[Battlemesh] New name for the Battlemesh?

[Vincent Wiemann]

Hi yanosz,

you're right. This is all very bad and insane, but I think you underestimate the danger of not interfering.
If you as an enlightened person step back from interfering, psychopaths and narcissists take your place.
And they don't have these scruples...

The philosophical and ethical background of my opinion is simple, but long and complex at first sight
(please excuse my historic simplifications and remarks):

When you look at history the Roman Empire became the catholic church, but some governors (Kings and Emperors) rebelled against the pope
by spreading Protestantism.
This lead to the Thirty Years' War where Europe was controlled by people who were more like war-lords than Kings.
Europe was overpopulated and hard to control. Robber gangs became powerful. War was an option to reduce the population, control the
people with fear and increase one's territory and wealth like the crusades were.
They used religion to form alliances. After the war (which nobody really won) first nation states like France established, but
through colonization and industrialization they became too powerful which lead to the Napoleonic Wars.
The new, but short peace in Europe was established by nerds like us by forming supranational alliances
which controlled the nations by weakening or strengthening them, creating new weapons and technology and forming peaceful alliances
by diplomacy (Enlightenment movements). The Prussian empire was strengthened therefore and Germany was unified with a national ideology.
Autocrats striving for power, bankers and manufacturers were interested to profit from war and in producing new goods.
So they undermined the enlightenment movements and promoted the Hague Land Warfare Order to wage war in a way which should limit the
detriments. This allowed the first world war to happen. When nations were weakened, private actors began to support ideological movements
to destroy the idea of nations. This lead to racism, national socialism, fascism and bolshevism to establish as forming state doctrines.
Then there was another world war started by the German national socialists and financed by private actors from all over the world.
Eventually the UN was established which should act as a supranation in the affairs, protect national diversity and form some
kind of one-world supra-government and on the other side the soviet union propagating communism also aiming to form a one-world government.
When people look back at this time they remember the fear of nuclear annihilation, but nukes saved them from having another classic world war.
Instead states started to act with secret services which tried to spy on and undermine the enemies' economy.
Undeveloped countries became the theater of proxy wars. And that's where we are today.
The only thing that saves us from George Orwell's 1984 is the balance of power.
If you want to understand, why ideologies can never be the basis for a global government, you should read Karl R. Popper's books.
He said something like: "The problem with every ideology is that those who drive it forward expect to gain personal advantages.".
This understanding must be the basis for all supranational diplomacy.
That democracy can't work was already known to Cicero as he wrote about the circle of constitutions (first book 65-68) and
it was proven with Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump becoming presidents.
As Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government
except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...".

The USA possesses an expert system which is highly confidential, but parts of it can be seen by looking at the unveiling by Edward Snowden.
This system's purpose is to gain advantages in the processing of intelligence information.
E.g. Prism's purpose was to undermine agreements for cooperation in signals intelligence (UKUSA) and filter out and to
manipulate information automatically. These agreements are needed to circumvent the constitutions -
I spy on your citizens, you spy on mine and we share information about potential threats.

But Prism offended these agreements as the BND (German intelligence) realized that they got more information from
GCHQ (British intelligence) than from the NSA. When they asked where these information came from GCHQ said they came from the NSA.
So the BND knew the NSA was filtering and offending the agreement. After investigation it was found out that e.g. Echelon was also used
for industrial espionage. The NSA is spying on individuals in Germany which are of potential economic interest (and even Merkel's mobile phone).
This lead to e.g. the German and French intelligence services to develop their own systems to not rely on UKUSA and
eventually Trump threatening Germany. And that's where we are today.

The expert system uses a special language similar to Lojban. With it it's possible to "model" what human beings do, what they talk
about and to who and what they plan to do. Look at Lojban if you don't understand it. They have a distributed hierarchical database where they can store this
information efficiently and do queries. But as most of this information can't be feed easily (except e.g. your mobile phone's location),
prominently language, but also CCTV cameras, there are other systems to feed it.
E.g. they have a speech to text software using neural networks which was trained by a big translation service which offers to create
subtitles from audio and video and all the archived transcripts from the past where audio recordings exist.
You can surely imagine it works better than your iPhone-thing... The text can then be fed into a fork of the GF (Grammatical Framework)
which is some kind of semantic translation system to translate it to this Lojban-like language and store it in the database.
The database can be queried using clustering algorithms. These clusters are defined by so-called "selectors".
When you find out that someone was a terrorist, you can query his dataset and look for information which could have been
a hint that he was a terrorist (like buying some combination of chemicals at Walmart or just by talking about it on the phone).
You then create a selector based on this information and do a cluster analysis on the whole dataset.
The system might then tell you that it has found 5 other persons where this selector applies.
You then look at their datasets to rule out mistakes and refine your selector definition.
If you're not sure or you are sure that someone is a terrorist or just an interesting individual which you want to use for your
purposes, an analyst takes over to plan actions for agents like spying on that person or friends of them to get what they want.
The CIA has created and controls whole sub-cultures through social engineering and companies like those esoteric ones
and even the hacker-scene from which they recruit so-called "cut-outs" and brainwash them to act on their behalf,
sometimes without the cut-outs even knowing for who they work and sometimes even through drugging and hypnotizing them using
MKULTRA techniques.

What would you do against that?

My opinion is most people are naive and are being made stupid artificially. They just don't care and one can't really change it.
I was thinking like you before I've grasped how the world works.

Best,

CodeFetch


On 04.02.20 15:09, yanosz wrote:
> Heiho,
> 
> Am 04/02/2020 um 13.09 schrieb Vincent Wiemann:
>> Hi yanosz,
>>
>> On 04.02.20 12:02, yanosz wrote:
>>>> as long as mesh technology is mostly promoted by military suppliers, I like the name as it brings awareness.
>>>> Battlemesh is a good place to share ideas and I would miss the military people.
>>>
>>> You misunderstood the origin - there is no military reference. It can be
>>> understood regarding rap music, where artists perform in a given setting.
>>
>> I didn't think that a reference to the military was intended, but it's funny that people from the military milieu do.
> 
> For me this sad - not funny.
> 
>> Some people even think the B.A.T.M.A.N. logo is a reference to drones...
>> About 1/10th of the people I talked to did have a military or aerospace background.
>> People researching on submarine and satellite communications, upgrading field telephones, building radar and WLAN locating mechanisms,
>> building own radio boards, using transverters for using another spectrum, communicating in underground facilities,
>> communicating over long distances with cross-polarized omni antennas...
> 
> That's the reason I've come up with COSLi - https://cosli.eu
> 
>> The reality is that WLAN and mesh technology are used for battlefield communication and that is open knowledge
>> and it's naive and even dangerous to think these people don't attend Battlemesh.
> 
> I've no illusions here - but usually make very clear, that I'm not
> interested in building weapons due to my conscious. A lot of stuff is
> dual-use, but the case-by-base intentions definitely matter for me.
> 
> It's the use-case and the intention, which is making the difference in
> dual-use situations.
> 
>> Thus I think it's good to be aware and there is no reason to change the name, as it doesn't change anything.
>> It's better to be paranoid than naive and it's better when these people get in touch with people with critical thinking...
> 
> Your reasoning appears to be bouncing between two extremes. IMHO having
> a nice and inviting name focusing on non-military use-case is open to
> people and encourages them to participate.
> 
>>> Typically hitting civilians, mines effectively violate the Geneva treaty
>>> and are understood to be a war crime.
>>
>> Yes, that sucks. I totally agree with you...
>>
>>>> You should keep in mind that only Russia, China and the USA have a good alternative to mesh technology (satellites).
>>>
>>> These countries are the prominent for not being subject to international
>>> jurisdiction and cannot be made responsible for war crimes.
>>
>> Thus I think the rest of the world should at least have a good mesh system without any backdoors.
> 
> For the purpose of controlling landmines? I don't think so.
> 
>>>> Would it be better to have "satellite mines"?
>>>
>>> I don't see, in what way a decision based on ethics could prefer one way
>>> for committing war crimes over another.
>>
>> Holding the balance of power is everything one can do for peace. 
> 
> I disagree. There are other things that you can do for peace.
> 
> If you look at history, peace among European nation states or in civil
> wars (e.g. Nothern Ireland), does not solely exists due to a balance of
> power. Economic interest and methods for resolving conflicts play a very
> important role.
> 
>> One needs to increase the costs of war on both sides.
>> Everything else leads to a one-world government restricting the freedom of the people in the long-run.
> 
> I don't see, why methods for resolving conflicts - being part of your
> definition of "every thing else" - such as non-violent communication
> will result to a one-world government restricting freedom. (c.f.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg). This is just absurd.
> 
>> If we could somehow discourage the US government from using smart meshed land or sea mines, the best thing that could
>> happen is that they switch to satellite communication and the worst thing that they use primitive mines which can't be defused just by sending a radio signal.
> 
> You can neither expect smart-mines to be defused with a 100% success
> rate (hint: this is more than six-sigma), nor to avoid civilians while
> there are armed.
> 
> The difference between a war crime and an act of war is whether the
> Geneva treaty is respected, i.e. civilians are protected. That means
> aiming at military personal, /only/. A mine cannot aim at somebody.
> 
> I'm against having war criminals and their collaborationist at battlemesh.
> 
>>>> What's worse? Having open access to and knowledge of military technology or building flawed systems in secret which decide
>>>> on war or peace?
>>>
>>> It's worse to hand over decision on war in peace to technology.
>>
>> Yes, but it has already been done (nuclear bombs) and there is no way back.
>> The modern battlefield needs battlefield management and communication systems.
>> Every country has them today. At least since Xiang Li sold cracked versions of AGI systems' battlefield management system for
>> $1000 on CRACK99. For using battlefield management systems one needs a battlefield communication system.
>> And these need to be deployable in an idiot-proof way. That's where mesh comes into play.
> I'm not interested in building these systems and I won't attend
> conferences on doing so.
> 
> Greetz, yanosz
>