it could just follow some executive
order to freeze bank accounts, update databases, and then deny anything had
occurred. I am sure you can think of a couple of reasons why, especially in
this era of government sponsored foreign cave dwellers terrorizing us because
"They want our freedoms" (GWB).

I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. Regardless of whether anyone
wants to admit it or not, I already know these systems exist. Rather I 
was more
wondering about the technical aspects of such systems. TFUG is supposed to be
the place to ask about these things, right?

Post Script:

I admit to being intellectually lazy. It is one of my worst character faults,
right up there with being undisciplined, and lacking in self-direction. The
biggest problem with my character faults is that they leave me time and 
impetus
to actually consider the world as it is, rather as it should be, or as 
I want it
to be, or as others tell me it is. Do you really want to think I run 
around in a
circle blathering in idiotic euphoria "Woo, woo, woo, woo, woo, woo, woo, woo,
woo"? I do know what doublethink means. Here is how Orwell defined it (and he
would know best, right?):

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously,
and accepting both of them."

More specifically:

"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact
that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to
draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the 
reality
which one denies... Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering
with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so
on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

For a thoughtful consideration of Doublethink, see

www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

You might also wish to see a rather interesting movie that shows a perfect
example of doublethink as plain as can be. It is called "Terror Storm" and is
available for free on Google Video.

I hope I haven't come across as too upset, or insulted, or anything 
like that. I
am not. Really, I am enjoying having someone to talk to.

Michael

Quoting Stephen Hooper <stephen.hooper at gmail.com>:

> Can the government target a specific machine, and subvert its software
> to its own purposes?  Undoubtedly.  I also assume they do it fairly
> regularly.
>
> Can the government target all machines, and use them to  spy on their
> owners?  I would say no.
>
> Imagine secretly installing software, that will monitor a machine.
> Further, imagine transmitting information from that machine to a
> central location undiscovered by anyone (could you really do that over
> the internet?).
>
> Now imagine how much trouble you are going to.
>
> Then imagine that if you were tasked, and given an "infinite" budget
> how you would go about fulfilling either of the first two requirements
> on at least 200 million people.
>
> The government has lots of very smart people working for it, but I am
> in doubt that they would be more imaginative than anyone else given
> the same problem.
>
> What I come up with is that you would need to be able to perfectly
> subvert all computers (undetectably), and you would also need to
> develop some means of communicating the information you are collecting
> in a way that no one has yet detected.
>
> Your scenario would also seem to imply a need to do all that in the
> space of time that the evil Bushites have come to power.
>
> Remember, the government doesn't need everyone's bank account number.
> They just need the force to be able to close down the banks.   The
> government doesn't need to know if you are
> jewish/polish/roma/marxist/intellectual/liberal/pornographer/muslim/armenian/falun
> gong, they just need the might, and the intention to make it
> impossible to live a normal life if you are any of those things.
>
> Undoubtedly, pieces of our government have the power to do those things.
>
>  Why then would you then think that their is some grand conspiracy to
> do something in the hardest possible way?  Why not choose to believe
> in Occam's razor, and assume that the intended consequences of any
> such conspiracy  would be to put in place in a much more direct, and
> efficient manner?
>
> You may call that double-think, but seriously,  that seems to me to be
> a misunderstanding of the term in the way Orwell used it, and also
> quite a lazy in thought.
>
> In my belief there seems nothing magical, or revisionist to me; but,
> quite to the contrary, seems the least magical, and most tragic of
> human affairs.  Unfortunately, it also is a very common one.
>
> If you think the conspiracy would have some other result, please let
> me know.  But as far as I can tell, the only two things spying on
> someones computer are sure to tell you are: financial information, or
> philosophical/behavioural information.  What other possible uses could
> a government have for these gleanings?
>>
>
>
> On 9/29/06, sitkaa at email.arizona.edu <sitkaa at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> Watching a movie called The NET. Abit outdated, but still provides food for
>> thought. In the movie, a nefarious group of hackers called the Praetorians
>> writes software which acts as a trojan horse. They hack systems and cause
>> problems, and are only kept out by their own software.
>>
>> Is it possible, can it be that this scenario is possible?
>>
>> There have been any number of movies and books that theorize the 
>> government has
>> a program for intrusive tracking software. Especially considering 
>> the current
>> administration's predilection for spying on the population at large, is it
>> possible? Can they do it?, not just Carnivore, or Echelon, but the whole
>> enchilada. Does the government have a single system that is able alter hack
>> into and alter data in any and all computerized systems in the U.S., or for
>> that matter, the world?
>>
>> Of course no one would ever do any such thing. And seriously doubting the
>> official truth is tantamount to magic thinking. No governments would never
>> actually do anything like hack computers. I no this just like I no there are
>> people who ridicule any, any consideration of such conspiratorial 
>> talk. Double
>> Think is the only way, isn't it?
>>
>> Danny Cassolaro's Promis was supposed to be able to hack any system. Just as
>> conjecture, just because I know absolutely nothing about these 
>> things, except
>> of course that no one would ever, never, ever attempt such an 
>> initiative, so I
>> am neophyte enough to wonder if IBM's 5100 emulative capabilities could have
>> helped Promis fulfill it's.
>>
>> Not that I believe in any of this, of course.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> Subscription Options:
>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org