It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something is wrong with modern electronic devices

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Notice the net neutrality thread ? Its something related to this.

I didnt look into mesh network yet, but I think you got the wrong term/jargon there. But I think I get what you guys proposing.

Current method is U2U like, Alice send to server, server send to Bob.

I think what you guys proposing is something like Kazaa filesharing, which have problem of "availability", everyone interconnected and relay each other message ? Its cool until Bob go to Alaska, nobody near enough to relay to him.

The third method is BitTorent style, client register with server, gets contact info and proceed to contact the client itself. This one still have the "availability" problem.

The next gen of computer communication protocol is "the message tell where it want to go", current implementation "the message was told where it should go". This tech is just in proposal, prolly your gr8 gr8 grandchild will use it.

This is when the net neutrality question arise, why Google and data/communication carrier want to apply different tariff to different data on different network.

Observe this, a video conferencing using 2 method:
Alice video conference with Bob using normal method - some hefty big price paid for the communication.
Alice and Bob chatting and video conferencing through internet - price of a monthly internet access and the video conference can go on forever.

This is where the mobile telephone company step in and said
"Video pay higher!" look around to Google, "You paying ?",
Google:"Lets charge the customer depends on what they use/access, you cant charge me coz I dont have access to what user using/from where/through what. Also I have lots of text and data, not just video.".

So, the OP question complaining about high price and lack of privacy is being replied by
"Pay Higher and We Want to Know What You Download/Use"

In any way, the future wont change much, the net neutrality is new problem for us. And we will still stuck to this Alice-Tower-KGB-Tower-Bob.

On privacy implementation, here how it work, as explain by some.
Alice decrpyt message using public key - gets garbage
Send garbage to tower, tower send to KGB, KGB see garbage,
tower might send or might not send the garbage to Bob
If Bob receive the garbage, he can decrypt it using his private key.

The message is already garbage before it even hit the tower/relays, thats why PGP is kinda trusted choice. Theres no need/no effect if tower/relay encrpt or not, doesnt matter.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

Originally posted by Skippy1138
I'm not really seeing how this is a "conspiracy".....


You don't see how this is a conspiracy?


It's just that it's a waste of energy, everything you text can be seen, and costs ten times as much in green.

S&F Op


I get it now- I missed the point the OP was trying to make about it being a "money" thing....(It was late when I read it and I'm old and feeble)



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
There is nothing wrong with electronic communication devices. They work as designed, and for the most part do it efficiently.

The problem is people having the expectation of secure communications while having a middle man. Whether you use a cell phone or pony express, if you trust your communications to a middle man you give up security for convenience.

Forget the gov't and alphabet agencies, do you know what the capability of a computer or two, some off the shelf hardware, a little electronics knowledge and some freeware is?

There are ways to communicate securely, they just may cost more and be less convenient than pulling out your cell phone.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Primordial]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
Money is the answer.

Phone to phone=NO MONEY

Phone to cell relay network to phone=BIG MONEY

That relay network is where all the money is made. Same goes for the INTERNET.
Computer to computer= NO MONEY

Computer to ISP network to Computer=BIG MONEY

[edit on 8/31/2010 by fixer1967]


Thanks for explaining this in simple terms. I never really understood how all this really works. Not very tech savy


Electronics tend to malfunction a lot when I touch them..It's a curse I swear.

The more I find out how this tech works the creepier it gets.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Originally posted by fixer1967
Money is the answer.

Phone to phone=NO MONEY

Phone to cell relay network to phone=BIG MONEY

That relay network is where all the money is made. Same goes for the INTERNET.
Computer to computer= NO MONEY

Computer to ISP network to Computer=BIG MONEY

[edit on 8/31/2010 by fixer1967]


Thanks for explaining this in simple terms. I never really understood how all this really works. Not very tech savy

reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


This is not how it works. You need a cell network or wide area network in order to communicate with devices over any non-trivial distance. To say that such infrastructures are not necessary and are essentially hoaxes to make money shows a woeful grasp of comms. technology.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
It's happening, orrather, we allow it to happen for the sake of "convenience", simple as that.
We've just gotten accustomed to it without ever questioning it.
Truly not not the best or safest means of communicating but it is what it is, and it's the preferred method of communication (PMC) for many.

BTW, did you know that all ATM's actually run on a Windows CE platform?
Scary, ain't it?
this is exactly the case, the ones paying the cell bill are the allowers of such infiltration of spies.
However no one will give up their cells now to dispute it. and they know it.
Got ya by the short hairs



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
If Alice wants to talk to Bob, perhaps she should go talk to Bob...

Device-to-device communication has already been done and the public largely ignored it. Remember the Palm Pilots? I have vivid memories of bouncing messages back and forth between Palm users in the same room - that was all done without the towers.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The REAL issue with electronics are 'Tin Whiskers'.... (and other forms of metallic whiskers).

Now with lead-free products, more and more tin coatings are in electronics. Look in your old TV, you'll see it on capacitors..



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Another thing, because of the way cell phones currently work anyone with the right software can pluck text messages out of the air from a mile away to apparently (although it didn't say how big his antenna was).

So if you know any young girls, tell them that if they if they text someone a nude picture of themselves, there is the possibility that anyone located up to a mile away from them can intercept and read that "message."

EDIT: By this I mean that you could do this on your computer. All you would need would be an antenna to plug into a USB port, and to know where to get the appropriate software.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by scwizard]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
epic fail

bluetooth



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Could be the 'RADIATION' of it all.

Know what I mean.....

Cell phone cooker?

"Repeat.....Over".....there appears to be some static on the line.....[perhaps it's just a lil brain damage].

Oh, 'Good' day.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
why the
is this front page absolute drivel
second line



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
My 360 RROD, is that a conspiracy?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Its a very inefficient system that relies on "companies" to build towers to control the flow of information for you. This is the idea though, they want/need you to rely on them otherwise their monthly fee just went out the damn window along with their profits.

Current computer/internet technology is viable enough for people to pretty much cut out cell phone companies all together. The only thing needed would be a one time purchase of a cell-phone, the rest of the cell phone functions could be adapted and handled via internet and your monthly internet bill.

There is alot of redundancy involved in the markets these days. I mean for christ sake they are charging you to pay your bills online or by phone anymore just because its so incredibly practical and easy for people to do. "convinience fee" as they like to refer to them.

They are sqeezing every possible penny out of every possible thing.

Of course there is something wrong with modern elecrtronic devices...and thats because there is something wrong with the backwards conflic of interest corporate/capitalist system.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Sly1one]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Thank you for answering these questions, it saved me some time. You are correct, it's hard to manage encryption keys with a network such as that used for mobile phones. And you can actually send data straight to another phone close to you, it's called blue-tooth.



Exactly. If I am in the same room with someone, I can send them any data I want to directly over bluetooth...and with jailbroken iphones/ipod touches, it is very easy to avoid the cell towers alltogether.

--J



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Anyone against modern communication is missing the point. --That our government is here to SAFELY *allow* public communication like we've never previously *enjoyed.* That being said, it is IMPERATIVE that the government be allowed to screen messages and discover TERRORISTS.

The government is there to fight TERRORISTS and bring them DOWN. Screening communication is a necessary evil to help them keep ALL OF US *SAFE.* Only terrorists have something to fear, something to lose. It is essential that the public supports this so we can send more *bad guys* to Guantanimo Bay where they won't hurt anyone else.

It might be an *inconvenient notion* knowing that all/most communications are being monitored by alpahbet soup agencies. But, in the end, we are *alive* to experience that inconvenient notion. How many terrorist plots have been thwarted (that we will most likely never hear about) because of communications screenings? If they told us, they'd lose the advantage.

I don't know about anyone else, but no Big Brother policemen have come down my street yanking people out of their homes. We are safer, even if we have less privacy. Again, the bad guys (or cheating spouses) are the ones who have something to hide.

Maybe the story that Adam and Eve had no shame and walked around naked was an analogy about privacy... that they had nothing to hide. Maybe their nudity was not just about wearing clothes, but about not being ashamed of anything they said or did, too.

Most of the above was half-joking satire.
BUT... While I don't really like the idea of government monitoring, it also has not in any way affected my day-to-day existence. What can we really do about it? I mean, the Patriot Act made all of this legal, right?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by scwizard
 

i rolled down from my chair after it
Total Control is just despairful dream of different clans along History of the Globe, but History haven't known more effective ways to control society than internal fear of big bro or non-educationals.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by scwizard
 


You want to know what I think? I think all this technology is a complete bloody nuisence and I can't think for the life of me why I got sucked in to it like everyone else. I still recall the days we had no technology and my milk was delivered to my door in glass bottles; they were the best years of my life!!!



so go live in the woods then.

we'd like to keep our technology it makes life easier.

we just want it without all the survaillance and energy waste and big corporate money making schemes.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Anyone against modern communication is missing the point. --That our government is here to SAFELY *allow* public communication like we've never previously *enjoyed.* That being said, it is IMPERATIVE that the government be allowed to screen messages and discover TERRORISTS.


Hate to point this out to you but it is YOU who are missing the point. The point is you cannot have two systems exist that are in complete contradiction to each other. IE you cannot have a SAFE and SECURE world that is FREE because to be SAFE and SECURE you constantly have to hand over your freedoms. In a FREE world you cannot be safe because that FREEDOM can be used to create "UNSAFE" situations.

Don't know if you know this but here in the US we drafted a constitution that attempted to guarentee FREEDOMS and RIGHTS....NOT your guarenteed SAFETY and SECURITY.


The government is there to fight TERRORISTS and bring them DOWN. Screening communication is a necessary evil to help them keep ALL OF US *SAFE.* Only terrorists have something to fear, something to lose. It is essential that the public supports this so we can send more *bad guys* to Guantanimo Bay where they won't hurt anyone else.


HUGE assumption there on your part thinking the government is there to fight "TERRORISTS" honestly there is more evidence that they do nothing but promote terrorism as a justification for these "necessary evils" you speak of to keep weak kneed dependant slaves scared so SH**less they will let TPTB search their arse cavity for the boogie-man.


It might be an *inconvenient notion* knowing that all/most communications are being monitored by alpahbet soup agencies. But, in the end, we are *alive* to experience that inconvenient notion. How many terrorist plots have been thwarted (that we will most likely never hear about) because of communications screenings? If they told us, they'd lose the advantage.


Its not an inconvienience as mush as it is a down rigth violation of a persons right to be left the hell alone and say whatever the hell they want without delta force crashin in on your house.


I don't know about anyone else, but no Big Brother policemen have come down my street yanking people out of their homes. We are safer, even if we have less privacy. Again, the bad guys (or cheating spouses) are the ones who have something to hide.


I don't know about anyone else but no terrorists have come down my street planting IED's outside my garage. And this whole privacy issue isnt as much about "hiding something" as it is about that information being "abused" or "misused" by some corrupt a-hole, and believe me those exist, regardless of how much you think everyone likes you and wants to keep you safe.


Maybe the story that Adam and Eve had no shame and walked around naked was an analogy about privacy... that they had nothing to hide. Maybe their nudity was not just about wearing clothes, but about not being ashamed of anything they said or did, too.


You could be right but then again they didnt have a CEO with the power of god telling them if you say "XXX" were going to toss your ass in guitanimo bay for a looong time. They had nothing to hide because there was no one there to abuse them for what they said.


Most of the above was half-joking satire.
BUT... While I don't really like the idea of government monitoring, it also has not in any way affected my day-to-day existence. What can we really do about it? I mean, the Patriot Act made all of this legal, right?


Damn you got me, still though my answers to your satire remain lol.
And you are right, it hasn't affected most people's day to day existances yet because for the most part were all still very conforming slaves still participating in the system.

Additionally while it still hasnt affected my personal life too extremely much, it set s precedence



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
As long as my messages get through then I have no problem whatsoever with my texts being read by some dude I don't know and will never meet.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join