July 2016 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[OT] Where are your public keys people?
by Bastiani Fortress 18 Jul '16

18 Jul '16

12 23

Comic Book "Religion - Ruining Everything Since 4004 B.C."
by Cecilia Tanaka 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

"Religion - Ruining Everything Since 4004 B.C." by Zach Weinersmith. The c ute comic book that I mentioned yesterday . It was licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0. :) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_4J_wOx6q78WHkwaUd5YzEzbFk/view?usp=shari… Forgive me for using the Google Drive for sharing it! :P Remember: Christianity is the religion of forgiveness. And if you don't believe that, you can burn in a pit of fire for all eternity! :) If you like Zach's work, visit his site, with lots of fun and interesting comics: http://www.smbc-comics.com He is a lovely guy and some of his messages to Kickstarter were really delicious. I think he will appreciate your visit. Warm hugs! Take care, everybody! <3 Cecilia

1 0

Tor Replaces Its Entire Board
by grarpamp 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-project-elects-new-board%C2%A0-directo… http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/technology/tor-project-a-digital-privacy-… Tor guts itself. And under whatever your definition of "elects" is. Note the headline pic... can't fade me brahs, still reppin :)

11 67

Re: UK gov says new Home Sec will have powers to ban end-to-end encryption
by Zenaan Harkness 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 03:09:17PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > On 17/07/16 12:37, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > >First part: > > > >>Thing is, while the Bill isn't good, it doesn't have anything at all to do > >>with banning end-to-end encryption. Or banning any sort of encryption. > > > > > >Second part: > > > >>It can require "relevant operators" to maintain some backdoors, most > >>obviously in mobile link encryption and some VPNs and other encrypted links > >>which are operated by "relevant operators". > >> > >>Less obviously, it can be applied to some websites and the like. > > > > > >Third part, which is really the first part repeated, for kicks: > > > >>But there is no power to ban encryption anywhere in the Bill. > > > > > >TADAAA!!! > > > > > >And the winner is - no one! This is sad. The bill is sad. Your > >interpretation is self contradictory. > > > Err, how? > > The bill gives powers to require some backdoors [1], but it > doesn't ban encryption in any form. Peter, I think you need to read up on what is a "backdoor", what is "encryption" and how they relate to each other, and therefore how your persistent statement that the Act "doesn't ban encryption" is either a folly to say on your part (I'm only just still assuming) or an intentional furfy (hard for me to believe anyone knowledgeable would try that on this list, since everyone on this list (I assume) has no trouble identifying the folly in your many conflicting statements. Have you done any computer programming? If not, that would be a really good thing for you to do - there are some very nice languages and programming environments (IDEs, REPL shells etc) compared to what we had in our day, so it should be an enjoyable, and hopefully enlightening experience for you. There's no point repeating the mulberry bush roundabout, since it's about to get frustrating for me (and probably already has for most of the kind and patient folks on this cp list whom are probably quite a bit cleverer than you or I). Chalk this one up to a learning experience Peter and let it go for now - your enthusiasm is a good thing, but when it comes to communications security, your lack of understanding is very, very dangerous to those need actual security and who mistake your authoritative words for actual authority and actual understanding on your part - that's a dangerous thing for those who need communications security, you would be in some cases putting actual lives at risk. Stop that. Learning is fun - enjoy the ride. > Or do you think some types of mandatory backdoors and banning encryption are > the same thing? > > > [1] The HS doesn't control the backdoors, the "relevant operators" do. > > The HS can require "relevant operators" to maintain the capability to > decrypt encryptions which they apply - but it doesn't say anything about > banning encryption which other people apply, or banning encrypted > communications where other people have done the encryption > > As for doing the impossible and maintaining the capability to decrypt > encryptions other people have applied, if you can't do it, you can't do it. > There is no need or duty to do the impossible. > > [...] > > >>If you as a private person apply the encryption yourself, there is no power > >>in the Bill to make you backdoor it (though there have been powers in RIPA > >>to enforce demands for keys in some circumstances since 2001), and there is > >>no power to prevent you from using encryption. > > > >OK, I'll help out here - read this paragraph just above again, then > >without blinking (I'm serious now) read the following paragraph three > >times: > > > >>>>"Relevant operators" are persons who provide "any service that consists in > >>>>the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any > >>>>telecommunication system (whether or not one provided by the person > >>>>providing the service) [... including] any case where a service consists in > >>>>or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of > >>>>communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a > >>>>system." > > > >I'm getting lazy, so I'm going to trust you to point out to us, in > >simple terms, your own contradiction, e.g. how a commieputer program > >running on my phone, and talking to Juan or Applebaum's phone which is > >likewise running the same program, how this program for example could be > >considered to be encompassed by "any service", with me, running that > >program as the "relevant operator" of my telemaphone, which service so > >operated consists of provision (to me the operator, likewise to Juan or > >Appelbaum at the other end as mentioned) of "access to" or at the very > >least "facilitates for making use of" a certain "telecommuniscations > >system" provided by my ISP/Telco (and likewise by/for Juan or Applebaum > >at the other end as previously mentions), and further which program > >manages the latency of, facilitates the creation of the connection, and > >optionally stores for the operator the data thereby transmitted, or that > >may be transmitted next time I operate this sytsem, my means -of- the > >system. > > > >Again, I'll leave it to you to point out such an example for the benefit > >of our loyal, deserving and patronising readers. > > You are not *providing* a service. You may well be using one, but you are > not providing one. Therefore you are not a "relevant operator", and that > part of the Bill does not apply to you. > > You have to read these things carefully. > > > > > You might argue otherwise, that maybe you are providing a service to > yourself. Stranger things have happened, but I very much doubt any UK Court > would agree with you. > > And even if by some dark and unlikely miracle a Court decided you are > providing a service, and are therefore a "relevant operator", what might > happen? The Home Secretary serves a Notice (which she signs with her own > withered hand) on little old you, personally, requiring you to maintain the > capability to decrypt your own comms. > > At some later point, after you have returned the Notice for reconsideration > and she has consulted the relevant committees, Judge etc, and then sent it > back to you, she might require you to decrypt some comms. > > If you failed to do so because you have not maintained the capacity, she > could then institute civil proceedings for an injunction to make you > maintain that capacity in future. > > But she can't send you to jail, or fine you, for having failed to maintain > that capability. > > > However the last four paragraphs are just fantasy, because you are not > providing a service, and therefore you are not a "relevant operator". > > > > If you don't get it, I think the Bill is ugly, evil, stupid, invasive, > disproportionate and generally sucks big time - but it has fuck all to do > with banning encryption. > > > -- Peter Fairbrother -- Free Australia: www.UPMART.org Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.

1 0

Re: UK gov says new Home Sec will have powers to ban end-to-end encryption
by Peter Fairbrother 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

On 17/07/16 12:37, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > First part: > >> Thing is, while the Bill isn't good, it doesn't have anything at all to do >> with banning end-to-end encryption. Or banning any sort of encryption. > > > Second part: > >> It can require "relevant operators" to maintain some backdoors, most >> obviously in mobile link encryption and some VPNs and other encrypted links >> which are operated by "relevant operators". >> >> Less obviously, it can be applied to some websites and the like. > > > Third part, which is really the first part repeated, for kicks: > >> But there is no power to ban encryption anywhere in the Bill. > > > TADAAA!!! > > > And the winner is - no one! This is sad. The bill is sad. Your > interpretation is self contradictory. Err, how? The bill gives powers to require some backdoors [1], but it doesn't ban encryption in any form. Or do you think some types of mandatory backdoors and banning encryption are the same thing? [1] The HS doesn't control the backdoors, the "relevant operators" do. The HS can require "relevant operators" to maintain the capability to decrypt encryptions which they apply - but it doesn't say anything about banning encryption which other people apply, or banning encrypted communications where other people have done the encryption As for doing the impossible and maintaining the capability to decrypt encryptions other people have applied, if you can't do it, you can't do it. There is no need or duty to do the impossible. [...] >> If you as a private person apply the encryption yourself, there is no power >> in the Bill to make you backdoor it (though there have been powers in RIPA >> to enforce demands for keys in some circumstances since 2001), and there is >> no power to prevent you from using encryption. > > OK, I'll help out here - read this paragraph just above again, then > without blinking (I'm serious now) read the following paragraph three > times: > >>>> "Relevant operators" are persons who provide "any service that consists in >>>> the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any >>>> telecommunication system (whether or not one provided by the person >>>> providing the service) [... including] any case where a service consists in >>>> or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of >>>> communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a >>>> system." > > I'm getting lazy, so I'm going to trust you to point out to us, in > simple terms, your own contradiction, e.g. how a commieputer program > running on my phone, and talking to Juan or Applebaum's phone which is > likewise running the same program, how this program for example could be > considered to be encompassed by "any service", with me, running that > program as the "relevant operator" of my telemaphone, which service so > operated consists of provision (to me the operator, likewise to Juan or > Appelbaum at the other end as mentioned) of "access to" or at the very > least "facilitates for making use of" a certain "telecommuniscations > system" provided by my ISP/Telco (and likewise by/for Juan or Applebaum > at the other end as previously mentions), and further which program > manages the latency of, facilitates the creation of the connection, and > optionally stores for the operator the data thereby transmitted, or that > may be transmitted next time I operate this sytsem, my means -of- the > system. > > Again, I'll leave it to you to point out such an example for the benefit > of our loyal, deserving and patronising readers. You are not *providing* a service. You may well be using one, but you are not providing one. Therefore you are not a "relevant operator", and that part of the Bill does not apply to you. You have to read these things carefully. You might argue otherwise, that maybe you are providing a service to yourself. Stranger things have happened, but I very much doubt any UK Court would agree with you. And even if by some dark and unlikely miracle a Court decided you are providing a service, and are therefore a "relevant operator", what might happen? The Home Secretary serves a Notice (which she signs with her own withered hand) on little old you, personally, requiring you to maintain the capability to decrypt your own comms. At some later point, after you have returned the Notice for reconsideration and she has consulted the relevant committees, Judge etc, and then sent it back to you, she might require you to decrypt some comms. If you failed to do so because you have not maintained the capacity, she could then institute civil proceedings for an injunction to make you maintain that capacity in future. But she can't send you to jail, or fine you, for having failed to maintain that capability. However the last four paragraphs are just fantasy, because you are not providing a service, and therefore you are not a "relevant operator". If you don't get it, I think the Bill is ugly, evil, stupid, invasive, disproportionate and generally sucks big time - but it has fuck all to do with banning encryption. -- Peter Fairbrother

1 0

AP: estimating odds, cryptocurrencies, status
by grarpamp 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

On 7/13/16, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The analysis for America is simple: The Feds collect $3 trillion in taxes > peryear. Suppose each person who pays $1 in tax also pays 1 cent for a > fundto get rid of his oppressors, or $30 billion. If a hit cost $100,000 > (probably that estimate is very high), if you divide $30 billion by > $100,000, that wouldpay for 300,000 hits. Do you think that the government > could function effectively if even as few as 30,000 get killed over a 1-year > period?Let alone 300,000? Say there are 10M anonymous user of darknets, 0.001% might throw $100 cryptos at it for politics or lols, that's $1M or 10 $100k hits. There's all sorts of sliders you can play with there that could ultimately yield some form of interference in the timeline. Beyond estimating, there's the large questions of - What, if any, such markets have sprung up? - If not, why not? - When will they? What are their requirements and environment to startup, and succeed? http://worldbitcoinnetwork.com/BitcoinPriceModel-Alpha.html https://coinmarketcap.com/

2 2

schneier's concentration camp
by juan 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/07/security_effect.html "Security Effectiveness of the Israeli West Bank Barrier" "The Barrier together with associated security activities was effective in preventing suicide bombings and other attacks and fatalities with little if any apparent displacement. Changes in terrorist behavior likely resulted from the construction of the Barrier, not from other external factors or events." -------------- So that's the kind of nazi war propaganda that this highly reputable new member of the tor's 'board of directors' posts in his blog. Also look at this comment from one of his supremacist bots : "Shachar • July 15, 2016 2:07 AM @free, I always wondered about such comments. What makes Miko Peled's version of how things went down more reliable than other sources?..." That guy shachar is replying to sombebody who used the nickname "free". So now look for the post that schachar is replying to? OOPS. It doesn't exist. And that's because it was deleted by schneier =) And I know because I made the censored post : Here's the post deleted by tor's director and neocunt schneier " The truth about the jew land thieves (and worse) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZfnpN4Dfc https://mikopeled.com/ " Only three lines, but three lines too much for worthless scumbags like schneier =) Here's a cached version of the page, just in case... http://archive.is/v4MuE

6 12

Re: [from offlist] Attempted coup d'etat in Turkey
by Rayzer 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

On 07/16/2016 11:58 AM, Marina Brown wrote: > On 07/16/2016 11:48 AM, Rayzer wrote: >> >> On 07/16/2016 04:40 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: >>> Consider searching the web for: >>> news Turkey coup d'etat >>> >>> Someone old told me coup d'etat's are common for Turkey, the search >>> terms are: >>> >>> history Turkey coup d'etat >>> >>> Does the NATO's Turkey have nukes? >>> >> http://nationalinterest.org/feature/turkey-secretly-working-nuclear-weapons… >> >> >> NOW, here's a 'conspiracy' theory... >> >> A number of Turkish soldiers are saying they thought the coup was a >> drill... Of course You'd say that too if a firing squad or beheading was >> the other option. >> >> https://twitter.com/AP/status/754295122104348672 >> >> ON THE OTHER HAND Erdogan could be seen to be setting up a fake coup to >> use as excuse to kill of dissenting elements in the Turkish Military who >> say he's trying to create an islamist state and use the puny, >> half-assed, undermined-from-the-git coup attempt by low-level officers >> (patsies to you) to cement his power, as dictator, who allows the >> supplying of ‪‎ISIS‬, and whose son owns the trucks that transport, the >> refineries that process, the ships that carry to market, oil stolen from >> Iraq and elsewhere, again, by ISIS. >> >> Rr >> > Erdogan was busy blaming Gulen, a cleric who runs the equivalent of the > Turkish Rotary club. In Erdogan's paranoid world view Gulens > organization which runs a string of business clubs and bording schools > is really a conspiracy to kick him out of power in Turkey. Anything that > goes wrong in Turkey to Erdogan is automatically blamed on Gulen. > > This is the comical but true illustration of Erdogans view. > > --- Marina Brown > That's also my assessment. Gulen had the misfortune to know a RAND analyst who was CIA and later vouched for him when his visa was threatened. But he's no Dalai Lama or the guy who defected from the Libyan army then spent 30 years living in Vienna Va before the CIA tapped him to lead the nascent groups that killed gadaffi, or a Manny Noriega. The fact that his visa was threatened says he's involuntary... Also note no one was saying he'd be invited to the coup party... MOST writeups claim he's a moderate Sufi with minor mystical tendencies. I think he's rather stay in Pa. Rr

1 0

Cryptome Edit War Breaks Out
by grarpamp 17 Jul '16

17 Jul '16

1 1

Atlantic Council: working with the Russians against al-Qaeda, not feasible, due to long term costs to “America’s reputation”
by Zenaan Harkness 16 Jul '16

16 Jul '16

Last month we were looking for a definition of psychopathic. This hints at a definition. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/351265-washingtons-syria-policy-kerry-moscow/ "With Washington’s Syria policy in disarray, Kerry goes to Moscow ... again"

2 1