[FRIAM] How I made my own VPN server in 15 minutes | TechCrunch

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

I've been following (loosely) this thread and find it fascinating.


On 4/13/17 10:56 AM, glen ☣ wrote:
> On 04/13/2017 09:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> If you posit there does exist this humanity as distinct from the organization (but this not clear to me in general), then it is reasonable to think there exists personal information that is not really available at all (not only electronically) just as the organizational information is not disclosed.   "Living in the closet" is one common example.
> Of course.  But my claim was not that your traffic tells us everything there can be known about you.  My claim was that it tells us everything we _need_ to know about you.
(not?) Just to be argumentative but is this claim (almost?) 
tautalogical?  It tells us everything it _can_ about you, and to the 
extent that we are elements in an ecology, it tells us everything any 
other (competing/cooperating?) element in the ecology _can_ know, so in 
that sense, there is no _need_ to know more.   Which is not to say that 
*I* could not in some way take advantage of knowing one of your deeper, 
darker secrets such as, for example, your bestiality fetish that you 
carefully avoid acknowledging or pursuing in any way that might leave a 
digital signature.   Whether I used to to extort in some way, or maybe 
seduce (wanna meet my great dane?), I *might* gain some advantage over 
*other* in the ecology in enlisting you as prey or symbiote.
>   I suspect everyone has a complex occult kernel buried deep inside them.
I take this to be true by definition.  I'm not sure what the right model 
for all of this is, but I think it is key.   Do (any of) you have a good 
abstract entity-relation/agent/??? model in mind for all of this?   Mine 
is pretty ad-hoc and intuitive, it would be interesting (to me) if there 
were to emerge a more formal one.
>    And whatever secrets are hidden in there would be interesting (perhaps necessary) to those who are deeply familiar with that person, family, lovers, etc.  But for spam?  Naaa.  Of course, everything lies on a spectrum.
I doubt you mean this phrase to imply that the spectrum is precisely a 
continuum.   I think there are at least huge spikes in the spectrum.
>    So, when the FBI profiles a serial killer, they're going to make a serious effort to unravel and make sense of that kernel.  Somewhere in the middle would be Levashov.  We simply need to learn enough about his person[ality] to catch him ... like when he visits Spain with his family.  Someone like Satoshi Nakamoto would be an even more interesting case.
Following my request for a formal model, I'm guessing that professional 
"profilers" *do* have such models.   It seems like especially for this 
class of discussion, the ability to compose or superpose partial models 
into an uber-model (or decompose from an uber-model, extracting the most 
salient issues) would be useful. This fits complementarily with my own 
work in Faceted Ontologies which does NOT try to model agents 
(individually or collectively) but rather complex event structures with 
agents as one of the many atoms within the event-structure (subjects and 
objects, actors and actees).
> But this thread is about possible techniques to compensate for Trump rolling back (as yet unimplemented) rules for ISPs and selling your traffic history, not catching human traffickers on the dark web.
This thread feels hugely diverted if not entirely hijacked.  Not a 
problem for me, but "I'm just sayin' !"

- Steve