> Sorry I hope that didn't sound less than grateful for your responses. I
> appreciate them and am hoping for more thoughts on this topic!
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Jesse Sanford<jessesanf...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Yes I am aware of Tor and it is certainly a version of what I meant with
>> the "masking spoofing" hiding in the ether kind of thing. But what if there
>> is a massive shutdown of civilian internet providers within an area in need
>> of communication.
>> I do realize that obviously no one answer is enough. There will need to be
>> a tool chest of approaches available and used depending on the scenario at
>> hand. It would seem that there could be a handbook of sorts (if there is
>> not one already) that describes scenarios and when/how to escalate/switch
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Michael Shiloh<
>> michaelshiloh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Discussions around the tor project cover much of this ground. You might
>>> want to join some of their mailing lists.
>>> On 01/09/2012 08:13 AM, Jesse Sanford wrote:
>>>> Hello all, I am quite interested in the above topic for personal reasons
>>>> but also for the benefit for all of us the future of democracy becomes
>>>> and more dependent on the free and open exchange of information. As we
>>>> know the words "free and open" carry a lot of weight and many overtones
>>>> let me just qualify them by saying that by free I mean uninterrupted,
>>>> uncorrupted, not necessarily secret, but impervious to disruption by
>>>> intermediary parties. By open I mean available to every single human
>>>> and completely transparent as in no part of the system composing the
>>>> for the communication is a mystery to any party wishing to use the
>>>> My question for the group is what systems fall within the above
>>>> definitions. Obviously the internet that we currently use daily only
>>>> partially fits the bill. Only via some routes are our communications
>>>> guaranteed uncorrupted and even then we are not truly guaranteed that
>>>> are not disrupted. TCP as a network protocol only insures that if the
>>>> receiver is alive and able to receive that your packets will get to
>>>> the receiver eventually. But what if someone intentionally takes down a
>>>> switch between you and your destination. Now what if someone takes down
>>>> switches between you and your destination? It seems to me that it would
>>>> impossible to rely on the internet as it is solely given an opponent with
>>>> control over the infrastructure that your messages will travel on. So
>>>> would seem to be two approaches to deal with this situation. A) Hide your
>>>> communications so that your opponent does not know what parts of the
>>>> infrastructure you are using. B) use infrastructure your opponent does
>>>> have control over.
>>>> A) implies masking and possibly spoofing to hide in the ether.
>>>> B) implies a federated approach to the communication. Possibly to the
>>>> of using alternate physical means of communication (Point to point laser,
>>>> microwave, Ham etc)
>>>> Does anyone have any experience with these types of scenarios? I know we
>>>> saw a lot of internet disruptions in the mid east uprisings last spring.
>>>> all know that the trend will continue. How can we deal with this in the
>>>> future? I do believe this is essential to the preservation of democracy
>>>> here on earth. Without the ability for people to communicate at scale we
>>>> cannot self govern.
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "NYCResistor:Microcontrollers" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to nycresistormicrocontrollers@**
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org<nycresistormicro controllers%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/**