>inb4 "muh anti-islamj00++merikkkans" LARPing
John McAfee, with the help of MGT [0], is building a "truly private smartphone". Nigger added switches on the back to physically disconnect the battery, camera, and microphone, as well as the antennas for WiFi, Bluetooth, & geolocation. No speaker switch, tho.
With articles titled 'John McAfee’s ‘hack-proof’ phone is doomed to fail' it seems this fucker is headed down the correct path.
Some quotes from the lungenpresse:
>> None of this sounds like it’ll make a meaningful difference for users.""
>> Hardware isn’t the problem when it comes to mobile privacy.""
>> Privacy-focused hardware just isn’t that good of a business.""
>> The market is already saturated with privacy phone failures.""
Lol, these pozzed faggots can into journalism.
Hardware has everything to do with security, software has everything to do with insecurity.”"
-John McAfee
[0]: mgtci.com/datastreamx/mgt-signs-letter-of-intent-to-develop-privacy-mobile-…
[1]: newsweek.com/john-mcafee-privacy-phone-smartphone-590373
Maybe. Maybe not.
But regardless of who is moonlighting for whom, even if it is entirely
unpaid and inadvertent (which beggars some disbelief), this was a top
picture shared on many social media outlets:
https://i.redd.it/m2qtwn72m7ny.png
Not shown by the mainstream media though.
Who decides for you what to think? Whoever it is, doesn't seem very
trustworthy right now.
Here's a simple law that congress could add that would decuple security:
"copyright is voided for software two years after the end of life, or if
after one year a critical vulnerability is unpatched"
Well, lawyers could go through it and convert it into legalcode for the
judicial architecture to parse.
Personally I am very much in favor of allowing free reverse engineering of
DOS and early Windows products.
Regardless, the most important use of non-government encryption is the
protection of trade secrets (hence the design of portable offline cipher
machines up to the late eighties). The rights of poor people never go into
the calculus of the powerful or the free market.
For some reason, this calculus currently seems to also exclude national
advantage. Everyone is hacking each other, but no one seems to really...
care?
Conclusions are hard to come by in this world for some reason.
What would it take to convince you that your world view was entirely wrong?
What world view could possibly fit the current four-dimensional model of
the world?
How hard would it be to reorient the current network of nonprofits in favor
of privacy to well... improve privacy? Design open source products that are
as secure as an iPhone? How hard is it to see that there's something
seriously wrong with the world?
> Razer g2s at riseup.net
> Mon May 1 08:14:33 PDT 2017
>
> "Nigga".
Leave it to the (((rayzer))) to culturally appropriate.
> to the junkpile.
Not a recycler, eh?
> Georgi Guninski guninski at guninski.com
> Mon May 1 04:25:01 PDT 2017
>
> Happy Labour day.
It's fucking Loyalty Day.
Not Labour Day.
Not May Day.
Loyalty Day.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day
President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed May 1, 1955, the first
observance of Loyalty Day.""
Loyalty Day is defined as follows in 36 U.S.C. § 115:
(a) Designation - May 1 is Loyalty Day.
(b) Purpose - Loyalty Day is a special day for the
reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States
and for the recognition of the heritage of
American freedom.
(c) Proclamation - The President is requested to
issue a proclamation:
(1) calling on United States Government officials
to display the flag of the United States on
all Government buildings on Loyalty Day; and
(2) inviting the people of the United States to
observe Loyalty Day with appropriate ceremonies
in schools and other suitable places.
> Some people do the labour, some take the results.
Some people are made to supplant service by the beasts, and some are
(((chosen))).
> Steve Kinney admin at pilobilus.net
> Sat Apr 15 09:43:14 PDT 2017
>
> A real VPN connection routes all network traffic from the machine in
> question through a remote host via an encrypted connection.
>
> A browser-based "vpn connection" is no such thing. It only routes
> the browser's own traffic through a remote host - IF it works, and
> UNTIL it is compromised by an exploit hosted on a site the
over-confident
> user visits.
>
> It leaves the system wide open to multiple families of side
> channel attacks, and if your security model includes State and
> Corporate actors as potential adversaries, that's not a hypothetical
> or acceptable risk.
Tor Browser in a nutshell, eh, vpnanon?
> juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
> Fri Apr 14 04:22:51 PDT 2017
>
> I am waiting for any cypherpunk or non-cypherpunk to provide
> any evidence to support the optimistic, false, and highly
> dangerous, pro-technology stance.
You faggot. Only a dipshit reads "false and highly dangerous" and
thinks you aren't a letters agent. Get better b8.
