Written in response to..
Peter Dale Scott put it best when talking abut the Vietnam War. It was floating crap game where various corporate and financial players took seats and made money. Occasionally players would leave and be replaced or there would be "shootouts" between the various players. But the moment anyone threatened the game as a whole, everyone in the game turned on them, whether they were allies or not.
To understand some of the players in the craps game, I suggest you look at the US response to recent events in Haiti - the 'administration' issues statements of support for Aristide (and has sent in troops in the past). Meanwhile its pretty clear the CIA are covertly arming the rebels.
Same thing in Columbia - the CIA arms the drug traffickers / FARC whilst the Administration sends millions to support the Columbian Government in their fight against them.
You might say that this is just a strategy of 'arming both sides' - great for arms sales, and sometimes good for destabilizing a region to create a need for US presence. But I really think there's more to this contradiction than that. It appears that the CIA is running a foreign policy/drugs/arms/funding strategy all of its own and that this only happens co-incidentally to agree (on occasion) with that of the 'rest' of the Administration. Now I dunno about you, but that strikes me as deeply corrupt.
Sure, as in any *capitalist* democracy the 'democratically elected' administration' must always work within the limits (private property law, worker oppression, taxes etc) that are set by the Capitalists/Corporations. This applies from Hugo Chavez to Bush, so there's nothing new there. But, unlike many of my socialist friends, I happen to believe that doesn't the democractic administration completely irrelevant - look at FDR, it is possible to have reform, its just that there are certain boundaries. - And hey (admittedly speaking as a liberal white middle class technocrat) I happen to think its better to have a few boundaries than a slow slide towards totalitarianism.
So anyway, as I see it, the immediate problem here is not one of Capitalist/World Bank/Corporate Control or even just one of the usual, inevitable dissapointments of Democracy. The problem in the US is one of corruption - deep seated corruption at the core of many of her most important institutions, and along with that, equally bad a deep cyncism/lack of hope in any of these institutions. On the inside both republican and democratatic congressional representatives don't bother *actually listening and contributing and trying to suggest their own best idea of decent policy* because they believe/know that the system is so corrupted that it's just gonna be a down and dirty shit fight between the systems that decides the issue anyway. Meanwhile folks on the outside from radicals to alternative lifestylers, to businessmen to right wing gun freaks don't bother to vote because 'its all a fix' anyway.
So what do I think should be done? Well sure, I'd vote for a socialist revolution any day, but short of that distant possibility I *do* believe it is possible - via a mandate from the people - to shake things up to the point that a massive reformation of the corruption would take place.
I do believe that there was a solid mandate, the elected representatives
*would* have the power to reform the CIA (or abolish it) and maybe reform the other drugs and corruption infested organisations like the DOD, HUD, GOP, RNC etc whilst there a it.
Now, the capitalists and corporations that really run the place, well I think you can forget about that via democratic means... one has to think in terms of a longer term raising of consciousness and alternative economies on that one. But (Medianite strategy) lets not forget that at a certain point, the corruption and war are *not* in the interests of the corporations and capitalists who I believe prefer stability and order to chaos and disorder. (Uhm, yeah you were right, Barb, when you pointed out that there have been times when the 'powers that be' deliberately manufacture chaos but there is a huge difference between ups and downs that they *control* and things actually getting out of
control.) At a certain point the war and chaos caused by a corrupted out of control CIA on the one hand fascist war hawks on the other might appear to be getting out of control and I tell you, if that starts to happen, it will be shut down pretty fast.
Look, in New Zealand we had for years the problem of two equally bad party institutions to choose from. Then something happened in the late 90's, and we changed the electoral system to 'proportional representation'. As I see it, it wasn't so important what we changed it to (though it's clearly a better system) more just that there was a big shake up. This big shake up means that the old parties lost control, and new parties have sprung up. We still have our normal share of right wingers in New Zealand, but I personally feel a lot happier that we are fairly 'represented' now.
So, I believe there is a possiblity for things to be better. I also believe that exposure of the true level of corruption and evil things they have done is one way towards the sort of mandate I was talking about above.
Sometimes I think this is one of those cases where the US is unlucky because they won the war. The Japanese and the Germans had a huge sweep out of corruption and militarism only 60 years ago. That's whats needed here too.
Oh and there's one more thing. The old marxist line about the inevitability of a communist revolution is always a good one. The point they make is that even the capitalists are helpless to control the ever further ratcheting up of exploitation, mergers and buyouts, inevitably leading to a single ultra-exploitative superclass that become ever more vulnerable.. yeah, you know, that one? Well it's a good one, and there is some truth in the theory that as the world globalizes and wages worldwide start to become more even, that this is whats happening. However, I have one of my own. Its not red inevitability, its green.
The thing is, its *inevitable* that we will move to a lower energy economy. It may happen because we are forced to do so, or it may happen because we choose to do so, but it will definitely happen. (Almost certainly its going to be something in between). Therefore, those who support low energy / low growth thinking will inevitably *win* against the oil companies and the capitalists wedded to a state of permanent high growth expansionism.
If I had any money to invest for my retirement I would invest it across a wide range portfolio of alternative/low energy technologies, and other things that would thrive in that environment (bicycles?) because no matter how bad things get you can bet we are gonna want some more of that, when the shit starts to hit the fan. Hmm I do wonder what BP has up their sleeve in this regard (other than shamelessly false lies and propaganda about selling 'green' oil).
2004-02-20
2004-02-11
Let me off right up here..
I think you're (all of you!) missing something important about the current elites. The capitalist elite stands virtually unchallenged across the globe, and if there is one thing Elites have learnt through the ages its that destablization and unrest is *bad*, calmness and status quo is good. That is, by definition of those who are in power right now the goal is to *prolong* the status quo and suppress dissent. The massive disruption that would be caused by any type of 'die off' (not that I believe the petri dish analogy applies
anyway) would certainly destablize the situation to a great degree. There may be folks at the wings of power that might benefit from such a situation, certainly such a situation could be exploited towards totalitarianist and police state ends, but it would also cloud the future and be a hell of a gamble to take for any but the most desperate. Even if totalitarianism had its day it could lead to a different crew at the top, as many specific elites within the hard right wing Junker and officer class of the Weimer republic discovered to their horror as their early support of the Nazis came back to hit them in the face in the late thirties.
On the subject of "six and a half billion people are just going to ruin the environment anyway", I think it's important to bear in mind that the use of fossil fuels suffers from shortages at both ends. Certainly at the source end there are the clear problems of running out (ie peak oil) however at the sink end, we are definitely running short of places to put the generated hydro carbons without causing massive disruption to the environment. Massive disruption to the environment means changing weather patterns, and I believe the evidence indicates, will lead to irrevocable famine, hunger and disease well before the oil runs out, or even runs short. The problem is, however, that the effects of oil at the sink end is delayed somewhat, whereas the effect of running out at the source is more immediate. The problem exists, however, at both ends!
To emphasize the above point, please consider that the energy flux contained within the global 'weather system' is thousands of times higher than all the energy that the human species consumes today. Destablize that and you have a serious problem on your hands. Also, one word - Gaia, 'nuff said.
Given the above secret supplies of oil is *not an option* that we can entertain.
However, I believe that human society has weathered much worse crises than having to drastically lower its energy consumption, and could *potentially* weather this one with ease... the reason we are (so far) failing to do that (collectively) with such spectacular incompetance is not a problem of technology or energy flux, the problem is political.
If the body politic of this world could rise to the situation, then I believe it could deal with it well. A return to less urban, less energy intensive lifestyle, coupled with population control and investment in alternative energy technologies (99% of the energy on this planet is derived directly or indirectly from the sun, so solar/wind/hydro seems like a good avenue to pursue to me) would go a long way to 'solving' the problem. Time has run out already, but we can certainly act now and avoid more harm.
I believe the solution above will happen, inevitably, one way or another, the only question, to me, is how painful a process it is along the way.
In fact, as I see it, the 'world' as a whole was moving steadily, slowly, painfully towards this raising of consciousness, but unfortunately the short-sighted, corrupt program of the current US elites has finally gained the upper hand, and they are happily continuing their trend towards US military dominance, imperialism and corruption.
Actually... Now that I think about it screw it, let me off the planet right up here.
anyway) would certainly destablize the situation to a great degree. There may be folks at the wings of power that might benefit from such a situation, certainly such a situation could be exploited towards totalitarianist and police state ends, but it would also cloud the future and be a hell of a gamble to take for any but the most desperate. Even if totalitarianism had its day it could lead to a different crew at the top, as many specific elites within the hard right wing Junker and officer class of the Weimer republic discovered to their horror as their early support of the Nazis came back to hit them in the face in the late thirties.
On the subject of "six and a half billion people are just going to ruin the environment anyway", I think it's important to bear in mind that the use of fossil fuels suffers from shortages at both ends. Certainly at the source end there are the clear problems of running out (ie peak oil) however at the sink end, we are definitely running short of places to put the generated hydro carbons without causing massive disruption to the environment. Massive disruption to the environment means changing weather patterns, and I believe the evidence indicates, will lead to irrevocable famine, hunger and disease well before the oil runs out, or even runs short. The problem is, however, that the effects of oil at the sink end is delayed somewhat, whereas the effect of running out at the source is more immediate. The problem exists, however, at both ends!
To emphasize the above point, please consider that the energy flux contained within the global 'weather system' is thousands of times higher than all the energy that the human species consumes today. Destablize that and you have a serious problem on your hands. Also, one word - Gaia, 'nuff said.
Given the above secret supplies of oil is *not an option* that we can entertain.
However, I believe that human society has weathered much worse crises than having to drastically lower its energy consumption, and could *potentially* weather this one with ease... the reason we are (so far) failing to do that (collectively) with such spectacular incompetance is not a problem of technology or energy flux, the problem is political.
If the body politic of this world could rise to the situation, then I believe it could deal with it well. A return to less urban, less energy intensive lifestyle, coupled with population control and investment in alternative energy technologies (99% of the energy on this planet is derived directly or indirectly from the sun, so solar/wind/hydro seems like a good avenue to pursue to me) would go a long way to 'solving' the problem. Time has run out already, but we can certainly act now and avoid more harm.
I believe the solution above will happen, inevitably, one way or another, the only question, to me, is how painful a process it is along the way.
In fact, as I see it, the 'world' as a whole was moving steadily, slowly, painfully towards this raising of consciousness, but unfortunately the short-sighted, corrupt program of the current US elites has finally gained the upper hand, and they are happily continuing their trend towards US military dominance, imperialism and corruption.
Actually... Now that I think about it screw it, let me off the planet right up here.
2004-01-30
PGP encryption can been cracked no matter what key size
I love PGP and think more people should use it more of the time.
The main reason I think this, is because the more people use PGP the harder it will be for systems like ECHELON to organize/filter/categorize the content that they filter. (ECHELON is the international side of the NSA-sponsored system that intercepts all fax, phone, email, internet traffic and analyzes it. I am convinced there is a domestic US equivalent, that is most probably integrated with its global counterpart)
Many people think ECHELON simply targets 'keywords'. However, based on patents filed by various government agencies you can assume it is *much* more sophisticated than that, for instance rudimentary 'language recognition' patents as well as 'topic classification' patents.
The topic classification patent is especially interesting, because, if they are able to create a map of all the, types of people, types of conversations that people have, then they can more easily filter out all the 'Jana's having a baby!' conversation and zero in on the 'lets organize a march' conversation of radicals and other undesirables (oh, yeah, and "terrorists" and "drug dealers" - the only problem here is that to find the largest number of these in the most cost effective way all they would need to do is walk down the hall start arresting people.. ).
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that - partly based on conversations with people who have actually worked for GCSB (NZ version of NSA) and the DSD (Australian version of NSA) - I am firmly of the opinion that PGP encryption can been cracked no matter what key size. Sure, its just an opinion but I personally am convinced that if they wanted to spend the computing power on it (and these are 100 million dollar institutions, so, yeah, it doesn't come cheap) then the NSA, at least, would most certainly be able to do so.
Yes, brute force cracking does suffer from limitations of the theory of computer science. However, in practice there are almost always little faults or problems of the actual implementation in practice that can be exploited to get at the real data. This may or may not include aspects of 'physical' data such as key logging, keyboard heat scanning, but it really doesn't have to .. at various times various software only vulnerabilities have been demonstrated with just about all encryption systems, and you can be sure if the NSA ever found such they wouldn't tell anyone.
Furthermore, we mustn't be forgetting that:
1. These are the folks that actually invented the whole idea of an actual "computer" itself, for precisely the reason of cracking encryption (during WWII)
2. They have an absolutely obscene black budget to play with, as demonstrated by the $1.1 trillion in unsupported accounting entries that appeared in the official federal Audit of the DOD budget for FY 2000. Of course, given that they claim to have just, woops, accidentally 'lost' this money then yeah its hard to make the case that they spent it all on the NSA, but I mean, lets just say that *someone* has a lot of money in their piggy back. [ Actually lets just back up for a second here, did I just say they "lost" 1.1 *trillion* dollars ?? how much are we talking here ? ... Weeell... if you consider the fact the *total* US federal budget, including all military spending, is usually just a bit 2 trillion then you get some idea. Oh my god, suddenly I can't breathe.)
3. (Getting back to the point) The purely theoretical idea of a quantum computer that can crack just about any level of encryption has existed in the public domain since at least 1997 and simplistic, real world quantum computer implementations (that, to be fair, are far from being able to do this) have also appeared in the public domain in recent years.
4. That the NSA (or whatever it was back then) kept the truth of what they had achieved (in cracking all the german codes during WWII) secret not only throughout the war but for *decades* afterwards, and at considerable cost in life by the way.
--
Just one final point. This doesn't mean don't use PGP by any means! It just means, that in my unsupported opinion, any message you send is undoubtedly completely breakable, if the NSA really wanted to, not that that really matters because they probably don't (unless you mention BOMB, NUCLEAR, ECHELON, PRESIDENT, and THE PLAN IS GO enough times that is).
The main reason I think this, is because the more people use PGP the harder it will be for systems like ECHELON to organize/filter/categorize the content that they filter. (ECHELON is the international side of the NSA-sponsored system that intercepts all fax, phone, email, internet traffic and analyzes it. I am convinced there is a domestic US equivalent, that is most probably integrated with its global counterpart)
Many people think ECHELON simply targets 'keywords'. However, based on patents filed by various government agencies you can assume it is *much* more sophisticated than that, for instance rudimentary 'language recognition' patents as well as 'topic classification' patents.
The topic classification patent is especially interesting, because, if they are able to create a map of all the, types of people, types of conversations that people have, then they can more easily filter out all the 'Jana's having a baby!' conversation and zero in on the 'lets organize a march' conversation of radicals and other undesirables (oh, yeah, and "terrorists" and "drug dealers" - the only problem here is that to find the largest number of these in the most cost effective way all they would need to do is walk down the hall start arresting people.. ).
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that - partly based on conversations with people who have actually worked for GCSB (NZ version of NSA) and the DSD (Australian version of NSA) - I am firmly of the opinion that PGP encryption can been cracked no matter what key size. Sure, its just an opinion but I personally am convinced that if they wanted to spend the computing power on it (and these are 100 million dollar institutions, so, yeah, it doesn't come cheap) then the NSA, at least, would most certainly be able to do so.
Yes, brute force cracking does suffer from limitations of the theory of computer science. However, in practice there are almost always little faults or problems of the actual implementation in practice that can be exploited to get at the real data. This may or may not include aspects of 'physical' data such as key logging, keyboard heat scanning, but it really doesn't have to .. at various times various software only vulnerabilities have been demonstrated with just about all encryption systems, and you can be sure if the NSA ever found such they wouldn't tell anyone.
Furthermore, we mustn't be forgetting that:
1. These are the folks that actually invented the whole idea of an actual "computer" itself, for precisely the reason of cracking encryption (during WWII)
2. They have an absolutely obscene black budget to play with, as demonstrated by the $1.1 trillion in unsupported accounting entries that appeared in the official federal Audit of the DOD budget for FY 2000. Of course, given that they claim to have just, woops, accidentally 'lost' this money then yeah its hard to make the case that they spent it all on the NSA, but I mean, lets just say that *someone* has a lot of money in their piggy back. [ Actually lets just back up for a second here, did I just say they "lost" 1.1 *trillion* dollars ?? how much are we talking here ? ... Weeell... if you consider the fact the *total* US federal budget, including all military spending, is usually just a bit 2 trillion then you get some idea. Oh my god, suddenly I can't breathe.)
3. (Getting back to the point) The purely theoretical idea of a quantum computer that can crack just about any level of encryption has existed in the public domain since at least 1997 and simplistic, real world quantum computer implementations (that, to be fair, are far from being able to do this) have also appeared in the public domain in recent years.
4. That the NSA (or whatever it was back then) kept the truth of what they had achieved (in cracking all the german codes during WWII) secret not only throughout the war but for *decades* afterwards, and at considerable cost in life by the way.
--
Just one final point. This doesn't mean don't use PGP by any means! It just means, that in my unsupported opinion, any message you send is undoubtedly completely breakable, if the NSA really wanted to, not that that really matters because they probably don't (unless you mention BOMB, NUCLEAR, ECHELON, PRESIDENT, and THE PLAN IS GO enough times that is).
2004-01-09
The Bush Hitler Thing
"My family was one of Hitler's victims. We lost a lot under the Nazi occupation, including an uncle who died in the camps and a cousin killed by a booby trap...
"So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies. "
- From a reader submission to truthout.
--
UPDATE:: I am currently reading a history of Germany during WWII (The rise and fall of the third reich). One hting you realise when you read this is that despite all the paralells there are also a helluva lot of non-paralells. One of which is that Bush is so far the 'lesser' of Hitler. I hesitate to call Hitler a 'genius' (of any kind) but he was certainly one crafty bastard and managed to get so far definitely due in large part for his quite phenomal gifts in oratory. Bush is none of the above (hey, he's not even crafty - you only have to look at the phenomenally pathetic mishandling of the UN to see that).
Also, Germany during the late 20's very early 30's would just be completely unrecognizable to todays US.. man that place was just total nuts.
"So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies. "
- From a reader submission to truthout.
--
UPDATE:: I am currently reading a history of Germany during WWII (The rise and fall of the third reich). One hting you realise when you read this is that despite all the paralells there are also a helluva lot of non-paralells. One of which is that Bush is so far the 'lesser' of Hitler. I hesitate to call Hitler a 'genius' (of any kind) but he was certainly one crafty bastard and managed to get so far definitely due in large part for his quite phenomal gifts in oratory. Bush is none of the above (hey, he's not even crafty - you only have to look at the phenomenally pathetic mishandling of the UN to see that).
Also, Germany during the late 20's very early 30's would just be completely unrecognizable to todays US.. man that place was just total nuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)