October 2015 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

> > Maybe because Mike _published_ the fucking logs, just because JYA was > doing the mirror shades thing about whether the archive was or was not > genuine? I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does that > justify publishing Cryptome access logs? I published them to verify the data, *AFTER JYA publicly accused me of FAKING it.* I only raised the point of the logs because of the GCHQ slide. *If *John had verified it a week earlier, or not accused me of faking data (with ZERO evidence, and the data turns out to be legit) *they never would've been published. *

4 6

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

11 Oct '15

*Razer* Rayzer(a)riseup.net <Rayzer%40riseup.net?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20cryptome%20sold%20web%20logs%20to%20their%20paying%20customers%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C56196739.2040408%40riseup.net%3E> *Sat Oct 10 15:30:01 EDT 2015* On 10/10/2015 11:51 AM, Shelley wrote: >>* The Cryptome archives *are* publicly accessible. * Imho It's NOT his (Best's) material to decide to post without permission of the creator. Publicly available or not, at Archive.org. Cryptome owns the copyright for very little of the material in their archive. Most of it is public domain items or things that were reprinted from elsewhere, like news articles. John uses these under fair use, for educational and research purposes. If John wants to assert a copyright claim for the items that they did originally produce, then they are welcome to do so. I'm sure they're capable of it without you. But I'm guessing that won't convince you, so maybe John Young can. Let's hear from him, shall we? "We would have dumped it, the whole thing. Everyone else likes to play this game: 'What if we harm somebody' or all this kind of crap. Which is strictly cowardice." Deborah Natsios said that one of their goals is "To pry open the privatised domain, the realm of copyright interests, the not-public domain, the not-public space of corporate interests—but there are private security guards, global security mercenaries who patrol that boundary." John then added "We're great advocates of plagiarism and stealing." I feel like posting the entire archive for educational and research purposes is entirely fair game. He argues that Citizenfour should be in the public domain, and I'm sure he'd make that same argument about his archive. If not, he'll speak up. --Mike

1 0

[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

*Cari Machet* carimachet(a)gmail.com <carimachet%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D%20Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D&In-Reply-To=%3CCAGRDzQWRPraNrJFuHeuekTxDAJ6K6N0JK4o%2BowjxX101_SamZg%40mail.gmail.com%3E> *Sat Oct 10 14:00:00 EDT 2015* > Everything leaks but dont be the one leaking it - the determinant leaker > axiom ... ... John Young would be the one who leaked it, Cari. And refused to fix it. I posted when it became clear he wouldn't stop and was calling the disclosure disinfo.

1 0

Re: The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo
by Shelley 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

On October 8, 2015 8:43:31 AM Georgi Guninski <guninski(a)guninski.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:23:12PM -0400, Michael Best wrote: > > A few days ago, a new Snowden slide > > > <https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-o…> > > was > > released that appeared to show that the GCHQ was monitoring Cryptome in > > Dude, are you calling Snowden liar? > > And did you found out that allegedly cryptome shipped their web logs on > usbs to buyers AFTER you called Snowden liar? Wow, what the hell is going on here?! I'm replying to all of the posts made thus far on this topic; I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to respond to them individually. So John finally replies, but feels the need to call this guy an asshole. Why is that? I don't know him, but going solely by his site and contributions to archive.org, he is a legitimate researcher. He tried going through the usual steps before disclosure, just like the rest of us do. Only brought it to the public for verification and analysis after the source refused to cooperate: just like the rest of us. Problem? There are no sacred cows. There is only data, and whatever truth is borne out of it whether or not it's the answer we wish to see. The scientific method and all, you know, that most of us hold dear. Georgi, he didn't outright say Snowden was a liar. He was calling into question the validity of a slide that Snowden may not have even seen, or may not have scrutinized. Also, the journalists releasing the data have an open history of working with the feds before releasing info - how do we know they wouldn't possibly alter data under pressure? A decade ago, no less than the venerable NYT sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for over a year! They caved when Risen's book was about to be published. That does not exactly inspire confidence. But what if this (or any other claim, backed with evidence) *did* call into question the rest of the data attributed to the Snowden dumps? Isn't the truth more important than holding up false ideals? Religion and politics have the lock on that brand of cognitive dissonance, they don't need our help. Snowden is not infallible. Cryptome/JY are not infallible. Hell, even Ellsberg isn't infallible (as we were recently reminded.) Best is not infallible, but I haven't seen him claim to be so. Don't judge the messenger; look at the data and draw your own conclusions, the way we do with everything else. This isn't a false controversy, Travis. And some of us do care. -Shelley

10 14

Re: Introduce randommess in keypress timings
by Michael Nelson 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

> Is there anything that tells us how many bits of entropy are found in the brainsong (rhythm, melody) of random users? Five minutes of Swedish death metal should get you around 256 bits. mn

5 4

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Shelley 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton <j.compton(a)outlook.com> wrote: > I am not surprised that GCHQ does what you claim it does. > Have you read about this from the beginning? If so, you'd know that Mike Best is not the one claiming that the GCHQ slide is real. He is trying to establish whether nearly anyone could have made the slide with the logs Cryptome leaked/distributed/whatever, unwittingly or otherwise. That's all, and I don't know how a researcher trying to verify data has become a giant shitstorm. -S > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400 > Subject: [cryptome] > From: themikebest(a)gmail.com > To: cryptome(a)freelists.org > > To the original point, the GCHQ Snowden slide. Cryptome accusing me of > faking the data was a diversion. Only had to verify it because of the GCHQ > slide. > From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" > <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:00:48 +1300So, now you > have named and shamed Cryptome for this grievance you have, whereto > know? >

3 6

[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

> > Sorry. I had forgotten that. But once it was clear that multiple copies > were out there, I don't get the point of publishing your own copy. Maybe > by then, it was a moot point. And still, it was a bad move, if only for > you, in that you come across as imprudent. You realize John refused to acknowledge or fix the leak at that point, and would have continued to mail them out - right? And at that point, it was only clear to me since John denied it? I'd say that stubbornness was far more imprudent and damaging, and is the only thing that made posting the list necessary. Especially once John started saying I was a liar and accusing me of all sorts of things.

1 0

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
by Michael Best 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

And so how should I have proved they were real, since John called it fake (either a lie of omission by refusing to check or a deliberate lie to conceal)?? On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Mirimir <mirimir(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 10/09/2015 08:20 PM, Michael Best wrote: > >> > >> Publishing them was still unwarranted. You could have published a > >> redacted version. You could have polled this list, and verified selected > >> lines. Whatever. Yes, JYA was being a jerk. But still ... > > > > *Umm, I *did* post a redacted version first.* JYA said it was faked > > and refused to verify it until days after it had been published in its > > entirety. I even told him before hand that if he didn't verify it, I'd > > have to post it. He still called it disinfo and fake until well after > > it'd been released and confirmed as the files being un multiple > > releases, including an old torrent. > > Sorry. I had forgotten that. But once it's clear that multiple copies > are out there, I don't get the point of publishing your own copy. Maybe > by then, it's a moot point. It was still a bad move, if only for you. > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mirimir <mirimir(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > >> On 10/09/2015 07:19 PM, Michael Best wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Maybe because Mike _published_ the fucking logs, just because JYA was > >>>> doing the mirror shades thing about whether the archive was or was not > >>>> genuine? I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does that > >>>> justify publishing Cryptome access logs? > >>> > >>> > >>> I published them to verify the data, *AFTER JYA publicly accused me of > >>> FAKING it.* I only raised the point of the logs because of the GCHQ > >> slide. *If > >>> *John had verified it a week earlier, or not accused me of faking data > >>> (with ZERO evidence, and the data turns out to be legit) *they never > >>> would've been published. * > >> > >> Publishing them was still unwarranted. You could have published a > >> redacted version. You could have polled this list, and verified selected > >> lines. Whatever. Yes, JYA was being a jerk. But still ... > >> > >> > > >

1 0

Re: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome] Yay: [cryptome]
by coderman 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

On 10/9/15, Shelley <shelley(a)misanthropia.org> wrote: > ... I don't know how a researcher trying to verify data has become a > giant shitstorm. the precariousness of life is exactly why i savor such enjoyments, such as this turd turbulence in the absurdist library... :P best regards,

1 0

[cryptome] Cryptome has been leaking its user logs for over a year
by Michael Best 10 Oct '15

10 Oct '15

Writing this at 01:23 AM, please forgive any typos or editing errors. I'm updating the page to clarify that coderman is not bandmon. Thank you for clarifying, coderman. The piratebay torrent is, I believe, made from the zoinks torrent listed in places like https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2014-September/014344… http://liberationtech.stanford.narkive.com/arhyVT9j/data-mine-the-snowden-f… and https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/2afpmi/how_to_obtain_a_cryptome_ar… If that torrent isn't based on your release, with a hash of F5763EB5C5FFD8B40B9047CF72350D320A59BDAC <https://zoink.it/torrent/F5763EB5C5FFD8B40B9047CF72350D320A59BDAC.torrent>, then it may be a different release from yours. If you can check that and let me know, I'll update the post to make sure that it's accurate as far as involving you. (If possible, please check for the files in your own copy of the Cryptome archive. /USB-1.rar/Disk 2/07-Cryptome-org-13-0702-cartome-directory.zip/awstats) Thanks for correcting my mistake, coderman - sorry for incorrectly assuming that you were bandmon. *coderman* coderman(a)gmail.com <coderman%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D%20Cryptome%20has%20been%20leaking%20its%20user%20logs%20for%20over%20a%20year&In-Reply-To=%3CCAJVRA1TAeEfByH4n%3DOUyBVQZJT%2BgBK4yENjjtTBwmxGN_wbH4A%40mail.gmail.com%3E> *Thu Oct 8 21:42:07 EDT 2015* >* It's important to note that the logs were not just found in the USBs > John *>* Young/Cryptome sent to me, but in the ones sent to "bandmon", > who unless *>* I'm mistaken is coderman(a)gmail.com <coderman(a)gmail.com> * > i'm not sure who bandmon is, but they're not coderman(a)gmail.com. i > would however be amenable to uploading a list of sha-256 digests to > verify components of similarity between the torrent and origin. >* > https://thepiratebay.mn/torrent/11113511/Cryptome_archive_2014-06-02 > <https://thepiratebay.mn/torrent/11113511/Cryptome_archive_2014-06-02> * >* > It was my strong preference **not** to post this, but since Cryptome has * > >* refused to validate the data, there is no other way to authenticate it > than *>* to release it to the public along with how to find that > information in the *>* Cryptome USBs/CDs and their various mirrors. * > actually one may cross reference with their own requests and circuits, > for high confidence of legitimacy. i find it apropos to now quote the > original disclaimer in full: > ''' > This is a trap, witting and unwitting. > Do not use it or use at own risk. > Source and this host is out to pwon and phuck you in complicity > with global Internet authorities. > ... > Signed Batshit Cryptome and Host, 9 July 2014, 12:16ET." > - cypherpunks/2014-July/005020.html, and true for FY-2014, too. > ''' best regards,

2 3