[clug] [OT] The Register is trying to crowfund $100-$250K for indep study on NBN

Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.clug at gmail.com
Sun Jun 23 03:07:37 MDT 2013

On 23/06/13 17:25, Mike Carden wrote:
> How does paranoia scale?
> When we connected via 2400 bit packet radio (well, some of us did), we sent
> little and I doubt anyone cared. 

You doubt. I don't have an opinion.

> When we had 14.4 dial up modems we sent
> more and in my experience nobody cared. 

You still doubt. I still don't have an opinion.

> 56K modems... TransAct cable...
> ADSL... the speeds increased and so did the data volume. Maybe somebody
> cares. 

More guesses?

> Now you can do naughty things that you may not have done at low bit
> rates. Are the Watchers better equipped?

Is that your "conclusion"?  :)

It 'sounds' like you've concluded that greater bandwidth has created a
situation where people *now* do something "naughty" on the internet...
The NSA say they are monitoring terrorist activity. Are you suggesting
that terrorists have no use for dialup connections?

> I just wonder how rational the paranoia is.

Obviously a conclusion based on sane, or sensible *logic* != paranoia
(an irrational fear). Perhaps you meant something else :/

If you are suggesting that it's paranoia for people involved in
intelligence/police/politics to believe those same groups desire
complete access to all data... there are a lot of Hoovers out there, and
a lot of companies like Acxiom/InfoBase (who make BAH and Enron seem
like Boy Scouts). Big data is big money. When people discuss scenarios
with which they are familiar - it's *not* paranoia.

The problem is not whether the information will be misused, it already
has been, but that you *cannot* debate secrecy (whistle blowing isn't

National Security, for any country is not just about protecting borders,
primarily it's about protecting the economy. Or the reputations of
important politicians, or their business interests, etc, etc.

More information about the linux mailing list