Author Archives: Peter

Heartbleed Info

Because I have failed my duties as a blogger who not only aims to philosophical and religious discussions, but also posts about internet security and data privacy by not writing anything formal about the massive “Heartbleed” exploit in the openSSL protocol, I will provide the following videos if anyone is still interested.

So while it is too late for me to write a dedicated post (given the sheer number that exist), there are a few videos that are important for the layperson to see if they want to understand what “Heartbleed” actually is.

The first is a video from Elastica Inc. explaining the “Heartbeat” program in openSSL:



The next is a video by Lynda indicating what companies are doing to fix the exploit as well as what you should once a company has fixed the exploit (you can check to see if a company has fixed the exploit using this handy tool by LastPass):

Additionally, if sites offer it, you should enable two-step verification and you can read how to do that here.

And finally, a wise thing to do is to utilize a password manager (I explain them indepth here) and change them if needed. For instructions on how to use a password manager efficiently, please see my explanation here.

Equal in Ability vs. Equal in Being

So there’s a sad trend that I’ve noticed that occurs both in neo-reactionary circles as well as on Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and that is to conflate equal in ability to equal in being. Specifically, the argument that is often touted is that “well some people are stronger than others and some races are smarter than others etc. so you can’t say humans are equal!”.  (an example is this article)

But to say this is to commit a fallacy. It assumes that the argument egalitarians make is that true human equality means that humans are all the same, when in actuality the argument is not that all humans are exactly the same, rather, that there is some common standard amongst humans and this standard (which I’ll talk about later) is constant. And if this standard is constant, it is a baseline for what it means to be human and thus, on the most rudimentary level, creates possessing this standard or characteristic (humans) would be ontologically equal – that is, equal in being.

This would be, for the most part, a species classification. For example: some breeds of dogs are smarter than others, some are more aggressive than others, and some are just down right cute. [fig 1.] But at the end of the day, they are all still dogs and thus, if one assigns moral judgements based on species, they would be ontologically equal while not being physically equal.

[fig 1. – My little baby in a cowboy hat for New Years!]

Now humans are an interesting bunch (one that I don’t care for all too much) in that there is debate over whether there is a unifying standard, that is, something that every human has and is something that makes us human. Theists would argue a soul, Kantian’s would argue rationality (haha), and others would argue nothing. I honestly have no idea. I have no idea if such a standard exists. So I will leave with a comment and a few residual questions. I don’t know if there is some unifying feature in humanity and to be honest, I don’t care a huge amount. But I do care when people falsely conflate equal in ability to equal in being. They are not one in the same – someone can be one but not the other (much like a square is a rectangle but not vice versa per se).

So readers: is there a unifying human standard? I would love to hear what you think.

But in your analyses please consider the following questions:

  • is the standard inherent to what it means to be human – that is, do all humans meet it?
  • if some don’t meet it, are they not human?
  • and if so, how should one evaluate them?

Abortion: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and the Alternatives

Introduction

Pre-disclaimer disclaimer: Since half of this post is me taking an unpopular opinion that most individuals will dislike, this post will be considerably longer than others because I’m justifying my worldview. So yeah.

Here is a disclaimer that I think is also important:

Okay, so this is something I didn’t really want to write about/have been holding off because I realize my views differ from most, if not all, other reactionaries on here and that I’m friends with so just so everyone knows, before I explain why I feel each way, I am not pro-life nor would I say I’m pro-choice per se, rather, I’m pro-death. so if you’re pissed at me, I’m sorry, stop reading.
(>inb4 “you’re literally _X_)

Here’s how this post will work, the first half will talk about what I mean when I say I’m “pro-death” and how that interacts with the abortion debate and the “sanctity of life”. The second part will operate under a framework of NOT pro-death and I’ll explain why, under that framework, I’m pro-choice to an extent. So, let’s do it.

Continue reading →

Happy Data Privacy Day! – Security Setup

Table of Contents (ToC Links not Working Yet)

1. Introduction
2. Passwords and Managers
3. Browsers and Add-ons
4. Email Providers and Clients
5. Data Encryption
6. Anonymity
7. How-To’s
8. Notes

Part 1. Introduction

In light of revelations about the NSA’s role in illegal domestic surveillance (x), and this terrifyingly hilarious photo inside a US army base (fig. 1), downloads of anonymity programs and browsers such as Tor (The Onion Router) have skyrocketed as people become more aware of what the government is doing and what “privacy” actually means. In fact, usage of Tor is up by over 100% and the so called “Dark Web” has risen to the Scroll to bottom spotlight. This surge, however, has been met with a downside – a false sense of security. The aim of this post will be to share the methods I use to keep information private and methods that one could use to attempt to remain anonymous on the internet. (Later posts may, if the need arises, be centered around specific security aspects)

Now this being said, there are a few disclaimers:

  1. The most obvious – I choose to share information about me on the designated page not because I do not know how to be secure, but because I am willing to share this much. I am also willing to stand by my convictions, thus I sign my name. That being said, incognito personas are fun and I maintain a few.
  2. There is rarely, if ever, total security. Someone wiser than I once said “a false sense of security is worse than being unsure”[1]. The point of this post is to give you the tools to try to be secure.
  3. These are just the tools I use, if you want to complain, use the comments section or, as will be linked to throughout the post, read some other article.
  4. Finally, I am no expert in the academic sense of the word, rather, I am an enthusiast who wants to learn and share what he has learned. As such, don’t take my explanations with the same rigor as you would Jacob Appelbaum or Bruce Schneier.

Continue reading →