October 2015 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: How to go about sharing (was: one of a dozen threads about Cryptome)
by Michael Best 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Each depends on the situation, and whether or not fair use applies. If there are mechanisms in place to sell or license the content, fair use is less likely to apply. So far, I haven't had any big problems with IA despite 100k+ items, several TB of data and 1% their text library. Will somethings be an issue? Maybe, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it and not worry about it until I know what chasm I have to cross and where. Provenance etc. is situation dependent, no categorical answer exists that isn't a bald faced lie. On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Unnecessary for what threats? Who is the arbiter / granter of authority on > 'copyright' or 'DMCA' takedowns? What is this 'violation'? Do I, as an > oppressive regime worker, simply need to put 'Copyright the TLAs, all > rights reserved" next to my TS stamp to keep it off your website? > > Hosting over HTTP(s) provides neither anonymity, nor metadata anonymity. > There isn't much you can do to change this, except loudly inform your > userbase of these properties, provide them with mechanisms to ensure the > integrity of the resource and provide alternative protocols which possess > these desired qualities. > > How do you attest to the data provenance, your attestation or guarantee of > integrity AND completeness? > > Archive.org is not 'censorship resistant'. > > -Travis > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thoughts - All good advice in it's own way, but mostly it seems >> unnecessary. Aside from copyright and reprint issues, 99% of what's on >> Cryptome is not only open source, it's not really objectionable in terms of >> hosting it. >> >> TheCthulhu does a great job of distributing large amounts of data, but >> that's it's own thing and requires an ongoing budget and infrastructure. >> >> I figure with Archive.org I can distribute 99.9% of material and not >> worry about copyright, bandwidth, etc. If it turns out there's a violation >> I missed, the item gets taken down - not the entire site or all the >> uploads. On the rare occasion that there's something else, I'd rather take >> whatever steps are needed to distribute it then rather than try to build my >> own independent infrastructure ahead of time. >> >> Things to add? Holes to poke in my logic? >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Travis Biehn wrote: >>> >* You can start by re-posting the leaked traffic logs... (Editorial *>* >>> discretion is frowned upon amongst the idealists.) *> >>> >* Maybe set up an onion, host on i2p, freenet (hehehe), ethereum, the * >>> >* blockchain, torrents. Spread it far and wide, set up a PKI, set up a >>> *>* WOT, keep it all offline. *> >>> >* If you're a real masochist you'll host the docs on some crazy *>* >>> 'website' with no indirection protecting you from legal/illegal/TLA *>* >>> action. Keep the info off the dark web, off the deep web and in the *>* >>> search indexes. *> >>> >* Warrant canary (which won't work), encryption (you won't be safe) >>> and *>* signatures (secrets will be stolen.) *> >>> >* If you think you can survive as well as JYA, Deb & fare better than * >>> >* Assange, go for it. Be prepared. *> >>> >* It doesn't pay very well. You'd have to be crazy to do this. * Or >>> you can be like TheCthulhu and run your own data centre with >>> good lawyers. Alfie >> >> > > > -- > Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub > <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | > Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn> >

1 0

Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Dr. J Feinstein 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

3 3

Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by John Young 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

At 08:03 PM 10/11/2015, you wrote: >The Netsol support pages are disinfo? bullshit They are indeed that. Requests languor unanswered. Nowadays standard business practice, off-shore no longer reliable either. Just don't respond. Get bought out by Web.com and slowly disappear after handing over decades of user data for exploitation. The Apple future, or maybe present if hobnobbing with US and CN leaders give a clue.

1 0

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Dr. J Feinstein 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Signed up for the lidt to get answers about this but its just more BS Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 11:52 PM From: "John Young" <jya(a)pipeline.com> To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org Subject: Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? At 06:54 PM 10/11/2015, you wrote: >So why does Netsol contradict JYA about the log settings? NetSol is a bundle of contradictions, the essence of ISPs. We have always logged the actions of our ISPs and their ISPs, upstream and downstream, services and support, security and vulns. So too mail lists, SM, chats, as instructed by this forum and its many offshoots working all sides, warning of perfidy to hide perfidy. Check those links we posted about how the spies work this fertile terrain of paranoia and over-confidence, feeding the wired and wireless news machine, advertisers and officials, now cybersecurity being ratcheted up to WMD level. Coders as glamorous as physicists. Nobels and MacArthurs acoming. And the opportunist anti-coders smelling the coffee of protests. Cryptographers facing the opprobrium of WMD-makers when the public grasps what fools they have been taken for through the same old scam, public protection requires ever greater national secrecy among the select. Unbreakable crypto then declared illegal everywhere, and only cryptographers know what unbreakable means: smoke and mirrors, lots of mirrors.

1 0

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by John Young 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

At 06:54 PM 10/11/2015, you wrote: >So why does Netsol contradict JYA about the log settings? NetSol is a bundle of contradictions, the essence of ISPs. We have always logged the actions of our ISPs and their ISPs, upstream and downstream, services and support, security and vulns. So too mail lists, SM, chats, as instructed by this forum and its many offshoots working all sides, warning of perfidy to hide perfidy. Check those links we posted about how the spies work this fertile terrain of paranoia and over-confidence, feeding the wired and wireless news machine, advertisers and officials, now cybersecurity being ratcheted up to WMD level. Coders as glamorous as physicists. Nobels and MacArthurs acoming. And the opportunist anti-coders smelling the coffee of protests. Cryptographers facing the opprobrium of WMD-makers when the public grasps what fools they have been taken for through the same old scam, public protection requires ever greater national secrecy among the select. Unbreakable crypto then declared illegal everywhere, and only cryptographers know what unbreakable means: smoke and mirrors, lots of mirrors.

2 1

Re: why we need more cryptome mirrors, in all corners
by John Young 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

And, best, no pun, every mirror unique and as flawed as their makers, like none other, especially differing from the source and its makers. Mirrors are mirrors, like originals, are always illusory and evermore changing and degrading -- with crypto and comsec and infosec. Archives, drops, mirrors, crypto, USBs, AWstats, leaks, Wiki fools gold. This forum a grain of a great Sahara. From these grains mirrors of mirrors of mirrors. Forsoothed Alice to narcissistic Bob. At 06:45 PM 10/11/2015, you wrote: >On 10/10/15, Shelley <shelley(a)misanthropia.org> wrote: > > ... > > The Cryptome archives *are* publicly accessible. John limits bots and > > leechers to a certain number of files per day (as is his right, he is > > paying for the bandwidth), approx 100 iirc, but anyone who can use search > > strings can find anything on the site. > > >it is exceptionally difficult, short of ordering physical duplicates, >to obtain a significant portion of cryptome archive from cryptome.org. > >part of this is inherent abuse - any mirror gets serious algorithmic >beatings - akin to HackingTeam mirrors perhaps, not counting the >mindless cloud VM bot walkers, annoying enough. even the hidden >service only mirrors got offensive proddings. remember, some of >cryptome-opponents are relying on obscurity - thwarted every time some >makes a mirror... > >for this, i am quite grateful to see the archive.org natsec section >expanded with cryptome mirror! >https://archive.org/details/nationalsecurityarchive > >thanks to all involved (esp. you, Michael :) > > >best regards,

1 0

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? or did they ... !!! [ plot twist ]
by coderman 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

On 10/11/15, Dr. J Feinstein <drjfeinstein(a)mail.com> wrote > So how the fuckd this really happen? your error is assuming there are only two parties in this equation: JYA and netsol. your secondary fallacy involves netsol as solitary, singular entity of one action and awareness. how'd this not get fucked harder, is the question. (or did it? :) best regards,

2 1

Ubiquitous AWStats Not the Worst
by John Young 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

Presumably cybersec wizards have warned about the ubiquity of AWStats and access log files online, or maybe not, just quietly exploit them. There are hundreds of thousands listed on Google's. tip of the iceberg. Beyond the simplistic AWStats and access logs to snapshot traffic for the amateur pryer, peddler and peeper, there are those which log much more about visitors' behavior, desires, secrets, hook-ups, adulteries, informing, cheating, avoiding, perambulating among personal device records, types and models of equipment, passwords, attempts to anonymize, encrypt, hide, evade. Search engines, social media, TLAs, archives, drops, clouds, server farms, corporations, NGOs, AVs, Gorgon-headed bots, heavily-followed and handsomely paid Schneier-Mitnick-grade global traveling gov-advising security entrepreneurs are hardly alone in aggregating users nonchalant share of data for those running their own Amazons of quick supply to media, advertisers, spies, govs, invest vultures, In-Q-Tel, oligarchs, and to swap with others operating in rogue nations and below and beyond the superficial Dark web. Presumably there is material in the Snowden dump, or withheld by Snowden to "not harm national security," which shows the great range of data available for grabbing, manipulating, exploiting, bargaining, ransoming, doctoring, pre-positioning, threatening, monetizing, shaping economic and political policies. And what similar holdings are held by the opposition in a stand-off of first use of digital mutual destruction.

3 2

Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their payingcustomers?
by wirelesswarrior＠Safe-mail.net 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

Despite almost two decades of cypherpunk activity I cannot fathom why U.S. residents operate sites clearly in the cross-hairs of intel agencies. Have they never heard of non-resident nominee officers and directors? All U.S. resident people dealing with the site should be bona fide contractors so they aren't subject to either receiving or implementing court orders or NSLs. -------- Original Message -------- From: bbrewer <bbrewer(a)littledystopia.net> Apparently from: cypherpunks-bounces(a)cpunks.org To: Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>, cryptome <cryptome(a)freelists.org> Subject: Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their payingcustomers? Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:30:00 -0400 > > > On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Michael Best <themikebest(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Anyway to rule this out other than hearing it from John? How long before we begin to seriously consider it or assume it? > > > > And if there was a NSL, why not shut down? Why put users at ongoing risk?? > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit > > "Levison said that he could be arrested for closing the site instead of releasing the information, and it was reported that the federal prosecutor's office had sent Levison's lawyer an e-mail to that effect.” > > I’m just blabbering on suppositions here, but I wouldn’t be surprised by… anything. > > -benjamin

1 0

Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

Used to be you'd be accused of being COINTELPRO, now it's JTRIG. "Differing opinion"? Almost never an option. Different=wrong-bad-evil-enemy-hate-suspect-accuse. On technical issues, I'm definitely a neophyte, but I'd been in contact with JYA for quite sometime, he'd published a few documents I supplied and shared many links on twitter. You'd think that would get him to look at the data before smearing me. As for off-message? That's a spin term. I'm not anti-authoritarian enough, I guess - that's quite possible by some standards. On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:43 PM, <cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org> wrote: > Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cypherpunks-owner(a)cpunks.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Razer) > 2. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (bbrewer) > 3. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Shelley) > 4. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (John Young) > 5. Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? > (Alfie John) > 6. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Michael Best) > 7. Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? > (Dr. J Feinstein) > 8. Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? (Dr. J Feinstein) > 9. Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers? > (Travis Biehn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:25:03 -0700 > From: Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> > To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > Subject: Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying > customers? > Message-ID: <561AC59F.9070508(a)riseup.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > On 10/11/2015 01:04 PM, Michael Best wrote: > > That would explain keeping silent, *NOT* making up lies about me and > > saying the data is fake. > > I'm not going to make JYA's argument here, even if what's been assumed > is fact, but the strategy would be a stall at least with the potential > for redirection from the 'dead canary' hypothesis because it's typical > for people to explode into useless flame wars over the 'leakage' instead > of giving serious thought beyond ego/profit motives to why the leak > occurred. > > But, as a notable scientist once said... "Yes, but the whole point of > the warrant canary is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell > the world, eh!?!" > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE > >

2 1