/tech/ - Technology

Wear ICP makeup and put a rock in your shoe.

you gotta realize that the nsa and fbi already have your face. it's virtually impossible to evade it at this point, go into a store, they caught you on video, if it's a big store it's probably available to the government and whatever corporation that's in bed with them. you got a phone, that's a death sentence, the new ones literally have 3d models of your face stored in the cloud.

you just have to wear masks when you're doing stuff that would make you a worthwhile target for them

>>8617
The "fun" hasn't even begun, the bio- and life-metric data they are gathering about people isn't just going to be stored and evaluated. It's going to be used for everything, especially for things where it doesn't make sense. And none of it will be secure, not even the big tech giants. People are going to game the crap out of the surveillance system by manipulating it's inputs and a new flood of scams is coming. It's going to make spam email, randsom ware, click fraud and data leaks pale in comparison.

I don't know good advice, except move your digital live to the fringes of alternative technology culture.

Learning about surveillance capitalism is life ruining. I hate how all the stupid normalcattle get the boot shoved in their mouth every day and do nothing because of muh convenience, or even worse, try and drag the handful of sane people left in the world into their bullshit because they're scared of the crabs who don't want to be in the bucket. It's not rational to hate them because of the 24/7 algorithm driven propaganda they get fed, but it's definitely infuriating.

>>8625
>Fringes of Alternative Technology culture.

Like what? Got any examples?

>>8617
Bro the worst is these fucking retarded neighbors that get the shitty Ring doorbell. Extreme anxiety knowing i’m being autorecorded by Prism Fedazon every time I go take a walk on the sidewalk in my neighborhood. Ring owners should be gulaged

>>8630
>Learning about surveillance capitalism is life ruining.
Worst part is that you can barely do a thing about it. It's like finding out about The Game (which you just lost, by the way).

U/ACC retards have it good since they embrace this kind of shit

>>8633
what >>8620 said
it's normal and safe and good to have a meat body that does legal and normie things. Unless you've faked your death or are wanted by cops, i mean even then shit like Ring isnt that big of a deal, but only in that context would it really matter that your holy image is captured. Your body is already accounted for by the system. So let it exist and be seen, and hopefully the schizos in the government fall for their own bullshit that their surveillance is complete. It's not. For an internet addicted zoomer who is on snapchat, discord, facebook, and tiktok 24/7 then they probably have a very interested and flushed out portfolio of your daily activities. If you're someone who doesnt use social media, often leaves their smartphone at home, doesnt use worst-possible browsing practices (which would be using google chrome, always logged in, on a smartphone), they only have a few random data points about you. And most of the time, what you're paranoid about is forensics capabilities. There's a reason why detectives and OSINT specialists exist. The data that individual companies or individual governments have about you is sparse unless you're intentionally giving them information, and then it's not available to everyone who wants it immediately or super easily. There's not mr FBI man calling up jeff bezos being like "can you tell me if ur facial recognition supercomputer clusters caught anyone recently from those blessed Ring things?".
Even better if they build a model of you that paints you as a boring citizen. If you rarely interact heavily with tech, maybe they peg you as a terrorist or luddite freak, but mostly they'll still get some info, and as long as you use okay practices when using the web and where you take your phone and what you post on social media, you seem boring. That's all. They could extrapolate a weak model of your life, that you live a boring prole life or neet life. This is probably you anyways, but if it's not you, it gives you plenty of room to go be an activist or a terrorist or a hacker or fucking guerrilla in your spare time and their algorithm doesnt know any different, because that part of you life is always separated.
>>8641
We learn we're in The Game at different points, but as long as you're not in prison you havent lost yet.

>>8644
now im scared, what are red flags that would put you on an actual watchlist? i try to be careful but im also retarded so im sure ive slipped several times and i dont use vpns or the sort so my online life can be connected to my real life by glowies

I opened leftypol on the regular browser and I started panicking

>>8649
Who the fuck cares, were all on the watchlist already anyways. The best thing you can do is not say anything so autistic they really start looking into you for.

>>8649
IIRC Snowden said to be careful when looking into strong counter-surveillance tools like Tails because they trigger a lot of automatic flags.

>feds see that I've downloaded Tails and knock down my door
>forensics team make backups of all my drives and usbs
>its just filled with my little pony porn
>get arrested for allegedly being a fascist
what the fuck man

>>8658
>The best thing you can do is not say anything so autistic they really start looking into you for.
thats the issue, since its all automated nowadays they look out for metadata (i.e. >>8664) not specific things youve said on social media or whatever, that comes later

>>8664
>>8666
So what can be done to not trigger the automatic flags then if you're trying to stay (mostly) hidden?

>>8668
fam the flags are probably already triggered
if you're slightly free-thinking or intelligent or curious, you've flagged yourself some

the best you can do is not post anything that scares someone on social media
there's two very different kinds of threats here, one with the abstract "lists" and cybernetic shit, surveillance capitalism, huge databases of faces – all this stuff is very shadowy and we arent told much about it, it also is basically not the thing you actually need to worry about
the other threat is what actual law enforcement gets into their sight. This means dont say anything violent on public social media, or around people that you cant trust or might think you're a spooky gommie/terrorist.
They dont really act on any of the "we think he's a potential terrorist, so we "watch" him" shit
Their advanced profiling, data aggregation, all of that, it's not actionable. If the gov goes full fascist, then it'll be actionable. So just pray that that doesnt happen, and have a gun and friends, and encrypt anything that might be sensitive at all, etc.

>>8644
>nothing to hide nothing to fear
>>8671
>not the thing you actually need to worry about
>If the gov goes full fascist, then it'll be actionable. So just pray that that doesnt happen, and have a gun and friends, and encrypt anything that might be sensitive at all, etc.
ummmm

>>8617
You definitely are, I'm not going to lie that all this spying feels uneasy sometime since it can be extremely powerful tool. However though, it almost seems like 9 times out of 10 when the usage was applicable they just didn't bother. Situations like preventable shootings and terrorists acts that're conspired on devices which're spyware city, are just ignored.

Almost seems like the collection of data being based not on a plan but as a basis for a future plan that wont materialize into anything. With the exception if they were targeting you, but if all the general electronics that can be used to spy on you (rings, amazon echos, etc.), even if they didn't exist, they would still find a way to spy on you.

Honestly, the positive of being able to spread ideas and communicating with others with those apps outweigh it all. If anything, the bigger worry is the revoking of the internet (which power all those devices), something countries have been interested in doing to combat protests (granted the reasoning is a theory but very probable).

>>8649
Every great communist in the past has had to deal with red flags, if you ever plan on contributing to the movement, you'll eventually have to deal with it. If you aren't contributing, you'll never have to worry about those flags, even if you trigger them everyday.

We need to fill their systems with crap. Make the systems full of so much incorrect data that they can't use it.

>>8617
Caring too much about this shit is very unhealthy. You should try to embrace it. We are thousands of millions of people and there is so so so much footage and data that it's impossible to single you out. I can't stress how unhealthy it is to care too much.

Ideally you should set things up so privacy is automatic, and you don't have to think about it too much. Things you can't control you should entirely embrace, simply because it is extremely psychologically harmful.

On another note, I got filmed yesterday by a stranger. I was on the metro, a black probable refugee was laid down sleeping in front of me. I have no idea why he filmed me. I was nicely dressed with some awkward sandals with socks, maybe he thought it was funny? Or maybe he wanted to contrast a well dressed person with a refugee having a shit time? Maybe he wanted to film the metro? Metros are really cool, after all.

I can't do anything, so I just accept it. It's not like he's going to mail it to Kamala Harris or Zuckerberg.
>>8664
Oh shit! That's insanely dystopic. You should never browse without at least a VPN.

also:
most of the reason activists push the paranoid angle, is because it's safer to be paranoid now than paranoid in retrospect!
that doesnt mean be stupid about it, but all you need to worry about, and all you can control, is to keep your social media and open communications free of anything incriminating in the event that cops will be looking at it, either for a border crossing or way more importantly, if you're charged with a crime and investigated. Thats what most of it is about. If you're investigated, you dont want to be saying shit like venting about the thing you are charged with to a friend or posting shit about it on facebook, or threatening, or even really showing anti-establishment sentiment because that will make you look more suspicious.

What said before>>8671 here about cops vs algorithms, its important also. I saw a video of a kid who got shot and killed by a cop for just standing there. A white kid in america. A notice was put out about him before that incident that he was potentially dangerous because he had said something to the effect of "the only good cop is a dead cop" on social media, and some cop got wind of it i guess.
Don't be the retard that gets shot by a scared cop who saw your drunk/paranoid tweet

>>8620
>>8644
>>8658
>>8671
>>8694
Terrible advice coming from a leftoid imageboard lol. Like sure OP should be less neurotic about the panopticon but telling him to "embrace" the botnet is dumb af. Just try to not reveal too much but don't make a fuss over minor slips. Spending less time on the internet is a good idea in general.

Also saying governments are inept at knowing what to do with all this data but you're forgetting all the corporations behind that data accumulation.

>>8711 put it best with "it's safer to be paranoid now than paranoid in retrospect".

I go on international flights a few times each year. I have Global Entry so I don't have to wait in line for hours when I get back to 'murica. This year, I went to the Global Entry kiosk after coming back from Mexico. All it did was simply scan my face. From my face, it got all my information and sent me on my way. Needless to say, I was spooked.

The capitalist surveillance system is dystopically good, lads. It's one of the reasons, among others, that I'm a doomer regarding a successful leftist revolution ever happening in the USA.

>>8723
All we can do is wait for face prosthetics to become cheap and mainstream.

>>8723
>The capitalist surveillance system is dystopically good
it's not, it's very easy to trick these systems, it's a mess and horribly broken. You should be worried about what happens when they are widespread enough that these things will be abused and manipulated, by more faction than just the big corporation that owns it. The dystopia these things bring isn't the orderly overlord that has tight control over everything, it's the chaotic tech-punk dystopia where you have to be aware, of a complex conflict between clan like structures that compete for power, to not get burned by it. If there will be a successful socialist revolution in this environment it's not going to be the rebellion of the renegades that tear down the system, it's going to be the masses that had enough of the bullshit, that want dependable order instead of arbitrary abuse.

Can't blame you, almost anyone with an interest in privacy would go insane from doing a little bit of research and paying attention to development in neural networks and stuff tbh

>>8762
How do we use neural network for enhancing privacy ?

>>8725
Just wear a face mask when you need

The only way to win is if we all become like Diogenes. Instead of worrying about being covertly monitored when you use the bathroom and masturbate, masturbate in public and shit on the sidewalk instead.

>>8778
But then we'll have to deal with my personal biggest fear, replicating a person with AI near completely with a large enough data set.

>>8764
train an AI to find likely cops based on their face
make a commie robocop
or google glass or something
hack cctv/traffic cams and keept track of where cop cars are in ur city
maybe not neural nets but scrape web to collect and analyze news stories, and sort the different narratives out idk
that could actually be cool

the problem is this shit inherently benefits those with more data to go through, who want generalize from it, and who can store all that shit and run this stuff

>>8801
you probably couldn't AI clone any of the ancient Greeks but you could probably make a digital replica of Napoleon, Hitler or Chris-chan

>>8801
It isn't a clone but you can already accurately (to the average person) imitate a person's voice, face and typing mannerisms with modern neural networks.
The next step in the panopticon would be creating accurate predictive models of a person based on their available data so the system can just get rid of all undesirables before they can even think of doing anything.

>>8804
>typing mannerisms

Just have the AI post cringe under their name and retcon it in place with your agency powers.

>>8714
We're giving advice to someone who is mentally distressed regarding internet privacy. Whatever the damage of spynets are is much less worse than a mental breakdown.

A good advice is to leave the internet and don't think about privacy at all. Online is where you leak and produce the most data anyways.

>>8804
i 100% support this stupid google mindset that exists in the minds of the elite.
they for real think that we're reducible to algorithms. And they're mostly right, like you say our voice can easily be replicated. Our movements can be predicted trivially. Our face can be reconstructed probably easily if you use snapchat a ton or something.
But they'll never be able to fake a person that actually does something. They cant fake labor or physical action. I bet you 100% elites think that we are totally reducible to data points though, because they have this atlas shrugged mindset that proles are the expendable ones, and they're the ones that do the real labor.
Just something to think about wrt surveillance. They can create models, but they can only create models.
dont listen to what i'm saying i dont know what i'm saying, listen to what i mean

There is far more intel gathered than there are resources to analyse it all. Some known suspects are probably followed in real time by human operators, the rest is probably stored until "needed", whatever the need may be. Algorithms are probably scouring stored data (and doing re-runs after algorithms are improved) for things that can be flagged.

Still, all experience is that this is not working well yet. The Boston bombers had posted what they planned to do on social media but the systems never picked it up until too late.

Information overload happened decades ago with satellite imaging and data flow is still growing exponentially while algorithms are slow to develop.

Stay strong.

https://archive.is/hfFml thoughts?

also i heard the github enterprise server was leaked anyone know where i can find it

>>9063
There's nothing on the wayback machine for anon.io, so it looks like it was not sold to anyone but crims. There's so little information on it, AN0M didn't even claim it was end to end encrypted. So it doesn't look like they cracked encryption or did anything groundbreaking, it was just a MITM attack with a crappy instant messaging app without end to end encryption.

>>9109
Yeah this was just a followup after they took down those other two centralized servers
They sold the phones for 3500 a pop, btw. So they only took out the stupid rich idiots anyways.

I'm a privacy autist but at the same time I'm incredibly retarded so I've failed big time in trying to cover up my tracks, like I'm sure Microsoft knows most of the accounts I've had in my life even the ones I had as a kid lol….

>>8804
>(to the average person)
This part is important. I was checking a vidya subreddit's thread on someone making new character lines with neural networks and only one or two people correctly pointed out the voice sounded robotic and everyone else responded that it sounded fine.

>>8618
>put a rock in your shoe
Underrated.

I posted this before in a /leftypol/ thread on surveillance:
>I don't use a VPN and post using the leftypol Kuroba app 90% of the time. I also live in the UK.

People there said that's really bad, so I'm looking for some advice on how to improve my situation. For context I browse leftypol on a Google Pixel and am a novice with tech stuff. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

>>9138
>Google Pixel
lol you might be in luck, ive always wanted to get one of those because of grapheneos but im a poorfag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrapheneOS#Compatibility

check >>9128 for non-botnet alternative apps

>>8617
I keep my privacy very tight, but it's become so normal that I don't even think about it much anymore. I'm not that powerful (lol) anyway and everybody else being captured by algos means the society as a whole is fucked in the end.

Privacy is not even the main issue, it's politics and governance being relegated to technical solutions and automation to the degree that nothing will be able to shake the system anymore, especially when you also take into account how individualized and impotent we've become.

To give you an analogy, compare speeding tickets to smart cars being technically unable to go over the speed limit. It seems that's the way we're going but at the scale of a whole society (smart cities, smart homes).

>>9148
>People won't be able break the law because of technology
There are so many online hackers now because of all the backdoors, surveillance, espionage technology that governments and corporations have developed. This stuff always gets out. When computer security is being undermined like this it will not lead to a suffocating orderly dystopia, it will become a chaotic one.
>compare speeding tickets to smart cars being technically unable to go over the speed limit
The car autopilot that makes no mistakes is the actual utopia. Our future is that your car gets hacked and you have to pay ransom if you don't want to be crashed.

Just think what would have happened in Germany if IBM had the power of google + amazon.

You have to consider that until they are putting people in camps for liking memes on facebook the lists you are on don't really matter.

>>9152
The nazis did buy IBM punch-card computers to manage the holocaust.
And it goes both ways. Not a single Nazi collaborator would have survived the aftermath of WW2, if there was as much data on people as now.

>>9153
>Not a single Nazi collaborator would have survived the aftermath of WW2
The Americans helped to smuggle out actual Nazis from Europe to recruit them in their anti-communist death squads. It was never a question of data.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, we have recently learned again that spook agencies are running around constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure by simply buying mass surveillance data from private entities:

https://archive.is/Bb2L3

U.S. Spy Agencies Buy Vast Quantities of Americans’ Personal Data, U.S. Says
Commercially available data from cars, phones and web browsers rivals results from wiretaps, cyber espionage and physical surveillance

>>12204
>To the surprise of absolutely no one, we have recently learned again that spook agencies are running around constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure by simply buying mass surveillance data from private entities:

There is the privacy violation aspect, and the conclusion probably should be that all personal data collection violates privacy. But to be honest this almost sounds more like a way to subsidize surveillance capitalism.

In France there are attacks on privacy that basically are inverting the legal principle of the assumption of innocence. To put this into perspective, the very foundation of law is that you have to prove somebody is guilty and they don't have to prove they are innocent. If this principle is not upheld you basically get the lawlessness of pre-modern societies where somebody accuses you of being possessed by a demon and then the entire town participates in stoning you to death or somebody drills a hole in your skull to "exorcise the daemon."

People were being arrested kidnapped by the French police by armed marauders of a totalitarian regime and slandered as terrorist because they used privacy protecting technologies.

I find this infuriating to the n-th degree, i think we should categorize surveillance as a form of terrorism, and personal computing devices should be considered as a body-part and any attempt at accessing personal computing devices either physically or digitally should be considered as assault. People have to be able to use personal technology and be confident it's not going to betray them, because people are externalizing parts of their cognition from their brain to their computing devices. People need full control over their tech as if it was control over their body.

In the not too distant past privacy used to be the default state and in order to violate privacy extra effort was necessary. Surveillance required mobilizing considerable resources and personnel and was thus a prohibitively expensive and rare occurrence. But that has changed now. Privacy is now something that can't be taken for granted, it is now something that has to be upheld, like a hygiene requirement for food-preparation. We should consider technology with bad privacy preserving features as a contamination risk.

Privacy is a human right and not upholding it is political extremism.

Nick's take from the Linux experiment channel
https://invidious.baczek.me/watch?v=cyFL7KJGcC0

Rossmann's take
https://invidious.baczek.me/watch?v=1q1hjmwLqe4

____
I know the common objection to materially upholding effective privacy beyond mere lib-service, is that it will render the police unable to find those that seek to use violence as a means of terrorizing people. And to that i reply we can't build a society on surveillance terrorism, with a social order based on fear, mimicking prey-animal behavior. Instead of creating a dossier on every person which can only be biased, we should go the route of forensic sensor technology that can objectively detect explosives and what not.

There is a serious attack on technology-rights in France.

<France is on the verge of forcing browsers to create a dystopian technical capability. Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.

https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser-website-blocking/

Can freedom of speech only be upheld by designing systems that rule out any possibility for censorship ?

Or is this a problem with the legal system that can be fixed ?
Like can we legally re-defined censorship = means for censoring.

>>12225
>would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.
but that's retarded, just download a different browser

all nazoids are already banning things they don't like on a dns level, or even worse if we take GFW that now bans fucking tls inside tls

Internet is fucking dead, nazoids killed it

>>12226
>just download a different browser
Sure you can always circumvent this shit. However the question is whether we can have rights like free speech be guaranteed by a legal system, or whether rights are something that has to be upheld by democratic opposition against legal structures. Technologically illiterate people would basically loose the right for free-speech, i thought we should be able to do better than that.

>already banning things they don't like on a dns level
I guess you can circumvent that too.

My main question is whether the legal system can be fixed so that it effectively upholds free-speech rights, or whether we have to rethink what rights are. For example could you make a law that would ban attempts of undermining rights like free speech as a criminal conspiracy ? Would that stop these people from trying to weaponize laws to violate rights ? Or is that stuff futile, do we have to define the right for free speech as a technical quality of un-censorable communications ?

>Internet is fucking dead
It's a large number of inanimate machines so it never really was alive, maybe we should consider it having a defect, and treat censorship as a routing error that occurred because of technical design errors ?

Of course there's another issue at play here, they are trying to force install malware on people's computers. People need absolute control over every possible aspect of their technology without exceptions. Full control over personal technology is the same as the right for self-determination.

>>12227
>However the question is whether we can have rights like free speech be guaranteed by a legal system, or whether rights are something that has to be upheld by democratic opposition against legal structures.
The latter. Is that even in question anymore?

>>12227
>the question is whether we can have rights like free speech be guaranteed by a legal system
of course not

there is no "free speech" if there is no real anonymity

>My main question is whether the legal system can be fixed so that it effectively upholds free-speech rights, or whether we have to rethink what rights are.
"rule of law" is more about corporate entities than individuals, ie when it deals with "free speech" it mainly deals with mass media and shit

so I guess in stable parliamentarism individuals can expect free speech to the extent that corporate entities expect it

tho in case of a social conflict there will be disproportionate response

>I guess you can circumvent that too.
It's an arms race. That firewall learns fast.

>absolute control over every possible aspect of their technology without exceptions
pipedream

even I don't expect to have much control, nevermind my grandma, and I pretty much try to flash everything that can be flashed

you can have more control, but never absolute control (I would argue you can't have absolute anything)

>It's a large number of inanimate machines so it never really was alive
that's an autistic way of looking at communications technology

Internet is the people that it connects. That's why it's alive.

Go watch some Lain or something. Seriously, I thought at least channers understood this shit.

>maybe we should consider it having a defect, and treat censorship as a routing error that occurred because of technical design errors?
well, I would consider inherent non-anonymity of the IP protocol as a defect. But it was never designed with anonymity in mind, so it is not an error.

>>12239
>Internet is the people that it connects. That's why it's alive.
That's also why the language barrier is the biggest censoring factor.

Biblical God truly looks like a personification of the ruling class - confuse the workers in their joint effort by disrupting their communications.
That's also why nazoids of all kinds enforce their special snowflake languages.

>>12239
>there is no "free speech" if there is no real anonymity
It appears that is the case

>even I don't expect to have much control and I pretty much try to flash everything that can be flashed
the point is not a abstract ideal, the point is that all the technical configurations are accessible to the user without hidden blackboxes or other barriers.

>I would consider inherent non-anonymity of the IP protocol as a defect.
that is interesting, if you got to have a do-over, what would you do differently with the network stack ?

>>12242
>the point is that all the technical configurations are accessible to the user without hidden blackboxes or other barriers.
obviously not possible in capitalism and RES

>that is interesting, if you got to have a do-over, what would you do differently with the network stack ?
in the 70s? nothing, because otherwise the network wouldn't even have been possible
The purpose was to make a network under a unified command that can still route packets even in case of a nuclear strikes on major infrastructure

now, when it outgrew its military applications, the situation has changed - the unified command assumption is no longer warranted

and even the protocol itself is outdated at this scale now, with the use of BGP bandaids and shit

as to what I would do differently, well the first thing would be to replace the current DNS system considering that the CEO of ICANN is a w*man that is described as "An experienced global leader".

Can't get more dystopian than this tbh.

But anyway, there were far smarter people than me that thought about what to do with the current outdated internet structure.
You can read a GNUnet whitepaper for example. Or the Netsukuku docs.

https://www.gnunet.org/en/about.html
https://netsukuku.freaknet.org/

>>12243
Gnunet and freenet are super nice but they build on top of TCP-IP. Meaning they do assign IP addresses to computers.

Technically you don't have to assign any network addresses to computers. You could base it on a system that puts the addresses on files rather than computers.

In that system you can't directly connect to another computer, the internet would be a distributed database, and you can upload a file to it and request a file from it. What currently are network switches would become memory-nodes that temporarily hold files. Servers would hold permanent files. Your home router would also be a memory-node too, and it would be connected to your Internet-service-provider and also your direct neighbors.

The upside are
denial of service attacks are not possible
Server-load depends on how many different files it has to serve, a million people requesting the same file from the server would be equivalent to 1 person requesting that file.
Network-intrusion hacking attacks would depend on tricking the victim to request a malicious file, direct hacks would not work.
Much more efficient use of bandwidth, you would get much higher bandwidth for the same cost and get your max network speed all the time.

The downsides are
Terrible lag, if you request a file that is not on a memory node close to you, your memory node escalates the search-query to nearby nodes and they pass it on to their proximate nodes and so on, creating a request ripple that slowly permeates through the network, until it finds the file. You would not be able to play twitch-reaction multiplayer games on a server that was far away from you. Files from a different continent would have 5 seconds delay.
Interactive websites would be slow to update too. The reason for the lag is that nodes have to group many individual file-requests into a single query before passing it to other nodes, because the query would be a file too.

All those nodes would only distinguish from what port they received/send files from/to and treat other nodes like a simple block-device, like when your OS mounts an usb-stick, and it has to remember which port it's plugged into. So structurally it would make it harder to snoop on the network, though not impossible, you'd still have to build stuff on top of this to make it really anonymous.

I doubt that this will ever get build unless the current internet gets really borked. The brutal simplicity and the high robustness would make it well suited for people trying to restore the internet in chaotic conditions where social coordination is low.

>>12244
>freenet
I didn't mention freenet or any other overlay network anywhere

>Gnunet.. build on top of TCP-IP
whitepaper..
"Addressing" section..
read it..

>Technically you don't have to assign any network addresses to computers.
I've never seen any routing protocol that doesn't use some addressing scheme..

>You could base it on a system that puts the addresses on files rather than computers.
>In that system you can't directly connect to another computer, the internet would be a distributed database, and you can upload a file to it and request a file from it. What currently are network switches would become memory-nodes that temporarily hold files. Servers would hold permanent files. Your home router would also be a memory-node too, and it would be connected to your Internet-service-provider and also your direct neighbors.
I don't get it.
To upload a file you would need an address to calculate a route to, to send packets.

any routing protocol uses addresses: GNUnet uses public keys as addresses, Netsukuku uses random addresses, etc.

>>12246
>I didn't mention freenet
Sorry that was an error on my part

>whitepaper..
>"Addressing" section..
>read it..
will do

>I've never seen any routing protocol that doesn't use some addressing scheme..
Because it's not a routing protocol, it's just a distributed database with a self generating data manifest.
Imagine treating the entire internet like a usb-stick with a wacky file-system.

If a node gets a request for a file it doesn't have, it forwards the file-requests to its neighboring nodes. Once the file request lands on a node that has the file. It get send back the path the file-request took. Every node is only aware of direct neighbors connected to it. Every node just exchanges files and file-requests with it's neighbor nodes. If a node gets a file, it looks up which of it's neighbor node gave it the corresponding file-request and sends it that way.

>To upload a file you would need an address to calculate a route to, to send packets.
If you upload a file, you just copy it to the node that your computer is connected to, where it waits for a file-request.

I left out all the optimization steps for the sake of simplicity, I'm aware that what i describe here would be very inefficient.

>>8617
the surveillance state is the end of humanity, and this is not an overstatement, it's leading us to new dark ages.

>>12249
how will it end? how long will it last?

>>12249
In a way we already entered a little dark age, we certainly aren't doing much enlightenment these days. But i think this is too much doomerism. Surveillance repression can be overcome like every other type of repression. You just have to figure out the exploitable weakness.

When it comes to surveillance-repression we can't just single out the state, we also have to point the finger at surveillance capitalists.

Lets look at the opposing tendencies:

The privacy community seeks technical defenses and legal restraints through political advocacy. I'm unsure but that might eventually work. So that's definitely worth while doing. The only criticism that one might be able to put towards the privacy community, they only consider strategies of preventing data collection, but ignore data dilution strategies. Surveillance can also be rendered inert by feeding it bogus data.

However that might not be the only path. Consider the systemic view from high above. All those surveillance systems gather data and eventually that informs actions. If somebody can feed the system manipulated data it might be able to manipulate the actions too and that would make it exploitable. Even with the limited capitalist logic, eventually capitalists will start eating surveillance systems because they feed it manipulated information to game it for money.