[Tfug] The NET

[Stephen Hooper]

<aside>

I did not deny that you knew the term double-think.  I just thought
you were using it improperly in your previous email.  Maybe I
misunderstood what you were trying to say, but I read your  sentence
as to imply that those who would argue against such a conspiracy as
being "unenlightened", rather than double-thinking their way out of
the problem.

</aside>

So back to the conspiracy, I do  agree that many different groups have
found machinez subverted in just the ways you claim (key-loggers,
etc.), but I disagree that this would be something easy to do.

In a single case, it is relatively easy to install software.  Across
the swath of the internet it is very difficult.  As somebody else
mentioned, and to extend an analogy: it is easier to tap the trunk for
maple syrup, rather than tapping each individual branch (or leaf) in a
maple tree.

But the ease of this is not simply to do with the technical scale of
the installation.  The ease also has to do with the "discoverability".
 As you mention many different groups have discovered all kinds of spy
ware.  But for this conspiracy to actually work, and for it to be at
all like the movie "The Net", you would basically need undiscoverable
software.

The idea in "The Net" is really quite preposterous.  Why?  It assumes
a select handful of humans are the only ones with the means, and the
method to subvert machines in a way that is undetectable to all except
our plucky heroine, and the guy who crashed in the plane at the
beginning.

So, let's assume that our government is really trying to do this.
They do have very smart people.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, they
don't have a monopoly on smart people.  They also probably posses
technology that is not currently available to the mainstream of
humanity.

So let's pretend, at an outside that they are 100 years more advanced
in computer technology than the rest of humanity.  That is quite
preposterous, but let's pretend.  So, the question then becomes
knowing what we know of technology today could we extrapolate what the
government was doing with their 100 year advanced technology?

 I would argue that you could.  They will not have broken most of  the
same barriers that have existed for the last hundred years:  speed of
light, etc., therefore given all the technology that they would have
available you would still be able to detect some parts of it (e.g.
let's say they have broken the speed of light problem in their
transmission medium, the problem would be that our computers haven't,
and therefore we could recognize the piece that runs on our computer
as something "different", and extrapolate what it is doing).

I would even go as far as to argue that the vast majority of humans
could, just the same way that most humans would recognize a
transportational vehicle as such 100 years in the future.  Evolution
gives up on technology at some point in time as well... and things
become the equivalent of technological sharks:  perfect in their niche
with no reason to adapt.

Then it is time to go back to Occam's razor: you state, "someone is
watching the American population more than is generally acknowledged,
for whatever reason."   Would it not be simpler then to ask, first why
(as I have done), and then how (as I have just done),  and finally
who?

Why assume it is a single entity, rather than a conglomeration of
entities that don't have the power to effectuate the means that
collecting such data would lead them to.  It is easier for me to
believe that the Russian mafia is after my credit card number, and
that McDonald's like to know when I decided to become vegetarian,
rather than believe the government would want to know, or care.

The government is always going to be more concerned with keeping
itself in a position to exercise its monopoly over its citizens.  The
fact that you believe that the government may be willing to spy on you
is valid.  The fact that you believe that the government is willing to
spy on everyone is also valid.

The fact that you are attributing so much power to a single group:
i.e. technological, theoretical, strategic, and tactical, as well as
purpose specific, seems to me to be quite laughable.  I say that
because I have never seen any evidence that our government posseses
some of those qualities, and the fact that I have never seen any
evidence that our government has ever possesed all those qualities at
any single point in time.

So taken together, the why, the how, and the who, just lead to more
questions.  Which is always an enticing ploy with all conspiracies,
but you must always be able to answer them in some coherent manner.

That is why after watching the Simpson's I don't really believe that
Major League baseball has spy satellites, but after watching JFK, or
reading about Pearl Harbor, I do admit that there may be credible
alternate explanations for those events.

On 10/1/06, sitkaa at email.arizona.edu <sitkaa at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>