Don't you just LOVE how the powers that be make their own rules as they go along???
> "since they don’t have to have markings and can still be classified"
How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
251–260 of 273 posts
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#252Isn't AI both the problem ... AND the solution here? True, you can't publish a book anonymously anymore: that ship seems to have sailed. But if you want to publish a political piece or anything else potentially "substantive", can't you just ask AI to rewrite it for you? Instant anonymization!
What about the chat conversation from you asking it to write it?
Local LLM.
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#253Isn't AI both the problem ... AND the solution here? True, you can't publish a book anonymously anymore: that ship seems to have sailed. But if you want to publish a political piece or anything else potentially "substantive", can't you just ask AI to rewrite it for you? Instant anonymization!
AI doesn't seem like it'd be much help at all. Unless the AI is 100% offline and locally hosted there's a record there. Also generating text isn't really the hard part of being anonymous. You also have publish it somewhere, and somewhere it will be seen, and that also means a trail back to you. Most of the time the information you have to share, especially anything verifiable, will be traceable back to you. That's th…
>Unless the AI is 100% offline and locally hosted there's a record there.
Yes, there are these things called "Local LLMs" that run entirely on your machine.
>Most of the time the information you have to share, especially anything verifiable, will be traceable back to you.
Maybe by other mechanisms, but not by this one (writer profiling). The "profile" would just be of the style of the LLM you use.
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
australia and america have the same agreement. these countries may be dragons but live in fear of losing their hoard (borrowing that analogy from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47963204 )
> australia and america have the same agreement This has no basis whatsoever in Australian law. Procuring someone else to do it on your behalf is still an offence under s 7(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 - SECT 7 Telecommunications not to be intercepted (1) A person shall not: (a) intercept; (b) authorize, suffer or permit a…
[flagged]
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> australia and america have the same agreement This has no basis whatsoever in Australian law. Procuring someone else to do it on your behalf is still an offence under s 7(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 - SECT 7 Telecommunications not to be intercepted (1) A person shall not: (a) intercept; (b) authorize, suffer or permit a…
Well you have reality and "laws".
In this case we have law, which gives effect to treaties and binds the employees of the intelligence agencies, and then we have the unsupported conspiracy theories that you’re mindlessly parroting here.
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> australia and america have the same agreement This has no basis whatsoever in Australian law. Procuring someone else to do it on your behalf is still an offence under s 7(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 - SECT 7 Telecommunications not to be intercepted (1) A person shall not: (a) intercept; (b) authorize, suffer or permit a…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
How about we refer to a primary source instead.
https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-...
Which provision of the treaty purports to enable this conduct?
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
Bringing this poorly-informed comment back in order to ask: on which Murdoch-owned garbage network did you hear that? “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-persuaded-sn…
> “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time.
As far as the Chinese intelligence services are concerned, there is no difference. The maintained a heavy presence and operated as freely there then as they do now.
> He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar.
He seems to have found himself on the wrong side of the Pacific for that to be true.
> It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another.
It’s historically common for walk-ins to be turned away or reported by the receiving state to avoid political heat. Same happened to Jean-Phillippe Wispelaere and Brian Regan.
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bringing this poorly-informed comment back in order to ask: on which Murdoch-owned garbage network did you hear that? “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. It’s really mostly a matter of politics (and a bit of luck) that he didn’t get scooped up in HK for one intent or another. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/china-persuaded-sn…
> “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. As far as the Chinese intelligence services are concerned, there is no difference. The maintained a heavy presence and operated as freely there then as they do now. > He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. He seems to have found himself on the wrong side of the Pacific for that to be true. > It’s really mostly a matter of politics (…
He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on.
It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore.
Think what you like, just don’t misinform the reader.
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Hong Kong” is not “China”, and if it subjectively is now, was less so at the time. As far as the Chinese intelligence services are concerned, there is no difference. The maintained a heavy presence and operated as freely there then as they do now. > He was aiming for Ecuador, or similar. He seems to have found himself on the wrong side of the Pacific for that to be true. > It’s really mostly a matter of politics (…
He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on. It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore. Think what you like, just don’t misinform the reader.
> He wasn’t a walk-in, his lawyer contacted the Chinese to see if they’d let him leave and continue on.
What else would you call a disgruntled SharePoint admin who shows up unannounced on your figurative doorstep with an enormous volume of classified material belonging to an adversary?
> It seems like you’re intentionally not interested in learning the details of the story, so I’m not going to engage with you anymore.
I’m well aware of the reality of the story but if you’re going to let your own ideology shape how you perceive them, I’m not going to stop you.
Re: How Mark Klein told the EFF about Room 641A [book excerpt]
#260arpwatch running on an edge router of mine tells me that there's a host with a DoD-registered IP address connected to my (major US) ISP network segment, which I know for a fact contains both business and residential subscribers. I port scanned it when I first discovered it just to say 'hello', and I have little doubt that a dragnet surveillance apparatus lives on the other side of that firewall. Governments have util…
This post makes no sense whatsoever, for a whole lot of reasons.
1. If this were some covertly installed device, would it have a government attributable IP address?
2. If it were being used for surveillance, why would it be visible at all, instead of being on the other side of a passive optical tap?
3. If it’s really on the same broadcast domain as you, and on some other IP subnet, how can you talk to it?
4. You can configure a device on a network to use any IP address. Why do you think that means it belongs to the government?