[Cryptography] Fwd: stego mechanism used in real life (presumably), then outed

[iang]

On 09/06/2017 03:12, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

> What "iang" is perhaps trying to come to grips with here is the 
> concept of tacit consent.

I prefer to think about what's really going on rather than layers of 
deception.  This way we can design a system that meets needs, not strike 
hidden icebergs.

Western society does not tacitly consent to spying on self.  What they 
do is trust the spies to follow the rules.

But there is a flaw with that arrangement - secrecy.  The spies have to 
do all in secrecy, and in such level of secrecy they don't know 
themselves what they are doing.  This makes it easy to capture - by 
themselves, by outside elements, sometimes by the enemy.

It also makes it easy for them to cross the line without informing the 
public.  To cross the line and put up window dressing or emperor's new 
clothing.

As we've now seen countless times, accelerated with Snowden but by no 
means unique, the western intel agencies (and others) have frequently 
crossed the line of the law, and have dressed it up somehow.  When that 
dressing is ripped off, and the public sees what is really going on, 
changes are made.

For example, to drag the cyberpolitik back to *crypto*:  when we 
discovered that NSA was collecting all the Internet with watchers in 
every node, that was clearly illegal.  (We desperately need e2e and 
tcpinc, where is it?)  The "dress" they put on the emperor at the time 
was that they weren't collecting because they weren't looking. Once the 
lie was exposed to the public it was clearly illegal. There are I hear 
court cases advancing.

That is not tacit consent.  That's illegal behaviour, and society 
failing to see it isn't in any way tacit consent.

As a further thing:  what the agencies do *all the time* is manipulate 
the victim into believing that the victim somehow allowed this to 
happen.  It's your fault!  Tacit consent is something the agencies will 
sell to the public.  "Yes, but terrorism, danger, fear.... you know we 
have to do this, and you agree."

So, no - don't be fooled.  The agencies tell you to tacitly consent.  
Say no.

What is of interest is, once we figure it out, why don't we fix the 
problem?  This is pure power.  The government fights fiercely to defend 
itself, as all cornered animals do.  Now, if the government fights and 
wins, e.g. quotes "state secret" doctrine so we can't enforce society's 
values, we lose.

Again, what's that?  We lost.  But, the agencies will then come back 
around and say "look, see, the courts said it was OK, you've agreed, 
you've given tacit consent."

I call BS.  If you accept the "tacit consent" doctrine, you've been 
manipulated.

iang