i have accepted that you are right about what they are building.
and that is why i have lost interest in tc. because in my eyes what you wish for is monstrous.
i'm not here desiring to get reinvolved in the wave conversation. i've stated my opinion and left wave-world behind for folks like yourself. i was interested in tc for reasons of which you are contemptuous. that the reasonable purpose of tc was to develop a secure end user trust matrix.
the trust matrix was an interesting idea. it is worth something to create an environment in which end users could, without oversight, exchange, store and use information within a robust framework. it is akin to introducing a basic foundation for property rights while also crystallising a kind of assured and particular online personality for unique end users that is equivalent to those we inhabit outside cyberspace.
such a model depends upon identities of various types, including the identity of the machine and the identity of the user. for purposes of end user trust, it is critical that personal identity remains the end user's property and is revealed only when they wish it.
but that is not what is happening. as you point out, tc just raises the security bar a little for end users.
raising the security bar for end users while conceding robust identity to the surveillance people is a toxic transaction. i have no interest in tc as a tool that aids surveillance. i have almost no interest in tc as a means of protecting users from viruses, if that is all it offers.
in the architectural phase, the end user matrix idea has died.
the fact that you understand this and find it acceptable is what horrifies me about you. your position is amoral or worse in my eyes. it's only about making money. you'd sell the privacy of all the world's end users to the us government, to the carriers, to the vendors - to the highest bidder, so long as you make a return.
i kinda get it for folks who are locked into a loss which they are trying to recover. but you have a different purpose. you support the state of tc in hopes of making a big win. you promote it relentlessly with no regard to the implications of a tc-enabled, surveillance-enhancing network.
and yet. tc represents the end of privacy between the end user and the state. the last protection against surveillance was that actually, they did not know who the device's user actually is. with tc, they will do. and this knowledge has enormous value to them. the price of tc is that i lose the final piece of my privacy. and that is repugnant.
tc is becoming just a means to give folks like nsa and the carriers exactly what they want. even more precise profiling information. i want no part of that.
it's exactly the opposite of what i invested in. in this new guise, offering a piffling benefit to end users while offering a valuable instrument to people like general alexander, i hope tc fails. i'd rather deal with insecurity in cyberspace than increased state oversight.
sad to see the perversion of a good idea. because the surveillance state is antagonistic to freedom and the rule of law. cyberspace is now destroying our liberties not just online, but also, because we carry our phones with us everywhere, offline as well. and as such, it gives the state an arbitrary and intrusive power that would make even Orwell blanche.
perhaps you are bored by the conversation of wavoids and miss someone to oppose. but the tc that has emerged is at best dull to me and i have no wish to get embroiled in the same circular discussion. i'm done with tc. it isn't the cure for the problems i identified long ago. indeed, it makes things worse. i've made my mind up about what its purpose is. i'd rather study the premier league.
| 
