log☇︎
560200+ entries in 0.377s
asciilifeform: speaking of the 'platonic' tor, rather than the cthonian horror of the actual proggy
mircea_popescu: it is fundamentally broken and will never work exactly because it simply presumes the adversary wins.
mircea_popescu: the tor bs is an attempt to "fix" in implementation problems to whose existence it not merely contributes, but moore! whose existence it actually postulates.
mircea_popescu: nothing of the kind.
asciilifeform: just seems like an attempt to build a stove-refrigerator hybrid. yes, can be done, yes, in some sense these are complementary machines. but - challenge.
mircea_popescu: it is, unlike the tor etc bs, actually efficient.
mircea_popescu: there's nothing lukewarm about this.
asciilifeform: rather than lukewarm step in that direction, no?
asciilifeform: but if we actually want to go in that direction, the logical result is a gadget like 'tor', with bounces, mixes, etc.
mircea_popescu: more importantly, hitler IS a lot more in that than he would be in this.
asciilifeform: hitler does know considerably more under the all-signed scenario than alternative.
mircea_popescu: everything in the network duh.
asciilifeform: presumably some earthly not-quite-everything was meant, rather than a 'divine' Everything
mircea_popescu: he can not determine this.
mircea_popescu: for all he knows, they're all in cahoots, sending him lulz.
asciilifeform: if he truly knows 'everything' he can elementarily determine which earthly carcass crapped out which words.
mircea_popescu: artifexd you might discover it hurts you, much like the low level usg employee who thinks the fed helps him would soon discover his lot would be better without that bit.
artifexd: I guess I like the default sign because I see myself as Panopticon. I don't talk much. But I watch and listen. Default-sign helps me.
asciilifeform: if he truly knows 'everything', he can unmask the 'deniable' speakers likewise.
mircea_popescu: well yes. all the signed chats of everyone = everything. absolutely as 1 = 1.
mircea_popescu: how is giving the bum EVERYTHING lowering him in any sense ?
mircea_popescu: in both cases, we are discussing user Panopticon, who sees all and says nothing. now, in spec as is, it is true that user P will know... nothing. correct ? whereas in your proposed spec, he would know... everything. correct ?
mircea_popescu: ok, let's work a different way. let us compare two scenarios.
asciilifeform: (and gain continuity thereby)
asciilifeform: did i misunderstand, or did you say earlier that it would be a good thing if the street bomzh could not use pgp ?
mircea_popescu: let's go the other way. why do you think it would so lower them ?
mircea_popescu: i think i explained it half a dozen different ways, to exhaustion, but am at a loss as to why what seems obvious is not communicating itself.
asciilifeform: if i can grasp this, perhaps it will all make sense to my head.
mircea_popescu: well that's the clou of the entire thing now innit.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: the tidbit that escapes me is how you came upon the idea that default-signed would empower, rather than lower into pederasty, the 'anonymous derp'
mircea_popescu: you have his key in the initfile, and so on.
mircea_popescu: the same relation as between you and me, in the scenario.
mircea_popescu: or, if you prefer, elevating the source to the rank of a connect.
asciilifeform: laborious external signature, as at present time ?
asciilifeform: and what is the intended mechanism for propagating a message which -does- make this claim ?
mircea_popescu: in fact, it speciically says they are not.
mircea_popescu: that, it does. but it makes no representation they are from me.
asciilifeform: it signs the session whereby they are given right to travel the net
mircea_popescu: it is merely passing them along.
mircea_popescu: it is not signing them, no.
asciilifeform: in the scheme as presently described, your client is also signing (for the record of the hypothetical nsa goon, among others) a fairly arbitrary set of messages.
mircea_popescu: so then what is the dilemma ?
asciilifeform: nope. i fully understand that the latter is neither possible nor desirable
mircea_popescu: at issue is your proposal to make this a reality for people you don't know.
mircea_popescu: so how is this germane ?
asciilifeform: i'm concerned only in the particular corner case that he is actually my friend, who has been reduced to that condition by malefactors, but still remains in possession of his key.
asciilifeform: how does a bomzh, stinking in the street, who happens to have generated a pgp key, 'matter' ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform because whythe fuck do you care what some people you doin't know say on any topic ?
mircea_popescu: to the tune of monty pytrhon's every sperm is sacred. no, they do not.
mircea_popescu: fundamentally your argument reduces to a deep seated "all peoples matter"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform that is neither here nor there.
mircea_popescu: quite exceptional walk through the very points involved.
asciilifeform: until the magic dawn when the last idiot is strangled with the guts of the last scammer, there will be ones who believe the crap.
mircea_popescu: not even then.
asciilifeform: it is when they lead me to the electric chair
mircea_popescu: it is folly to even consider this point. focus on what is within your control.
mircea_popescu: what the clueless "believe" can not ever be your concern.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu does not like the notion of nsa goon having a non-deniable tape of anything he catches. (i don't much, either...) asciilifeform does not like that it is generally customary to speak unsigned, and thereby nsa goon can put words into his mouth, and a certain number of people will believe them
mircea_popescu: do tell.
asciilifeform sees the genuine dilemma here. but sees it as a dilemma, not an open-and-shut case in favour of soft-anonymity
mircea_popescu: (more generally, of the state)
mircea_popescu: rather than some conveniently diddled , horrible implementation designed for the needs of the nsa
asciilifeform: i won't argue that a working 'tor' would not have its uses, but it is a very different animal from an 'adult' rebirth of internet circa 1989
asciilifeform: is this the intended shape ?
asciilifeform: if specifically aiming for anonymity, deniability, one ends up designing a widget akin to 'tor'
mircea_popescu: i don't see much has improved since the recording machine era. do you ?
mircea_popescu: fact is, they only do if you wish to implement them. i do not.
asciilifeform: fact is, they do
asciilifeform: this is like a late-medieval knight wishing that cannon had not existed.
asciilifeform: but, carrying on with the analogy, recording machines exist.
mircea_popescu: not to the detriment o the participants, in any case.
mircea_popescu: none of their fuckinbg business. if they weren't invited to participate they can not RELY on the discussion.
mircea_popescu: artifexd i do. it's the equivalent of making a weirdo reality where anyone who eavesdrops also has a recording device.
artifexd: it allows third parties to construct undeniable chatlogs << while true, I don't see the issue with it
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this is a problem
asciilifeform: nor have any good reason to try
mircea_popescu: because we don't work for the group here. we work for the individual.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: at present time, an 'unknown' can generate a pgp key and carry on 'continuity' with it over whatever channel. we can't exactly prevent it
mircea_popescu: not their option. yours.
mircea_popescu: before that , they are ephemereal.
mircea_popescu: the moment you add them to your list, they have continuity.
mircea_popescu: artifexd it is not up to them. it is up to you.
artifexd: No. It is continuity. I assign weight to what they say by my judgement. They assign continuity to what they say by signing it.
mircea_popescu: which is to say no obligatory mechanism exists.
mircea_popescu: by whatever mechanism anyone chooses to use.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: by what mechanism do 'unknowns' transmogrify into 'knowns' in your cosmography ?
mircea_popescu: the existence of unknowns should be entirely at the mercy of the knowns. no exceptions and no way out.
mircea_popescu: artifexd that is weight.
artifexd: It doesn't give weight to unknowns. It gives continuity do unknowns should they desire it.
asciilifeform: one can have 'anonymity' or 'deniability' or whatnot, as commonly imagined, at the same time as signed-everything
asciilifeform: incidentally, in no holy book is it written that a pubkey is readily pinnable on a particular creature walking this earth
mircea_popescu: anmd there's plenty more, but srsly... how much is needed.
mircea_popescu: this harms because : it gives unknowns a weight they should not have ; it removes the incentive for users to police at their local level ; it allows third parties to construct undeniable chatlogs that they had no business in. ☟︎
asciilifeform is at a loss to see how this follows
mircea_popescu: what you propose : 1. friend to friend and unknown to unknown relations are the same thing.
mircea_popescu: currently : 1. friend to friend relations are entirely cryptographically secured. 2. unknown-to-unknown relations are not secured, and must proceed through a friend of either party to even happen.
mircea_popescu: ok, let me try and make the whole story.
artifexd: Other than some extra bytes, how is it clunk? How does it harm or hinder?
mircea_popescu: excactly like that.
mircea_popescu: as in, why add clunk that actually harms and hinders, except to perpetuate what we generally agree is a harmful meme.