November 2016 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Not the Onion: Twitter CEO's account suspended
by Razer 23 Nov '16

23 Nov '16

> The Twitter account of the social media platform's CEO Jack Dorsey > appears to have been briefly suspended. > > Visitor's to @Jack's Twitter page were told Tuesday night that the > account had been suspended. > > His account was quickly reactivated. > > The Hill has reached out to Twitter for comment > http://thehill.com/policy/technology/307319-twitter-ceos-account-briefly-su…

1 0

Hampshire College Bans American Flag as Symbol of Hatred
by Zenaan Harkness 23 Nov '16

23 Nov '16

Well, differing views is certainly considered micro-aggression by snowflake lefty protestors, so the logical conclusion is removing all symbols of everything from the environment to try to minimize those triggers. This brings new meaning to "getting a Lashing" :) Humans. In desperate need of safe, and I mean, safe safe, spaces! Trigger warning to snowflakes, comes from dailystormer.com, -and- links to RT.com ! University Bans American Flag as Symbol of Hatred http://www.dailystormer.com/university-bans-american-flag-as-symbol-of-hatr… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVcKsecg2Uk

1 0

What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?
by Razer 23 Nov '16

23 Nov '16

> Robert Taylor, 29, described the conference as a “victory party.” Mr. > Taylor was a committed libertarian, he said, working for Ron Paul’s > presidential campaigns and even moving to New Hampshire for a project > organized by the like-minded. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, > he said, he would have advocated secession. > > “I thought I had all the right answers and had read all the right > books,” he said. “I heard about the alt-right movement, and it just > lit a fire in me.” > > Mr. Taylor said that with Mr. Trump, “we have breathing room; we have > a little time.” > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/white-nationalists-celebrate-…

6 36

CNN - asking the right questions
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Nov '16

22 Nov '16

Folks, this is hard to believe, but hey, the world seems a bit topsy turvy right now. Amazing. I'm -pretty- sure we're not descending into 1939, but hey, please holler if I'm missing something... Zen http://www.dailystormer.com/cnn-asks-are-jews-people/ My favourite Tweet response: " I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say "yes" https://t.co/1ZwbFJO7po "

1 0

badge of honour - Santa evicted from mall for disclosing naughty list
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Nov '16

22 Nov '16

There are some punishments which are a veritable feather in your cap, like getting a speeding ticket for riding your bicycle over 60 km/hr in Centennial park Sydney, which was an extremely rare trophy thing for those cycling buffs from UNSW university. Santa getting evicted from a shopping mall for disclosing one very poignant member of his naughty list to a rapt young client, has to be another of those rare, but oh so satisfying feathers in the cap! :D Disclaimer: This is one of those stiff upper lip stories which MUST NOT BE ENJOYED - you there, in the back row? STOP that sniggering! Mall Santa Removed for Telling a Girl Hillary Clinton Is on His ‘Naughty List’ http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/20/mall-santa-removed-for-telling-a-… Sounds like these guys really ought be on it - perhaps Santa would still be evicted for being politically incorrect? Migrants Burn Down Hall: ‘There’s Not Enough Nutella and Gummibears!’ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/21/migrants-burn-hall-candy-fasting…

1 0

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?
by Steven Schear 21 Nov '16

21 Nov '16

The U.S. founders were quite clear in prohibiting income-like distributive taxes. The saw the peril for what it was: a means to use to pit one group/clsss against another. Warrant Canary creator On Nov 21, 2016 8:38 AM, "jim bell" <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: *From:* Razer <rayzer(a)riseup.net> On 11/20/2016 09:49 PM, jim bell wrote: >>Oh! I see you are justifying robbing people based on the mere assertion that they can 'afford' it. >No. I justify it on the fact that they're the criminals and taxes appropriately applied are really a form of restitution. If they don't like it they can hire an army. They can afford it. After all that's how they robbed the rest of us in the first place. You have not qualified the term, "they". Are you saying that all income must necessarily be theft? I would have thought people like you would have taken the position, something like "All income over $100,000 per year is theft". Or, you know, limit the number of people who are called thieves to, perhaps, the famous "1%". >Thing is taxes aren't appropriately applied. That 50% tax on the wealthy you speak of doesn't really exist after deductions and writedowns nd donations of high-heeled shoes to the Haiti relief fund. Right? Some wealthy people pay less taxes than that guy living in a box in a field. Actually most wealthy people pay almost nothing percentage-wise after all the bennies their plutocrat friends write into tax codes compared to their UNEARNED (as in they didn't actually work or produce anything useful to society) income. Do you have specific statistics to back up your claims? I have read, elsewhere, that the total Federal government expenditures, as a portion of GDP, tends to remain relatively constant at approximately 20%. Why should there be any tax rate dramatically greater than that? >And then there's sales tax, which rips workers off way out of proportion to the wealthy. What's wrong with what amounts to a flat tax based on what you spend? (arguendo; I'm a libertarian, but I can still argue these issues). A person who makes $1 million per year doesn't use 100x the food, transportation, housing, manufactured goods as a person who makes $10K per year. It sure sounds like you are, at least, assuming that taxes should be proportional to income. Why? Also, you still haven't addressed the issue about the specific person cited in the article, the guy who claimed to have been a libertarian. After all, the thread is titled, "What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?" The entire relevance of your reference is based on what so far is unprovable: Was that guy actually ever a "libertarian" as most other libertarians would recognize. Now, I can't prove that he wasn't a libertarian, but I find your focus on libertarians here to be misleading. The way I see it, "alt-right" (what does that actually mean?!?) people probably 'came from' a lot of different political philosophies. Why do you point solely to libertarians? I should also add that this guy may STILL be libertarian: He may not believe in the "initiation of force or fraud" against his fellow person, the "non-initiation of force or fraud principle". (NIOFF). That he may have other identifiable beliefs might be interesting, but at the same time wouldn't have to be damning of him. For instance, hypothetically an "alt-right" person might believe that American government has been used, for many years, to allow certain groups to sponge off the rest of the population. Merely believing that, or saying that out loud, doesn't make him non-libertarian, does it? In fact, he is objecting to the way the government itself has initiated force, threatening people into paying "taxes", and them disbursing those taxes in order to obtain political advantage. (votes.) If anything, his making this argument would make him a consistent libertarian. Now, you may object to libertarians for precisely this reason: You may believe that it's okey-dokey for government to threaten people to pay "taxes", so the government can use that money for political-benefit reasons. But taking that position merely identifies you as being non-libertarian. Jim Bell

2 1

Britain and Apple Fucking Your Privacy
by grarpamp 21 Nov '16

21 Nov '16

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/17/164203/britain-has-passed-the-most-… The UK has just passed a massive expansion in surveillance powers, which critics have called "terrifying" and "dangerous." The new law, dubbed the "snoopers' charter," was introduced by then-home secretary Theresa May in 2012, and took two attempts to get passed into law following breakdowns in the previous coalition government. Four years and a general election later -- May is now prime minister -- the bill was finalized and passed on Wednesday by both parliamentary houses. Civil liberties groups have long criticized the bill, with some arguing that the law will let the UK government "document everything we do online." It's no wonder, because it basically does. The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand -- though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch. Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions -- such as journalists and medical staff -- are layered with marginally better protections. In other words, it's the "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy," according to Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group. https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/16/11/17/1448219/iphones-secretly-send-ca… Russian digital forensics Elcomsoft says iPhones send near real-time logs to Apple servers even when iCloud backup is switched off. The firm adds that these logs are stored for up to four months. From a report on the Intercept:"You only need to have iCloud itself enabled" for the data to be sent, said Vladimir Katalov, CEO of Elcomsoft. The logs surreptitiously uploaded to Apple contain a list of all calls made and received on an iOS device, complete with phone numbers, dates and times, and duration. They also include missed and bypassed calls. Elcomsoft said Apple retains the data in a user's iCloud account for up to four months, providing a boon to law enforcement who may not be able to obtain the data either from the user's carrier, who may retain the data for only a short period, or from the user's device, if it's encrypted with an unbreakable passcode. "Absolutely this is an advantage [for law enforcement]," Robert Osgood, a former FBI supervisory agent who now directs a graduate program in computer forensics at George Mason University, said of Apple's call-history uploads. "Four months is a long time [to retain call logs]. It's generally 30 or 60 days for telecom providers, because they don't want to keep more [records] than they absolutely have to. So if Apple is holding data for four months, that could be a very interesting data repository and they may have data that the telecom provider might not." "call logs. It's generally 30 or 60 days for telecom providers, because they don't want to keep more [records] than they absolutely have to" Lol, what?

5 4

NYT Edtrial: FaySpook and the 'Fake News' Digital Virus
by Zenaan Harkness 21 Nov '16

21 Nov '16

-- ** Lauren does it again: Vote 1, Lauren Weinstein for executive director of The Ministry Of Truth ! Dem butthurt Dems need a voice, a powerful voice, a voice for truth, a voice for reality, a voice for sanity no less! And this truth must be real truth, as in only the true truth! First rule of The Ministry? Do NOT f!^k with Lauren! Second rule of The Ministry, refer to the first rule! =============================== Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:10:09 -0800 From: "PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility) Announcement List" <pfir(a)pfir.org> To: pfir-list(a)pfir.org Subject: [ PFIR ] NYTimes Editorial: FaySpook and the Digital Virus Called Fake News NYTimes Editorial: FaySpook and the Digital Virus Called Fake News http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/FaySpook-and-the-digital-v… This year, the adage that "falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it" doesn't begin to describe the problem. That idea assumes that the truth eventually catches up. There's not much evidence of this happening for the millions of people taken in by the fake news stories -- like Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump or Mr. Trump pulling ahead of Hillary Clinton in the popular vote -- that have spread on social media sites. Most of the fake news stories are produced by scammers looking to make a quick buck. The vast majority of them take far-right positions. But a big part of the responsibility for this scourge rests with internet companies like FaySpook and Google, which have made it possible for fake news to be shared nearly instantly with millions of users and have been slow to block it from their sites. - - - ALSO: "Crushing the Internet Liars" - https://lauren.vortex.com/2016/11/16/crushing-the-internet-liars --Lauren-- CRUSHING the Internet Liars: https://vortex.com/crush-net-liars STOP President Trump: https://vortex.com/stop-president-trump - - - Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) -- ** Lauren now works for FaySpook, the NSoogle and Twatter, the first and the last of those being new to me. Besides, I know my Fayspook wall could use some serious and professional editing - Lauren's on quite the winner here, FaySpook should step up to their community obligations on this one. "Chief sharing officer" - good one Lauren, you're onto a winner there buddy! ================================ Subject: [ PFIR ] Call it a 'crazy idea, ' FaySpook, but you need an executive editor Call it a 'crazy idea,' FaySpook, but you need an executive editor https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/call-it-what-you-want-FaySpo… Now it's time for a bolder move: FaySpook should hire a top-flight executive editor and give that person the resources, power and staff to make sound editorial decisions. Zuckerberg may not want to call this person an editor, since he has been insistent that FaySpook isn't a media company. He sees it as a technology company, a platform for connectivity. And indeed, FaySpook itself does not produce news content but merely allows its community members to share their own offerings -- whether baby pictures or hoaxes about political candidates. That's fine. Call this person the chief sharing officer or the engagement czarina. - - - --Lauren-- CRUSHING the Internet Liars: https://vortex.com/crush-net-liars STOP President Trump: https://vortex.com/stop-president-trump -- ** And just so we all know that Twitter genuinely has the street cred to apoint a <ahem>worthy</> "chief sharing officer", this lovely nugget arrives, wonder of wonders, courtesy Mr WeinStein: ================================ Subject: [ PFIR ] Here's why Twitter turned down a Donald Trump advertising campaign Here's why Twitter turned down a Donald Trump advertising campaign http://www.recode.net/2016/11/19/13685832/twitter-rejects-donald-trump-ad-c… Coby says that Twitter -- after first approving the hashtag #CrookedHillary that included an emoji of a stick figure running off with a bag of cash -- called the Trump team "a couple days before the first presidential debate" to tell them the ad campaign had been denied, claiming to "fear litigation" from Clinton's people. A second campaign, featuring the above emoji, was also approved, then denied, a few days before the second debate. This time, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and COO Adam Bain called the Trump campaign directly to apologize and explain the decision. That decision, according to both the blog post and a Twitter spokesperson, was due to concerns the ad wouldn't be recognized on Twitter as an ad. Hashtag emoji campaigns don't include any indication that they are paid advertisements, and Twitter often adds its own emojis to the end of hashtags for major events (as it did for both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions). Basically, Twitter didn't want users to think the #CrookedHillary emoji was sponsored in any way by the company. So it pulled the ad campaign and said it wouldn't run sponsored hashtag emojis for any political campaign moving forward. - - - Lauren: There is no requirement that these firms be neutral. They should do all in their power to fight evil, especially *self-proclaimed* Satanists like Trump and his minions. Lauren Weinstein - keeping our digital streets clean!

3 2

Censors: We want Real-News, Real-Names, Real-ID, Real-Censorship
by grarpamp 21 Nov '16

21 Nov '16

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/19/0543207/should-domain-name-registra… https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/11/10/1747251/facebook-on-its-fake-news-… http://cis471.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-real-names-domain-registration-policy.… https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/06/25/1227222/icann-seeks-comment-on-limi… http://papersplease.org/ The Internet was a major source of news -- fake and real -- during the election campaign. The operators of fake sites, whether motivated by politics or greed, are often anonymous. We avoid voter fraud by requiring verification of ones name, age and address. A verifiable real-names domain registration policy would discourage information fraud. "I understand the wish to protect the privacy of a person or organization registering a domain name," argues the linked-to blog post, "but there is also a public interest." ICANN already requested comments on this back in 2015, but I'm curious what Slashdot's readers think. Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name?

3 7

Erasing / Recovering Data
by grarpamp 21 Nov '16

21 Nov '16

jdb: > My understanding is that this software actually > over-writes the data on the hard disk, rather than merely deleting > references to it in the directory. These days, with the hyper-high density > of data employed, probably only a single re-write of data is necessary, > although I was surprised when I heard that Bleachbit only did ONE re-write. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BleachBit Other than destruction, single pass is sufficient for routine end user purposes between end users. ie: hardware swapping, to wit (a) below. Suggestions otherwise need to involve a device still in common use and cite one of the following... For boring end users... a) the exact make model methodology of the test device that magically regrew said erased bits on its own. b) full business particulars including cost of the recovery service that recovered said erased bits, including make model of the test device. For the more tricky situations... c) survey of academic literature placing those academic solutions within time/money/favors of LEA (potentially operating under stingray type LEA secrecy contracts). d) they were an enemy of the state subjected to top secret recovery tools, time, and money that unavailable to LEA (who are essentially constrained to operate under (b or c) above). Lists seem to love to circlejerk about this while failing to provide whitepaper references and costs and threat models effective against hardware currently in use. When in doubt, encrypt by default and/or destroy.

1 0