| 1 |
On Thursday 04 Jun 2015 18:07:04 James wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, the "media" like to project that everything was fine, before Snowden |
| 3 |
> did his thing. I, like many with deep roots in communications beyond TCP/IP |
| 4 |
> have known better for a long time. I was perusing some published documents |
| 5 |
> of an ILEC that wants me to do some work (a mesos cluster no less). Then I |
| 6 |
> ran across this document, by accident [1]. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
As I understand it from a cursory look, this document explains how unbundling |
| 9 |
can occur so that suppliers can provide internet services to consumers, using |
| 10 |
a competitor's infrastructure. If anything, it tries to reverse the |
| 11 |
oligopolistic cartel of ISPs that is so prevalent in the US among cable |
| 12 |
providers. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> So now that my privacy of "phone records" has been wrestled from the hands |
| 16 |
> of the NSA, and place with the Telco, conglomerates, boy why do I not feel |
| 17 |
> safer? Congress has assured me that my personal data is now safe? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Due to a 40 year dogma of privatisation of public services, all this data was |
| 20 |
always provided and managed by Telcos and private enterprises, on behalf of |
| 21 |
the NSA. Who did you think Snowden was working for? So the latest provisions |
| 22 |
pushed onto you by your government as something <aheam!> safer, can mean only |
| 23 |
one thing: same men, different trousers. Carry on, as you were lads! |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> "ICP" or Integrated Communications Provider is the jargon by which all |
| 27 |
> attempts to keep our personal data, personal, are completely circumvented. |
| 28 |
> Just read the patent, award makes not differnce, as these carrier databases |
| 29 |
> have already been compile with numerous net data bases, so our privacy is |
| 30 |
> already completely compromised. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This I think refers to cross charging and management of users accounts to |
| 33 |
provide ease of transfer between providers (and therefore facilitate |
| 34 |
competition and better end user services/prices). I haven't read it in depth, |
| 35 |
but this is what a quick scan of it tells me. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> And folks in other countries, besides the good ole USA, your asses have |
| 39 |
> been "owned" for even longer..... |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Have you asked your senator how much $$$ is your government paying the secret |
| 42 |
services of other governments to provide information on their own as well as |
| 43 |
US citizens? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> So I suggest we call have a shot or 2 of Tequila this weekend, get naked, |
| 47 |
> and party like you've got nothing left to hide; cause you don't! |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I think that strong encryption with good RNGs still works, if Snowden is to be |
| 50 |
believed. But ... I suspect this is only a matter of buying you some more |
| 51 |
time. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> cheers mate! |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> James |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> [1] http://www.google.com/patents/US20010034627 |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Regards, |
| 62 |
Mick |
Archives