BitCoins for Edward Snowden.

[bbit]

Make it happen!

[cr1776]

Yes and that is a good start, but not many people using .bit yet and going into other TLDs is needed (not trivial I know), :-)

Encryption itself seems safe, but the problem is that for SSL/tls the centralized certificate authorties which are subject to government coercion, hacking and the like. Meaning fake certificates and man in the middle attacks. Plus some centralized vulnerabilities in tor.

Without some type of working peer to peer CA (perhaps tied to bitcoin or namecoin) this is a big vulnerability as Moore's law marches on because it becomes easier and easier to monitor more and more. (Or save more and more for use later).

Namecoin project has recently got TLS (https) working for names in the namecoin blockchain, "NAMESEC" ... i.e. TLS without CA's is now possible using namecoin blockchain and .bit domains.

http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4285#p4285

.... the "NAMESEC" protocol

[ErisDiscordia]

I'll let Saint George Carlin explain to you that you don't have any right or any freedoms. What you have is temporary privileges. Freedoms are no freedoms if there is someone who can just take them away.

Great, love it.

He's wrong though. Society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights. Instead we have (and this is the point you are making) lots of privileges. Temporary or not, we have lots and lots of them. Even better, we have the chance - albeit primarily through our elected officials - to increase the number of privileges we enjoy. Or, indeed, as an individual we can choose not to live with "privileges" and instead to go elsewhere and take our chances. The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that.

The dogma of statism seems to run deep within you so I'll just leave you with the following observation: please do not confuse assumptions like

"society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights"

with facts. Fact is you have no idea what would happen. Neither do I. The difference between the two of us seems to be that I'm (more than) willing to find out. For many reasons but mostly because I find the current system of centralized power to be laughably ineffective and in disgusting style. Many people would add that it's "morally wrong" but I don't care for that argument.

You know, if I want to protect myself from "evil people" then setting up an institution with legal monopoly on the initiation of force and by extension unlimited funding, which is sure to attract the most evil people of all...just doesn't seem like such a good idea to me. As for the other "services" government provides, I think we're better off without them and/or we can do better on the level of individuals and voluntary cooperation.

In the end it all boils down to whether you have trust in human beings or not. Of course if you don't trust people in general you're going to concoct some paranoid scheme how to protect yourself from the perceived threat they pose.

Good news, though! This condition is curable! Suggested cures include but are not limited to: traveling, hitchhiking, couchsurfing, meditation and the use of hallucinogens.

[S110RE]

I'll let Saint George Carlin explain to you that you don't have any right or any freedoms. What you have is temporary privileges. Freedoms are no freedoms if there is someone who can just take them away.

Great, love it.

He's wrong though. Society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights. Instead we have (and this is the point you are making) lots of privileges. Temporary or not, we have lots and lots of them. Even better, we have the chance - albeit primarily through our elected officials - to increase the number of privileges we enjoy. Or, indeed, as an individual we can choose not to live with "privileges" and instead to go elsewhere and take our chances. The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that.

The dogma of statism seems to run deep within you so I'll just leave you with the following observation: please do not confuse assumptions like

"society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights"

with facts. Fact is you have no idea what would happen. Neither do I. The difference between the two of us seems to be that I'm (more than) willing to find out. For many reasons but mostly because I find the current system of centralized power to be laughably ineffective and in disgusting style. Many people would add that it's "morally wrong" but I don't care for that argument.

You know, if I want to protect myself from "evil people" then setting up an institution with legal monopoly on the initiation of force and by extension unlimited funding, which is sure to attract the most evil people of all...just doesn't seem like such a good idea to me. As for the other "services" government provides, I think we're better off without them and/or we can do better on the level of individuals and voluntary cooperation.

In the end it all boils down to whether you have trust in human beings or not. Of course if you don't trust people in general you're going to concoct some paranoid scheme how to protect yourself from the perceived threat they pose.

Good news, though! This condition is curable! Suggested cures include but are not limited to: traveling, hitchhiking, couchsurfing, meditation and the use of hallucinogens.

+1

"The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that. " - I don't know about the U.S but here in the U.K societies are that divided this tends to be the case anyway.

Back to topic: DOUBLE AGENT!!!!

Chow,
S110RE

[ErisDiscordia]

"The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that. " - I don't know about the U.S but here in the U.K societies are that divided this tends to be the case anyway.

This is why I say that conflating society with government is a dangerous delusion.

What I am talking about expressed in your terms is abandoning government. Or more to the point, abandoning the idea of a single institution endowed with the power to create and enforce rules binding for absolutely everyone.

I can make a strong argument that by abandoning this idea you are not abandoning society. To the contrary, as has been pointed out, people tend to like social structures. Funnily enough, this has been mostly pointed out by people using it as an argument to support regulation and government - but again, they seem to be conflating government and society.

So what might happen if more of us decided to abandon this idea of government? Who will "have our back" then? We can't know for sure, until we try. Visions of chaos and destruction seem inappropriate though, possibly fueled by mass-media and public education sponsored culture which, guess what, is interested in preserving the status quo. One of the ways it can achieve this is by making alternatives look immoral or scary.

My personal opinion on this is that without the false sense of security provided by government, people would look for other options how to secure their well-being, defense, health care, retirement and education. Can we at least entertain the notion that people faced with the need to provide those things for themselves (as opposed to believing the promise that they will be taken care of by government) might feel a stronger sense of responsibility toward them and thus come up with better solutions? Add to that the observation, that needs and styles with which people satisfy them are varied. Who's going to provide a better fit in terms of servicing those needs? One universal system which is the same for all (except those sitting in the chairs of power, of course) or many many individuals trying lots of different approaches?

[runam0k]

The dogma of statism seems to run deep within you so I'll just leave you with the following observation: please do not confuse assumptions like

"society would never survive with his concept of unlimited rights"

with facts. Fact is you have no idea what would happen. Neither do I.

So what might happen if more of us decided to abandon this idea of government? Who will "have our back" then? We can't know for sure, until we try.

I think we do know and we did try. That's what the wild west was all about. It's how and why countries and governments formed in the first place; people banding together to maximise their chances of survival and the survival of their offspring. The bigger the group, the more obvious the need to delegate decision making to a subset.

I think we know exactly what would happen if we suddenly dispensed with government or the dollar or western society crumbled: the group of people with the most guns would quickly declare itself the new government! Maybe Mexico and Canada would acquire some new land.

Anyway... bitcoins. How's the collection coming along?

[ErisDiscordia]

I think we do know and we did try. That's what the wild west was all about.

Last time I checked the "Wild West" period of US history coexisted with something called the federal government. The fact that there were areas where the rule of federal law was tough/impossible to enforce is another matter altogether.

Hey by the way, did you ever notice how the period of the Wild West coincides with one of the biggest growth spurts of any national economy ever and witnessed the transformation of the US from mostly agrarian colonies into an economic superpower? That personal and economic freedom was very high during this period must have been pure coincidence, other, less free nations around the world have been doing as well or better...oh wait...

and for the last time:

I think we know exactly what would happen if we suddenly dispensed with government or the dollar or western society crumbled

No! "We" do NOT know what would happen. If you truly believe that YOU (please refrain for speaking for everybody) know what would happen...well I guess there is no way and no point in trying to convince you otherwise, just let it be known that there are tons of people who subscribe to their own dogmas (and will argue with you to death about them) and a select few who have exchanged the concept of dogma (permanent absolute belief) for the much more fluffy and nice concept of catma (temporary relative disbelief)

[legitnick]

Edward Snowden truly is a hero for freedom. Anyone who donates, props.

[BTCLuke]

"The downside, of course: you abandon society and nobody has you back. Good luck with that. "

You've got this backwards. Citizens around the world have each others back AGAINST their governments... Even if they don't realize it.

Sadly too many on this thread, especially runam0k, have no clue what anarchy is; only what GOVERNMENTS tell them it is...

Anarchy, a lack of rulers, has many times throughout history, resulted in peaceful coexistence. Even in the "Wild" west, the only instances of wildness were due to government intervention, on an otherwise peaceful and harmonious existence.

There are volumes written on this subject, but I guess reading would be too much of an inconvenience, especially when you believe that the state is good for you. (For those of you who don't, hop over here and be amazed: Historical list of anarchy without lawlessness)

Seriously, it makes me really sad for the human race sometimes. I guess there is nothing to do but break out the instructional tools once again. Check out this vid runam0k:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA

That perfectly defines what anarchy is, and what it isn't.

It's in everyone's best interest to have each other's back by nature... Only something as evil and twisted as government can change that.

[NewLiberty]

And then there is Bitcoin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhR1bI7ecT8

[LightRider]

I think we do know and we did try. That's what the wild west was all about.

Last time I checked the "Wild West" period of US history coexisted with something called the federal government. The fact that there were areas where the rule of federal law was tough/impossible to enforce is another matter altogether.

Hey by the way, did you ever notice how the period of the Wild West coincides with one of the biggest growth spurts of any national economy ever and witnessed the transformation of the US from mostly agrarian colonies into an economic superpower? That personal and economic freedom was very high during this period must have been pure coincidence, other, less free nations around the world have been doing as well or better...oh wait...

and for the last time:

I think we know exactly what would happen if we suddenly dispensed with government or the dollar or western society crumbled

No! "We" do NOT know what would happen. If you truly believe that YOU (please refrain for speaking for everybody) know what would happen...well I guess there is no way and no point in trying to convince you otherwise, just let it be known that there are tons of people who subscribe to their own dogmas (and will argue with you to death about them) and a select few who have exchanged the concept of dogma (permanent absolute belief) for the much more fluffy and nice concept of catma (temporary relative disbelief)

I guess it's easy to become an economic superpower when you murder and displace the indigenous people of a whole continent.

[kokojie]

The guy makes $200k+ per year while working at the NSA, he probably don't need money right now.

[runam0k]

Sadly too many on this thread, especially runam0k, have no clue what anarchy is; only what GOVERNMENTS tell them it is...

...

Seriously, it makes me really sad for the human race sometimes. I guess there is nothing to do but break out the instructional tools once again. Check out this vid runam0k:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA

That perfectly defines what anarchy is, and what it isn't.

I watched the whole thing and it turns out I had a pretty good understanding of what anarchy means.

I just don't think anarchy is viable (for many, many reasons which I won't bore/annoy you with). Please don't take the fact I disagree with you to mean I am indoctrinated or brainwashed, I am not (although I am sure that's exactly what all the indoctrinated and brainwashed say). Rather, it just means I disagree with you.

Does anarchy not allow for disagreement?

And I'm going to take a wild stab here and guess that you don't live in a community governed by anarchy. Correct me if I am wrong. If so, why is that?

[ErisDiscordia]

...governed by anarchy....

quoted for the lulz 

[atariguy]

The guy makes $200k+ per year while working at the NSA, he probably don't need money right now.

Actually, he lied about that, too.

[Its About Sharing]

The guy makes $200k+ per year while working at the NSA, he probably don't need money right now.

Actually, he lied about that, too.

Actually, it wasn't a lie. 200k was his career high. He worked in many areas, that is why he knows so much.
The government (via the NSA - our new Govt) is really scrambling to quiet the Shit Storm.
Here is another whistleblower going into a bit more. http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-685-russ-tice-reveals-the-truth-about-nsa-spying/
Long live freedom (of choice)...

How anyone can side with a government that has lied (e.g. Iraq weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan, etc) is beyond me. 

[moni3z]

Encryption itself seems safe, but the problem is that for SSL/tls the centralized certificate authorties which are subject to government coercion, hacking and the like. Meaning fake certificates and man in the middle attacks. Plus some centralized vulnerabilities in tor.

Without some type of working peer to peer CA (perhaps tied to bitcoin or namecoin) this is a big vulnerability as Moore's law marches on because it becomes easier and easier to monitor more and more. (Or save more and more for use later).

Namecoin project has recently got TLS (https) working for names in the namecoin blockchain, "NAMESEC" ... i.e. TLS without CA's is now possible using namecoin blockchain and .bit domains.

http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4285#p4285

.... the "NAMESEC" protocol

Can also pin the SSL cert to your Android app and avoid all cert authorities completely. It's what Moxie Marlinspike did while at Twitter, hardening their apps with pinned certs because of all the fascist regimes in the middle east hijacking traffic with spoofed certs.

Update: Snowden charged with espionage/treason (no surprise) and arrest warrant ordered. Apparently he has a private jet on standby to fly him to Iceland that somebody is paying for, so US trying to keep him in HK under arrest. Chinese authorities probably responded that the US should hand over all the Falun Gong sect members and corrupt politicians currently hiding out in the USA first, then they will send over Snowden.

Update 2: He claims to have a ton more super seekrit NSA files held in some sort of escrow if he's shot in the face/ricin poisoned/polonium spiked drink lol spies.

[atariguy]

The guy makes $200k+ per year while working at the NSA, he probably don't need money right now.

Actually, he lied about that, too.

Actually, it wasn't a lie. 200k was his career high. He worked in many areas, that is why he knows so much.
The government (via the NSA - our new Govt) is really scrambling to quiet the Shit Storm.
Here is another whistleblower going into a bit more. http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-685-russ-tice-reveals-the-truth-about-nsa-spying/
Long live freedom (of choice)...

How anyone can side with a government that has lied (e.g. Iraq weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan, etc) is beyond me. 

Just because I call Snowden out as a treasonous liar doesn't mean I support unconstitutional actions by my government.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Update 2: He claims to have a ton more super seekrit NSA files held in some sort of escrow if he's shot in the face/ricin poisoned/polonium spiked drink lol spies.

I think is just about a given ... a spook learns early to keep an ace up their sleeve. It is how the corruption proliferates, they all hold the goods on each other. It is why secret societies, secret govt. is incompatible with open, liberal democracies since you never really know what the agenda of any individual or sect is behind the public actions.

The off-hand comment he made in his first interview about analysts being able to monitor anyone, including the president is maybe a message that he has something on Obama .... drone spike absurd?

[BTCLuke]

Please don't take the fact I disagree with you to mean I am indoctrinated or brainwashed, I am not (although I am sure that's exactly what all the indoctrinated and brainwashed say). Rather, it just means I disagree with you.

Does anarchy not allow for disagreement?

Of course it does. No hard feelings at all.

This subject takes a lot of time and 'unlearning' before 99% of people will understand them at all. It was my silly mistake to think that people supportive of bitcoin would naturally be 'unlearned' enough to make the rest of the jump easily.

And I'm going to take a wild stab here and guess that you don't live in a community governed by anarchy. Correct me if I am wrong. If so, why is that?

Because the bad guys control every single inch of habitable land on the whole globe.

It's actually a deeper question than just that though; If the vast majority of folks woke up to Voluntaryism right now, but there were still a ruling class plus 1% or more of the people around like yourself that simply won't let go of your precious state, then the media would of course keep reporting that Team Blue beat Team Red for the presidency this year and all would continue as it does now... Even people who love and understand freedom wouldn't know that they are the majority... So the majority of the people could never have what it wants!

This is literally true because Voluntaryists won't vote and simply do not attack. Both are against our core principles of common decency.