lara.tor at emails.veryspeedy.net
Thu Oct 22 12:42:42 UTC 2015
> But if this technology were only about that, it would simply
> be the latest development in the cat-and-mouse game between the watchers
> and the watched. The technology would be neither interesting nor
> important to people at large.
Who are "the watches" and who are "the watched"? Why bother to put
individuals into boxes? Anyone can be at the same time supervise and be
> A certain discussion of politics is, in my view, vital on this list, but
Who should set the limit of the "certain" as opposed to "some",
"mostly", "hardly" and other meaningless terms?
> not in the manner of "partisan politics" or electoral politics, which
The partisans were those who fought the fascists. Does fascism fit the
bill to "a certain discussion"?
What is wrong with the electoral politics? Isn't that the time when
politicians prepare for the new mandate and might bring new ideas into
the political arena?
> miss the point and are counter-productive. But we miss the boat if we do
> not recognize that these are fundamentally political tools which go to
> the very core of how human society is currently ordered. These are
> systemic tools and permit individuals and groups acting together to
> circumvent and supersede a political structure entirely. That is true
What do you want to tell the world?
So political debate is good. But when it is "certain". Yet you never
mention what certain is supposed to mean. Next, political debate should
be like something which is an abusive concept: freedom, within limits.
And than you arbitrary set partisan politics as missing the point. Than
you introduce the concept of "fundamental political tools" which should
be big because of the fundamental. Are partisan politics, which are
missing the point, fundamental political tools?
Does the society has a core? Is it ordered? What society you are talking
about? Because life in China can be quite different from the States or
Nigeria or Brazil or whatever.
What are the "systemic tools"?
How about groups which do not act together?
How can an action circumvent, yet supersede something?
Are there fake politics?
> The import of Tor and strong encryption is that they are tools that
> empower the individual and cannot be reasonably controlled by the state
What about the groups you just mentioned?
And yes, networks and computers can be monitored and sometimes
controlled by a third party. Including the state.
> (any state). Once we recognize that this is the heart of the matter, we
> can understand that human experience can undergo a complete restructuring.
Sorry. This message sounds like a long empty discourse at some party
reunion. Soviets used to do that because usually the party members were
only qualified to be party members and had a shallow understanding of
I speculate I am not the only one who does not understand what you are
trying to express. So care to rephase it in simpler terms?
More information about the tor-teachers