The Decentralized and Alternate Tech Thread





“With Handshake you own it directly with a private key, the way you own bitcoin with a private key,” said HNS user Matthew Zipkin, who built the reference site easyhandshake.com. “As long as you keep that key secure, no one is taking that name from you. … There’s a lot of money and corruption and centralization. The namespace is dominated by ICANN.”


Obama pawned off the ICANN organization in 2016. I still don't fully understand the implications, I suppose ICANN could suspend name assignments to any IP address they wish? Then we would be forced to connect using the numerical IP rather than a named domain?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/09/28/obamas-internet-surrender-must-stopped-icann/
 

Jünger

Ostrich
In the current DNS system, top-level domains like .com and .org are awarded by ICANN. Select governments, non-profits, and for-profit companies are given TLDs and can issue sub-domains like google.com. ICANN and these TLD owners are the gatekeepers of our namespace.

Handshake is a decentralized naming protocol. It replaces the root zone file where top-level domain ownership is stored with a blockchain that anyone can use. Handshake domains are uncensorable, permissionless, and free of gatekeepers.
 

Stadtaffe

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Element is not the only client for matrix. I am currently testing and experimenting with an exciting terminal based matrix client:


It does one thing in particular which element does not do, which is monitor multiple matrix accounts simultaneously. Actually, in the github issues for element, you can read that it is a requested feature but would require a large code refactor. So with element you have to log out then log into something else. With matrixcli you do this in the config.py file:

accounts=[ { "server":"https://example.com", "username":"account1", "passeval":account1_password_eval }, { "server":"https://matrix.org", "username":"account2", "passeval":account2_matrixorg_password_eval}, { "server":"https://example.com", "username":"account3", "passeval":account3_password_eval_any_name },]

These terminal programs generally do not do video and voice, only text, but they do other useful things. From what I can tell so far, this one possibly runs a background process which keeps going even if you close the terminal. Will report after some more testing.

A full list of the matrix clients are here:


I had a go at installing two of the other terminal based clients but gave up. The one was python based but needed all kinds of dependencies, I think debian stable was not even enough for it, it wanted debian 11 which is not even released yet! There is also a terminal based client which is 'go' based but the installation again is somewhat hard core, needed a full 'go' installation. But that link I posted up the top is easy to install.

d for decentralised..
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
One aspect I find good about the Element client on Matrix is that it is more conducive to longer conversations. The narrow-bubbled interface on things like Telegram and ZuckApp seem to induce low-attention spans.

I've also found disabling all IM notifications very useful.
 

tractor

Woodpecker

47f99fa0541e212a.jpeg
 

CERN

Pigeon
Speculative post here - read if you want to know what's coming down the pipeline probably in regards to censorship and whats already happening which the public and buisnesses are blind too ...

Keep in mind most everything from here on out in this post is simply connecting the dots. So, keep in mind that when reading this...the main speculation here is simply that censorship is possibly occuring (or at very least can and does occur) constantly via 'Secure Severs' which are being monitored for none other than 'security' reasons.

Why this matters...

It's public knowledge your informaiton is being tracked and bought and sold (supposedly) - which is most likely actually occuring and I'm not making a case against that here, I'm going to attempt to make a case though for why 'Secure Buisnesses' and the Government itself are in fact working in unison, if not inadvertently working off of each other.

This is not simply about public information being bought and sold or even you being tracked, while that's important, it doesn't seem to be the main intent of the overall online schemata and agenda of the surveillance state.

Ultimately the spider and fly are the same; in other words the spider is caught in its own web, by design, what we think is the fly is actually the spider and vice versa.

Let me explain...

Does anyone even remember 'SolarWinds Orion hack'? The "[...] breach of nine federal agencies discovered late last year.": Agency hacks could accelerate push to zero trust security model (https://fcw.com/articles/2021/03/19/zero-trust-hacks-congress.aspx)

Ok so I'm not going to go into the whole long technical aspect here because I neither fully understand it completly nor do I consider it relevant but here's a synopopsis of this: most people reading this are probably familiar with how a VPN at very least works; your IP becomes masked and you use a server located elsewhere etc. Ok, so that's obvious. What about remote browsing and or browser isolation; i.e. working in the cloud? Seems obvious enough also right? Or how about the zero trust security model? Still following along anyone?

Again, the intent here won't be to go in-depth on these topics, most all of us use them almost daily unaware and if you're a buisness and are using them you think you have security, but it would seem if we connect a few dots here, we'll begin to see the larger picture I'm going to draw.

If you work in the federal government or even remotely you most likely work in the cloud, the basic assumption is that your browsing and data and all the rest of your activity is not being stored locally; i.e. it's being virtually rendered on other servers and not processed directly to your computer. Ok, so again, I need to preface, this is not a very complex concept yet it requires repeating for everything else I'm going to mention here so I'm drilling it in early.

Many buisnesses are goi to remote browser. If you don't know what remote browsing is read this (https://webgap.io/learning/what-is-remote-browsing.html), then come back.

WEBGAP is responsible for " [...] the team that built the worlds first production remote browsing platform for the US federal government."

This is a key component of the speculative story I'm going to conjecture on so keep that in mind.

Here's a list of other Browser Isolation Cybersecurity Vendors: (https://index.co/list/16767-browser_isolation_cybersecurity_remote_browsing/companies).

By no means an all encompassing list. The point of interest here is that cybersecurity is being co-opted and has incredibly high risk attached to private buisnesses directly linked to the government. This is (again speculation) but an incredible security threat. The irony, if you can call it that (because it appears intentional to some degree) is that 'security' companies have your data in the cloud and if a buisness you think you're signing up for security - and you may very well be - my intent is by no means to throw anyone under the bus here because unless you audit every security buisness and know the staff and the companies actual reviews of information and follow through on their privacy policies how can you know for certain at what information is being harvested and what isn't? You really don't is the answer.

So where am I going with this? As I said the cybersecurity infrastructure being used for many many buisnesses is also being used with the government. On the surface cybersecuirty does not appear as though it itself would be the threat, but this is exactly what I'm going to be suggesting here; i.e. the actual possible security threat is in fact the 'security' vendors themselves.

Cybersecurity - muchlike I would say stocks and daytrading - is very much foreign to most people, even individuals who make a high salary, it's easy to assume they understand exactly whats going on because of the "halo effect" in a way; many deluded individuals believe status and wealth makes someone a 'good person' or simply trustworthy.

Ok, so there's the introduction...

Anyone know who Gideon Gartner is? I actually had no idea who he was until I started researching Gartner's more...you can read about them here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner). Apparently in the IT consulating world they are considered 'reptuable' and have 'accurate' information. As readers of this forum are probably aware or keen too, whenever 'predictions' are made it is normally (though obviously speculative) a leap in logic towards potentially a 'plan' of some sorts. Government training excercises have 'goals' and longterm plans they try to hit and consulating firms are no different it would seem. On the surface this sounds like simply 'tech trends' and 'predictions', yet it seems very convaluted and the language is rather dense. Regardless Gartner put out a list of govt trends (expectations) for 2021.

Keep in mind this is in AUS, yet keep in mind the multilateral UKUSA Agreement; i.e. the five eyes. "The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence."

Here's #1:

---
"Gartner’s top 10 govt tech trends for 2021

Gartner has outlined a list of 10 government technology trends to meet the challenges that arose as a result of the 2020 pandemic.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred the acceleration of digital innovation across the government sector around the world, presenting government leaders with new opportunities to use data and technologies to build trust, agility and resilience in public institutions,” Gartner research vice president Rick Howard said.

“While pandemic-related challenges will continue for some time, technology trends have emerged that address critical challenges in areas such as security, cost containment and citizen experience.”

  1. Accelerated legacy modernisation

Government CIOs are accelerating the move to modern, modular architectures.


The pandemic exposed the need to move up the timeline of modernisation to combat modern risks and take advantage of the advances it can offer.

Gartner has predicted that by 2025, over 50 percent of government agencies will have modernised critical core legacy applications to improve resilience and agility."
---

Ok, take a deep breath and think through for a moment. What 'modern risks' are they actually referring to here, and it's not the 'pandemic'.

A Government CIO ... aka cybersecurity. (https://www.governmentcio.com/about/).

"GovernmentCIO was founded in 2010 with a single purpose: to transform government IT. Our team combines legacy experience in the federal space with innovation and disruptive approaches that make Silicon Valley great. By blending those two cultures, GovernmentCIO has the connections we need to navigate government bureaucracy, while leveraging futuristic design, development and technology solutions that can transform how federal agencies manage their IT. Our unique culture and proven track record of success are essential for federal agencies to bring critical government services within reach of its citizens."

This makes WEF look like childsplay.

It's not foolish to want cybersecurity, in fact it's imperative, yet cnnect a few more dots here and we start to see the house of cards fall down fairly quickly. Allowing outside private buisnesses to manage federals security is a fools errand,. Silicion valley working in unision with the government is foolish. Yet this seems to be where it began:


For the record, wikipedia is more or less a controlled entity in many ways, simply by vitrue of group think if anything else. With that being said consider that what you see in wikipedia, I would gather, espcialy in regards in to politics and subversion tactics, is of ill-repute most assuredly.

Regardless, back to the potential explanation for all of this. Subversion occurs most often it seems not by dissenting and throwing all caution to the wind, but by giving them what they want with parameters attachd. By 'getting' cyber 'security', you think you're secure; i.e. so you don't even realize where the real problem is coming from. A lot of this rolls back to the illusionary nature of computers; people don't understand them and how they work, in a word they can be confusing.

This brings us back to the "[...] breach of nine federal agencies discovered late last year."

You can read about it here:
 

CERN

Pigeon
If you do your research and use your better judgement I think you'll come to the same possible conclusions; i.e. cybersecurity seems highly exploited within itself and within the federal gov:
---

---

---
This is the media narrative of the hack: "SolarWinds Hack Victims: From Tech Companies to a Hospital and University"


And it likely was a breach, but by Russian hackers'?

Long story short is this: the cybersecurity field is complex with multiple actors and few people who probably really understand the actual oversight and overeach occuring (potential overreach or otherwise) and cybersecurity is clouded in confusion. I would guess and say most politicans and the average person simply don't understand cybersecurity, and I don't claim too either, yet this whole setup is way off the normalcy scale. If a politican is acting as though they understand cybersecurity to me that raises redflags. Not because I don't think they don't understand their job, but that they understand it too well which potentially leads to knowing it for the wrong reasons. It's a case by case thing. Just because an individual has certain political ideologies it's not always black or white as to where the actual threat is coming from. Yet if any securiy threat is coming, it's coing from downstream within the cybersecurity field itself.
---
"Philip Reitinger, president and CEO of the Global Cyber Alliance, said, "The challenge with detecting activity like the SolarWinds hack is that the hack is accomplished through 'authorized' malware."

To detect that malware, a defensive system would either have to deny all communications that are not explicitly whitelisted or establish a user activity baseline capable of singling out abnormalities for investigators to pursue. "That can be difficult to do and resource intensive," he added."

Michael Hamilton, a former vice chair for a government coordinating council focused on critical infrastructure protection, described a similar method as the most likely way forward for DHS to improve Einstein. Although its precise capabilities are classified, Hamilton speculated the program's age -- Einstein was originally developed in 2003 -- is a sign it may not be baselining user activity in the way he and Reitinger described.

Hamilton said that "it's not likely they throw it out and start over," noting the program's cost. "My understanding is that it cost $6 billion to develop."
---

What they're saying in so few words here is,"We can't re-structure everything because it would cost too much or require too many resources, either way we need more money."

And thats what this boils down too; control, money, resources, and illsuionary-security. The 'cloud' is only as 'secure' as the person running it.

Avril Haines - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avril_Haines#Torture_report - read under "Targeted drone killings"...
---

Targeted drone killings​

During her years in Obama White House, Haines worked closely with John Brennan in determining administration policy on extra-judicial "targeted killings" by drones. Newsweek reported Haines was sometimes called in the middle of the night to evaluate whether a suspected terrorist could be "lawfully incinerated" by a drone strike.

The ACLU criticized the Obama policy on drone killings as failing to meet international human rights norms. Haines was instrumental in establishing the legal framework and policy guidelines for the drone strikes, which targeted suspected terrorists in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan, but also resulted, according to human rights groups, in killing innocent civilians. An editor for In These Times said the policy guidelines "made targeted killings all over the world a normal part of US policy".

Critics of Haines's drone policy guidelines said though the guidelines stipulate "direct action must be conducted lawfully and taken against lawful targets," the guidelines do not reference any international or domestic law that might permit extrajudicial killings outside an active war zone. Opponents of US drone warfare have noted that Haines redacted the minimum criteria for an individual to be "nominated" for lethal action, that the term "nominated" is a deceptive euphemism for targeting people for assassination, and that the drone guidelines allow for the assassination of US citizens without due process.
---

"Wales said CISA this week provided federal agencies with detailed guidance on how to evict hostile actors from their networks as well as a forensic scanning tool to be deployed on any device that was running a compromised version of SolarWinds Orion."
---

Ultimately the speculation leads one to infer that federal cybersecurity is co-opted via silicon valley and they're profiting off of private buisnesses while reviewing all of their data and more so figuring out who and or what actual groups are threats and who aren't. It more or less explains how private entities, buisnesses are being managed through the government, almost explictly. At first one might have thought,"well, thinktanks and global elite are playing inside baseball and you can't get rid of them." Which is obviously happening, yet the indirect/direct approach with the government having complete 24/7 access to buisnesses secruity infracturature more or less explains the whole story if actually true on a large scale, which Gartner's would have us believe. They claim it's just 'predictions' and 'trends' from a security consulating serivce, yet consultating firms are by far and away the shadiest groups out there.

---
Gartner’s top 10 govt tech trends for 2021
[...]

  1. Adaptive security

Adaptive security is about meeting the needs of modern dispersed infrastructure as opposed to the traditional perimeter approach.


It anticipates and mitigates constantly evolving threats using prediction, prevention, detection and response."

  1. Anything as a service (XaaS)

Government will not be immune to the trend toward subscription services.


XaaS offers an alternative to legacy infrastructure modernisation, provides scalability and reduces time to deliver digital services.


According to Gartner, 95 percent of new IT investments made by government agencies will be made as a service solution by 2025.


Gartner has predicted that 75 percent of government CIOs will be directly responsible for security outside of IT by 2025, including operational and mission-critical technology environments."

[...]

  1. Citizen digital identity

A hot-topic already, governments are looking at ways to allow citizens to prove their identity via any digital channel, which is critical for inclusion and access to government services.


Gartner has stated that a true global, portable, decentralised identity standard will emerge in the market by 2024, to address business, personal, social and societal, and identity-invisible use cases.
---
You have to read the whole list and anyone in the 5 eyes should be following our allies local gov news, needless to say, it's what's coming down the pipeline most likely so those with some actual sway and skin in the game should take note and try to offset some of these cybersecurity measures, yet it might be too little too late.
 
Last edited:

CERN

Pigeon
"According to Gartner, more than 50% of enterprises will begin to adopt remote browsers in order to reduce the impact of cyber attacks over the next three years [...]"

Enterprises. Keyword here; i.e. buisnesses. That's what they care about ultimately.

This is the cyberbully half-truth,"Cybersecurity best practice dictates that you should not expose your local PC or laptop to the public internet, it's the easiest way to have it become infected." - This is a half-truth more or less. When's the last time you or anyone you know actually ever got their computer infected? It's a serious question, because unless directly downloading from torrents a standard firewall is going to block many potential problems. It's not to say you can't ever get malware, but the odds don't justify the cyber security threat going on here. Essentially because computers are complex and easily misunderstood the vast majority of public consensus on them is to defer to the 'authority' on the topic; i.e. the public will gladly use 'Amazon Remote Browser" if it's 'safe and secure' because like covid things which can't be seen people are afriad of. What they can't see and don't understand makes people self protective, all the more in the cybersecurity world.

The actual possible security threat is in fact the 'security' vendors themselves. In other words by buying into cloud based remote 'security' you're in effect buying into government oversight and the guise of security is enough to lure most buisnesses into the web. It's a kind of odd problem with no solution because it's entirely baked into the cybersecurity hivemind. Essentially by being in their remote cloud (their clouds are most assuredly connected) you are giving up your buisnesses privacy 100%. Most people who aren't buisness owners could care less and on the surface it looks legal, but like I tried to demonstrate, connect a few dots and you can see rather quickly how cybersecurity is playing a game with the federal gov and silicon valley, they are most likely one in the same, yet undermining the public and the general infrastructure. It's essentially illusionary security all going directly to the hivemind of silicon valley and those in charge of the federal security operations.

What you're left with is a gov who knows exactly what you think and how your buisness operates. In short, their isn't a security threat where your buisness needs 'government level security protection' which is tied to silicion valley whose tied to the gov hivemind. I would have to actually go through and individually check but almost every one of these cybersecurity vendors is, as far as I can tell, has 24/7 access.

If you know the problems with Cloudflare than this is similar to what I'm saying though more complex because many of these cyber security vendors appear to be directly and explcitly aligned with the federal governement. So, you end up with buisnesses being pushed into 'needing online security' and the gov literally viewing everything on them concurrently. It allows the gov to control individual actors and mobilize them if need be in a large way.
 
Last edited:
Top