Still fussing about Snowden
I keep returning (pointlessly!) to the Snowden story. All of his actions smell like Agent Provocateur or False Flag, but I can't pin it down, can't convince myself either way, can't scratch the itch. That's part of the pattern, of course.

Every time he surfaces in public I ask: Is this what NSA would want, or is this undesirable to NSA? So far the answers have always been on the NSA-wants side.

Overall his "revelations" were not new. That's exactly what intel agencies do when they feel pressure to say something. Provide facts that are true but known. Provide zero Shannon information. Good old epistemology again.

His recent demo of modifying an iPhone to "resist detection" was guaranteed to increase NSA attention on anyone who tries it.

Now there's an article in Vice, written for Snowden if not by Snowden, detailing his supposed efforts to blow the whistle through proper channels. He was allegedly bothered by the fact that NSA is doing its job. NSA's job is to monitor everything physically available. Anyone who had reached his level of security clearance and employment would understand this job. By focusing the reader's attention on mysterious abstract fictions called "laws" and "regulations", the Vice article encourages readers to spend their energies on changing or enforcing nonexistent concepts. Good old ontology again.

There's no way to completely escape a highly competent monitoring agency, but there are classic ways to limit its connections. Don't be interesting, don't own or use smartphones or web-connected appliances, don't talk through public channels.

Snowden's recent efforts directly counteract those classic cautions. He wants us to use our iPhones in a way that attracts maximum attention, and he wants us to focus on a completely futile task instead of controlling our footprint.

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 4:18 AM