- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

[dave@farber.net: [IP] NORAD orders Web deletion of transcript]]
by Eugen Leitl 13 Mar '06

13 Mar '06

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

[dave@farber.net: [IP] Essay on Data Mining]
by Eugen Leitl 13 Mar '06

13 Mar '06

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

Justin Berry and related incidents
by Greg Rider 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

This is happening more and more lately. Perhaps you might be interested in the Brian Peppers incident? It's very convoluted (intentionally made that way by members of Wikipedia who seek to supress this information), so allow me to oversimplify what happened: 1. A few kids wrote garbage articles about Brian Peppers, they were deleted. 2. Someone writes a well-referenced article about Brian Peppers, and it is re-deleted under the notion that it was somehow a "recreation of deleted content". 3. An administrator attempts to point this out, and the facts slowly become obfuscated. 4. A vote is held, twice, regarding the rewritten article, both times there being a majority (66%) vote supporting to keep the article. 5. Jimbo Wales DELETES the article, stating that, and I quote: "I didn't delete it on a whim. It was an inappropriate recreation of previously AfD's content, and should have been speedied right off the bat. The only thing out of process here was inappropriate recreation.--Jimbo Wales 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" There is a lot to sort out in this big mess, if you're interested I can provide you links. I also have access to deleted records, as all deleted edits are viewable by administrators of Wikipedia. If you need copies of anything which was deleted, please let me know, I'd be *MORE* than happy to help you. (So long as he has not had the developers delete the deleted entry, all deleted edits are more accurately decribed as "hidden".) I hope to hear from you soon. (P.S., see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29 )

1 0

Best Pharmacy G4Er
by Jewell Otero 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

Huge selection of meds available at attractive prices. Highest quality assured. Try us out today.. http://au.geocities.com/penn8180merwyn83950/ t9AM

1 0

[dewayne@warpspeed.com: [Dewayne-Net] Tracking Secret Operatives Not Too Tough]
by Eugen Leitl 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

----- Forwarded message from Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne(a)warpspeed.com> -----

1 0

Lose Weight in 1 Week hnNqZ
by Gertrude Deleon 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

Dream of nice shape body? Try Hoodia Maximum Strength and see the results for yourself. We are so confident that you will love the new you or will cheerfully refund your money. Try Us Today.. http://043.secureehoodia.com EDb

1 0

RE: Justin Berry, Jimbo Wales, and Wikipedia
by John Young 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

We posted Eric's comments to Wikipedia, and four mintues later they had been removed. We posted a Wiki comment at the Berry entry about Wikipeida's censorship of the item and a pointer to Cryptome's hosting of the comments, and that was censored five minutes later. So an entry about the censorship was added to Cryptome's entry on Wiki. Screen shots of the process: http://cryptome.org/justin-berry.htm

4 5

Fuller & Harder Erections
by Al Kidd 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

With viagra, optimal sexual function can be restored for nearly every man who desire it, in a matter of minutes. Viagra helps you: * To have firmer erection * Enjoy sex life better * Fulfil partner's sexual needs * Bolster self confidence * Renew and strengthen sex life * Restore intimacy * Solidify sexual bonds http://jkmbcdefhlag.webworldfree.com/?iagxwqowyjkmzgvbcdefhl committeeman

1 0

Justin Berry, Jimbo Wales, and Wikipedia
by Eric Cordian 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

A few weeks ago, a NY Times reporter named Kurt Eichenwald wrote a series of articles on a 19 year old young man named Justin Berry, who made hundreds of thousands of dollars starting at age 13 performing sexually in front of his webcam, and subsequently ran a number of pay teen sites with sexual content. There used to be a fairly lengthy article about Mr. Berry on Wikipedia, but it was summarily deleted, along with its entire revision history, by Wikipedia's owner, Jimbo Wales, and it is represented that Mr. Berry called Mr. Wales and expressed displeasure at his portrayal. Since that time, the article has been reduced to a 2-sentence stub, and all attempts to add any additional information to it, no matter how well sourced, have resulted in the additions being reverted, usually accompanied by various incomprehensible mutterings by Wikipedia admins, who, when asked specific direct questions about what was wrong with the original article, or why specific information can't be added to the current one, become non-responsive and stonewalled. To the best of my knowlege, no one has successfully added any information to the article since Jimbo deleted it, and discussion amongst admins about the article is taking place out of band, and not on any of the Wikipedia pages where such discussion usually takes place. Now of course, Wikipedia is a private organization, which can do anything it wants on servers that it owns. Nonetheless, the actions which are taking place are in direct contravention of stated Wikipedia policy, and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to not be forthcoming with any information on the subject. Everyone who has pressed the issue has gotten banned for various contrived excuses like "uncivility" and "trollishness", and even comments about the situation on peoples private talk pages have been edited by admins. While Wikipedia is a private organization, they are attempting to create a reputation for themselves as an unbiased source of truthful information. Clearly they have a choice of being truthful and being respected, or of censoring, violating their own policies, and not being taken seriously. When things like this happen, our respect for them, and our view of them as an authoritative source of information, need to be adjusted accordingly. I found an interesting quote by Jimbo Wales about Wikipedia and the truth. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Wikipedia, in the propaganda it writes about itself, represents itself as not censoring even offensive material, and arriving at article content entirely through consensus. The reality, at least in this case, seems to be a lot different than the officially stated policy. I invite Jimbo Wales or someone else who can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, to respond to this post, and give us all a straight answer about exactly what is going on with this particular article. If nothing can be added to Justin Berry's article because Justin or his handlers would be displeased by it, do we apply the same standards to George Bush's article, or Scott Peterson's? One wonders why a teenage male sex performer merits such personal attention from Wikipedia's owner, allegedly a wealthy married heterosexual. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

journalistic insecurity and facilitating whistleblower privacy
by coderman 11 Mar '06

11 Mar '06

more fallout from the top sekrit "national security letters" (30,000 issued per year, wonder how high this has increased with the new focus on journalistic sources?) """ On Tuesday, an email arrived from Dan Eggen, Justice Department correspondent for The Washington Post. Dan wanted a copy of the letter and more information on the story. That's right I write a story about how the Bush administration is monitoring the email of journalists and a journalist fires off an email asking me to violate the USA Patriot Act and risk certain jail time by providing him with a copy of a letter that I'm not even supposed to admit I have. ... Then I checked my voice mail to find a call from Robert O'Harrow Jr., another Post reporter, wanting information on my sources. Hmmm. I write a story about how the Bush administration is monitoring phone calls of reporters and a reporter calls me on the phone to obtain information on my confidential sources. Anyone see a pattern here? Next, I get both a phone call and an email from David Armstrong of the National Security News Service saying he is working with 60 Minutes on a story about domestic spying by the National Security Agency. He wants info on my sources. ... When Mark Felt, the number two man in the FBI, served as Post reporter Bob Woodward's primary source on Watergate, he insisted that Woodward avoid contact by telephone and devised a scheme of planted messages in a newspaper left at Woodward's door and meetings in an underground garage in Arlington.... My sources know better than to use phone lines and email to contact me. We've worked out elaborate, and always changing, methods for sharing information. """ are the vast majority of journalists really this brain dead? here is what i'd like to know from a reporter to whom i was about to divulge sensitive information: - do i _really_ trust you? even if they turn the screws? - do you know what physical security is (and implement it)? [ oops, is anyone left standing? ] - do you use network security best practices when communicating privately online? [ os up to date with security patches, unnecessary services disabled, firewall, etc ] - can i communicate via a secure channel? [ examples: whispered conversations in a noisy parking garage ;) off the record with mutually verified keys http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ other SSL mechanism with mutual authentication like http://openvpn.net/ pgp/gpg encrypted email (though this seems not so popular?) ] - do you protect your stored data appropriately? [ loop-aes encrypted volumes, FileVault, gpg encrypted files, etc ] - do you use good passwords/phrases for authentication? what other questions would you ask? --- http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/we_dont_burn_our_sources.html We don't burn our sources March 9, 2006 05:25 AM / The Rant . By DOUG THOMPSON One of the questions frequently raised by critics of this web site is "how can you guys have sources the mainstream media doesn't have?" Good question. We often quote confidential sources in our stories. We have a choice of depending on such sources or not publishing the story. If I'm satisfied the sources are accurate I go with the story. It's a question of trust and, during my 23 years in Washington as both a journalist and a political operative, I built up a network of sources I trust and who trust me to protect their identity and not put them in harm's way. More than 40 years in journalism taught me to protect such sources at all cost. Many of those same sources don't trust the so-called "mainstream media" outlets because they've been burned by journalists who put the story ahead of protecting those who provide them with the information. Even worse, the mainstreamers can be downright sloppy when it comes to protecting those who have such information. On Monday, I outlined how the Bush Administration has launched an all-out war on the press, directing attorney general Alberto Gonzales to go after reporters with subpoenas, wiretaps, monitoring of emails and surveillance to try and stop leaks about the many questionable activities of the White House. I learned about the efforts because the FBI made the incredibly stupid mistake of sending one of their "National Security Letters" to a company I own demanding information on one of its clients - me. Then I confirmed the story with my administration sources and ran with it on Monday, knowing that even acknowledging receipt of a National Security Letter could lead to trouble. The letter was withdrawn after my attorney negotiated a deal. On Tuesday, an email arrived from Dan Eggen, Justice Department correspondent for The Washington Post. Dan wanted a copy of the letter and more information on the story. That's right I write a story about how the Bush administration is monitoring the email of journalists and a journalist fires off an email asking me to violate the USA Patriot Act and risk certain jail time by providing him with a copy of a letter that I'm not even supposed to admit I have. In fact, I don't have it. I never did. The FBI sent the letter to my web hosting company offices which are 300 miles away from my home and studio. At my instructions it went from the employee who received it straight to my attorney and he dealt directly with the feds. I never saw the letter, do not know what happened to it and am not privy to details of what it said. I don't want to know. That's why I'm still sitting here and not on my way to Gitmo. Then I checked my voice mail to find a call from Robert O'Harrow Jr., another Post reporter, wanting information on my sources. Hmmm. I write a story about how the Bush administration is monitoring phone calls of reporters and a reporter calls me on the phone to obtain information on my confidential sources. Anyone see a pattern here? Next, I get both a phone call and an email from David Armstrong of the National Security News Service saying he is working with 60 Minutes on a story about domestic spying by the National Security Agency. He wants info on my sources. Let's see. A reporter uses both the telephone and email to request the names of confidential sources on a story about how the National Security Agency monitors telephone and email use of, you guessed it, reporters. Sorry guys. I'm not about to burn my sources when you take so little precaution in seeking information from me. Besides, I wouldn't help 60 Minutes if they were the only news outlet left on the face of the planet. In 1981 I served on a panel discussion with Fred Graham, then legal correspondent for CBS News. During a break I told him about a paper I once worked for, The Alton Telegraph in Illinois, which had lost a landmark libel suit for something they never published. I thought it might make a good story about injustice. Instead, Graham turned the story over to Morley Safer and 60 Minutes and they put together a hatchet job on the newspaper and told the story from a trial lawyer's point of view. Instead of defending freedom of the press, Safer and his crew sensationalized the story for ratings. Some years later, we would learn again just how 60 Minutes and CBS News hangs people out to dry. Jeffrey Wigand, a fired corporate vice president for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., blew the whistle on the company's campaign to hide the true dangers of nicotine. But 60 Minutes and Mike Wallace caved to corporate pressure and shelved the story after revealing Wigand's identity. His reputation was ruined by the network's incompetence. Given such track records, why should any source trust the mainstreamers? The Washington Post sends an unsecure email openly asking me to violate federal law by turning over a classified document and I'm supposed to believe they will protect sources that I've cultivated and protected for more than two decades? When Mark Felt, the number two man in the FBI, served as Post reporter Bob Woodward's primary source on Watergate, he insisted that Woodward avoid contact by telephone and devised a scheme of planted messages in a newspaper left at Woodward's door and meetings in an underground garage in Arlington. Felt knew using the telephone or other standard communications means of the time would lead the secrecy-obsessed Nixon White House to his door. Felt's identity remained a secret for 31 years. My sources know better than to use phone lines and email to contact me. We've worked out elaborate, and always changing, methods for sharing information. I'm not about to risk their confidentiality with reporters who are less careful. I've been hauled in front of grand juries by overzealous prosecutors who wanted names of sources. They didn't get them. As a journalist, I was trained to develop my own network of sources, not call other reporters and ask them to give up theirs. Maybe I'm too old-fashioned for today's pop-culture journalism. Maybe it's out of style for reporters to do their own legwork and research instead of depending on Google and others to do it for them. Or maybe I'm just too old to change and too damn suspicious to get trapped by youngsters. My mama drowned the dumb ones. --- more on the national security letters here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/17458res20040929.html and here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR200511050…

2 1