November 2019 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

ICANN races towards regulatory capture: the great .ORG heist
by grarpamp 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2019/11/23/a-tale-of-icann-and-regulatory-captu… Internet could have moved root tld functions out to fully distributed coin / DHT / overlay network ages ago. " Ethos Capital, a new commercial investment firm founded in the past few months in Boston, has 2 staff and only one major investment: a deal to acquire the 501c3 non-profit that currently runs the .org domain (valued at a few $B), for an undisclosed sum. This was initiated immediately after ICANN decided in May, over universal opposition, to remove the price cap on .org registrations with no meaningful protections for existing or future registrants. This seems to violate a range of ethical, ICANN, ISOC, and non-profit guidelines. It is certainly the privatisation of a not-for-profit monopoly into a for-profit one, which will benefit a few by inconveniencing millions of others. I have questions: Do affected parties have recourse? Other than polite letters, is anything being done? Why does Vint in particular think this is a good idea… ? Has anyone currently at ICANN + ISOC made substantive comment? For more backstory, read on… A brief history of .org .... "

1 0

ZDNet: Europe just ran out of new IPv4 addresses
by jim bell 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

ZDNet: Europe just ran out of new IPv4 addresses. https://www.zdnet.com/article/europe-just-ran-out-of-new-ipv4-addresses/ Jim Bell's comment: Ya think we should take up a collection, sorta like a 2019 "CARE package"?

1 0

lists of ingredients of vaccines now banned from Facebook - [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

The Ministry of Truth marches forward: Facebook Bans All Content On Vaccine Awareness, Including Facts About Vaccine Ingredients https://www.zerohedge.com/health/facebook-bans-all-content-vaccine-awarenes… https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-08-facebook-bans-all-content-on-vaccine… Just as we warned would happen, the tech giants are now moving aggressively to ban all speech that contradicts whatever “official” position is decided to be “the truth” by the corrupt establishment. This week, Facebook announced it would block all content on Facebook that questions the official dogma on vaccines, which falsely insists that vaccines have never harmed anyone (a hilarious lie), that vaccines contain only safe ingredients (a blatant deception) and that vaccines always work on everyone (another laughable lie). Facebook is achieving this by labeling vaccine awareness information “misinformation” or “hoaxes.” At the top of the list is the assertion that vaccines are linked to autism — something that even the CDC’s own top whistleblower scientist reveals to be true, http://www.vaccines.news/2016-04-29-cdc-whistleblower-we-were-ordered-to-co… yet the vaccine industry claims it’s all a hoax (in order to cover the crimes of medical violence against children that are being committed by the vaccine pushers). Notably, tech giants are now banning vaccine truth information by labeling it “misinformation” in exactly the same way they ban conservative content by labeling it “hate speech.” They simply invent a false category to justify the ban, all while crushing the free speech of users (and ultimately leading to the vaccine maiming of millions of innocent children). Under this twisted system of speech policing, they can ban any content they don’t like by simply labeling it “false” or “hateful,” even if it’s true and important. ...

1 0

peak pathological altruism - anti fur activist demands no more brazilians, repeatedly stabs babysitter - [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

1 0

Internet Utopias Survey and Manifesto
by grarpamp 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

Fri, Nov 22, 2019 Reply-To: christian.fuchs(a)uti.at As part of an AHRC research network, I conduct a survey about Internet/media utopias. In the time of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and fake news, we experience a crisis of Internet platforms. Many people think we need Internet and media utopias today. But how could they look like? Those interested in liberation and technology might have good ideas... I therefore want to invite you to participate: https://psmutopias.limequery.net/879161 Answering will take about five minutes. A number of participants with very visionary ideas will be invited to a workshop in 2020 in London, where participants will work on co-writing/co-authoring an Internet/Media Utopias Manifesto. Kind regards, Christian Fuchs -- Prof. Christian Fuchs University of Westminster, Director of the Communication and Media Research Institute http://www.camri.ac.uk @fuchschristian c.fuchs(a)westminster.ac.uk

3 3

Re: No, Mr. Busby, there is a Santa Claus.
by jim bell 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

Okay, I understand, But that doesn't mean that I am convinced that there does not remain a problem. Your questions did not resolve the issues you raised, in part because those questions weren't well-framed, and appeared to be based on false 'facts' that I was fully capable of and willing to correct. As an excellent example, your reference to me being followed by "FBI agents", and involving something identified as a "library" is a major example of this. Maybe you thought that this brief description accurately represented a specific event in my history, but as I carefully explained to you, it did not. I asked you for some clarification: Can you narrow down this event even to the year, or better yet the month it happened? And, why would you figure that I know that some people, following me, were FBI agents, as opposed to any other brand of government person or for that matter anyone else? All of this doesn't add up. Even if we assume that there were indeed "FBI agents" following me, and a "library" was involved, it would be highly negligent for you to not inquire further. Maybe you are assuming that these "FBI agents" were engaged in a LEGITIMATE operation? Why would you think that? I have carefully explained that the Feds, and specifically the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, had forged the fake appeal case 99-30210 beginning in June 1999, and continued through May, 2000, and continuing thereafter. I believed (falsely, as it turns out) that I had initiated this case in about April 2000, and they had to give me the appeal that they had already secretly faked. Okay, consider what happened to me when I got out of prison April 2000, I stated numerous times, publicly, that the case(s) against me were frauds and that the government had engaged in illegal actions against me. And moreover, that I intended to expose all that. ALL that. At that time, I wasn't aware of the forged pre-April 2000 nature of appeal 99-30210: I only saw its docket in about June 20, 2003. But notice that the government agents DIDN'T know, for sure, what I knew. It is quite possible that the actual motivation of people following me (if that following had indeed occurred, by means other than a planted GPS tracker; I wasn't aware at the time) was to determine if I was going to discover that faked case. They may also have been very concerned that I was accusing them of getting corrupt government snitch Ryan Thomas Lund to assault me, which he did on November 25, 1997. Given all this, IF FBI agents had been following me during the period April through October 2000, do you really believe that they had my best interests at heart, or that they were actually engaging in some legitimate investigation? HELL NO! So, right now it certainly appears that you are failing, quite possibly intentionally, to pursue this information in at least enough detail to distinguish between those two scenarios: One, where FBI agents had a legitimate investigation, and the alternative, where FBI agents (and other government people) were well aware that I was going to expose their criminal acts in the past, and they were acting illegally to stop me, or at least figure out how much information I knew. I don't doubt that these "FBI agents" could have invented some sort of seemingly-legitimate scenario that they would have used to justify an 'investigation', but it would have been false, and it would have ignored the background information that I have extensively documented and alleged. They probably figured they never would be found out. And at least for 19 years, they appear to have been correct in that prediction. Did you ask the source, "WHY were these 'FBI agents' following Jim Bell?" I think you didn't. I think you just ASSUMED that these guys were doing something legitimate, and you were ignoring the possibility of anything illegitimate. Why would you do that? You may not have the time or patience to read the Claims in my 2003 lawsuit. https://cryptome.org/jdb/jdb-v-usa-ric.htm and its October 2004 Amendment, http://cryptome.org/jdb/jdb-v-usa-oct2004.pdf . Knowing that, that is why I write these emails to you, describing numerous facts and incidents that will alert you to what was done wrong to me. So, as a start, let's at least deal with this "FBI following" incident, wherever and whenever it occurred. I feel quite confident that you will learn something, and it will disabuse you of many false ideas that would lead you to write a false, misleading, and woefully incomplete story. Jim Bell On Friday, November 8, 2019, 06:53:22 AM PST, Will Stephenson <will(a)harpers.org> wrote: Jim, We appreciate your help here -- the questions I asked initially were our main points of concern. To clarify, you're not the primary subject of the article, and the particulars of your legal situation (while very fascinating and frustrating to hear about) are not a focus of the piece. However, I've communicated to Brian and the editor that you disagree profoundly with (and find much fault with) the federal government's narrative of your case; that's been registered on our end. Thanks again, On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:07 PM jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Can you both confirm that you two are still interested in doing 'fact checking' in regards to my case? Other than giving me a very small number of questions, which didn't appear to be in any way dovetailing with what you've described as the article in question, you haven't followed up with any more issues. Further issues remain, some of the questions you did ask appear to be based on very false or highly incomplete 'information', but you haven't described the source of the material you obtained. Jim Bell On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, 11:06:11 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Okay, in the last 5 days, I have effectively confirmed that there has been a massive fraud about the Cypherpunks data archive. I have extensively addressed and stated some of the evidence, in many of my comments to the CP list in the last 5 days. You may not have seen all of it, but it is accessible through the new implementation of the archive itself. Put simply, the file for the 1995 archive for the CP email list has been almost entirely "sanitied" for references to 'jim bell', 'jimbell(a)pacifier.com', ' ap ', and 'assassination politics'. The 1996 archive, however, is packed with just such references. Apparently, it has NOT been "sanitized". Other people currently on the CP list seem to now agree that my description of the data (and its key omissions) is accurate, although most of these CURRENT CP subscribers were not present during the years 1991-1997, so they don't have a personal recollection of the events. What we don't currently know is what year this data forgery occurred. There are some indications that it occurred in 2003, about the time I re-filed my civil lawsuit. It was in that year that the government people would have realized they were likely to be exposed by my actions, Let me also say, unfortunately, that in the last couple of days I've seen some indication of 'guilty knowledge' by a Tom Busby, who currently archives the list, or at least his biases. But, his direct involvement might have started only 2-3 or so years ago. One major problem is that I have not seen any realistic feedback or interaction subsequent to my numerous comments to both of you, Fact-checking, in the general case, cannot merely be a 'one-off' event, No one-way streets. And in this case, the sudden emergence of the discovery of the archive fraud makes it especially compelling that you actually follow-up. Which you are not doing. And I ask, "why is that?" You could, hypothetically, be 'fact checking'. But you also could be SIMULATING fact-checking. In other words, you write down a few questions, eventually you wll get answers, and that is that. That is not acceptable. That could easily be fraud. There's far more that you should be asking about. My initial responses to you about your questions made some very serious challenges about those questions. For just one example, you mentioned some sort of FBI-following of me, and you also mentioned something about a "library". I think the number of times I have visited a library in the last 25 years could be counted on the fingers of one hand. (unless you are counting my numerous visits to prison law libraries, while in prison, which it doesn't sound like you are.) But you also insert the part about the "FBI". And, by asking me this question, you apparently think that I am supposed to KNOW:1. That there are people following me. AND2. I somehow KNOW they are with the FBI, Literally, I have to draw a blank on this combination. On a tiny number of days (2-3?, and I'm not so sure about 3)), I have believed there were people following me. Nevertheless, I didn't know who they were, or who they worked for. I suspected they were Feds, but I didn't know what agency (ies) they worked for. I should say, however, that during the period late April 2000 and very late October 2000, it is at least very likely that the Feds "followed" me by simply placing a GPS tracking device on my parents' Lincoln Continental, which presumably transmitted location information to them, both at some fixed location(s) and probably to their mobile units as well. They eventually admitted to obtaining a warrant to do so in late October 2000, justifying such a tracking device placement, but their admission was strategically limited to the time frame of late October 2000, Their collusion with "my" attorney protected them from my exposure of their pre-October 2000 actions in regards to their following. Theirs was a ruse: They didn't want to have to justify, or explain, in court a prior NON-warrant placement of a GPS tracking device perhaps long before October 2000. So, they didn't have to ADD a new tracking device in October 2000, when I think they wanted to openly justify placing a device. Sounds odd, right? Getting a warrant in late October 2000 was designed to conceal the fact that they ALREADY had 'bugged' the car (at least, for GPS) well before October 2000, and quite possibly as early as April 2000, or even earlier. In fact, this was FRAUD. When police get a warrant, they have to explain why they need it, If, secretly, they already had placed another tracking device, they should have had to disclose to the court that they, quite literally, did not NEED another such device!! In that case, the judge would have asked, "why, exactly, do you NEED ANOTHER ONE!?!?!" To which they would have little answer, Because if they had to disclose that information, they would have had to explain what they were trying to accomplish. Remember the fake "appeal case" 99-30210, secretly initiated in about June 1999. Whether those 2000 followers were actually aware of that fake appeal case, they or their leaders were aware that I was seeking to expose them or their colleagues. I have repeatedly explained that they were guilty of various crimes, and they knew that I could expose them. THAT was their motivation to spy on me. If you find this description hard to follow, I'm happy to expand on it, but first you're going to have to acknowledge that you actually intend to pursue this information, or openly deny it. What do you intend to do? You also implied that these guys were somehow justified in following me. I think I should be given a chance to challenge that assertion. THEY might have "a story" that would seem to have withstood very brief questioning, but I have the advantage of 25 years of history and documentation on my side. YOU should let me craft questions that YOU ask of THEM, and give ME their answers. I believe I can blow these stories up so that it is obvious they are lying, or that they are following illegal orders from higher up, If they are unwilling to do this, that is a very strong piece of evidence that they know they are guilty. Put simply, if you are really intending to be UNBIASED, you cannot treat "them" differently that you treat ME!!! You must not act as if you are the agent of the Federal Government, Nevertheless, you sound like you are reasonably confident in your source. So, that implies that there may have been some miscommunication in the line, I think you need to try again, not merely for your own benefit, but because I feel that I have a right to challenge your sources and their stories, At least, I am quite capable of writing and filing a libel lawsuit as well as most lawyers. (Libel lawsuits are quite rare.) I am very cooperative, but I expect you to meet me 'halfway', as they say, Start off by detailing this: At least down to the year, ideally the month, etc. Then, tell me what library you believe I visited, There's at least one library in Vancouver Washington. (actually, an old, decommissioned one and a new replacement one.) There may be others as well. I know there's a library in westside Portland, Oregon, but I don't think I visited it since about 1992, or even earlier. I visited a library in Eastside Portland, but never before 2013. No doubt there's a library in Beaverton, Oregon, but I don't recall where it is, and cannot recall ever visiting it. See the problem? You've related an EXTREMELY vague, undated recollection that simply doesn't make sense. I am more than willing to answer and help you out, but more information is necessary. And, I think you need to be willing to demand further information from whatever sources you have been talking and writing to, Remember, I am alleging that they (or at least their colleagues) were busily committing crimes. Jim Bell On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 04:26:34 PM PDT, Brian Merchant <briancmerchant(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd prefer it if you didn't CC me or the fact checker on your correspondence with other individuals. To answer your query, yes, I would like very much to expand on this piece or do another dedicated to your history, but I would not like to be involved in real-time correspondences or disputes with other persons. We can discuss the contents of your findings later on. Please remove me and Will from these emails. Thanks for your understanding. bcm On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:31 PM jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: No, Mr. Busby, there is a Santa Claus. Dear Mr. Busby, On the Cypherpunks Archive web page, https://cryptoanarchy.wiki/blog/2018/07/05/the-cypherpunks-mailing-list-arc… , you said: "I have an uneasy feeling that many of the posts from this era may already be irrecoverably lost. If this is true it would be a great shame for future generations who want to learn about this vital period of internet history and development. There is an argument that perhaps the list participants would like their privacy preserved, however I don’t think it is a strong one. An open-subscription mailing list is ultimately a public forum. Posting to it is an act of placing information into the public domain." No, Mr. Busby, you need not worry about that specific possibility. There were clearly hundreds of people who subscribed to the CP email list, even as early as mid 1995. Each of them regularly received copies of posted CP emails, which were presumably reliably stored onto their computers' hard drives, possibly floppy disks, and eventually possibly backup tapes. Those hard drives were occasionally retired, but when that happened many of them were probably put on shelves to gather dust. Remember, at the moment they were retired, they were not considered totally worthless. And shelves are remarkable things: If you put something on them, perhaps in a box, that object generally does not simply disappear after years or even decades. So there was no immediate reason to throw those hard drives away, even if the potential value of that hardware gradually dropped. So, in many cases, it can be expected that such hardware remains and is ultimately retrievable, (Only idiots like Razer think otherwise, apparently.) Does anybody believe that EACH AND EVERY copy of ANY specific CP email was totally erased, everywhere around the world it happened to be. Including, for instance, the NSA and other government TLA's? How foolish! But what you need to do, immediately, is to worry about a far more omnous reality, one that I have discovered within the last 3+ days. I was a heavy participant in the Cypherpunks list from perhaps March 1995 onwards, and for a couple of years. And, quite unlike most of the now-current subscribers, the large majority of whom were not on the CP list in 1995, I can actually REMEMBER the general events of that time frame. Which is one of the main reasons I have a powerful advantage as I studied a specific kind of message and text that is, or at least SHOULD BE, in the Cypherpunks archive for 1995. You, sorting through a veritable ocean of look-sorta-alike data, are very unlikely to spontaneously notice what data happens to be "missing". If you go into a forest, how can you notice one missing tree, or a dozen? (Yes, a sawed-off stump remains an excellent clue.) I, however, knowing that my name (jim bell) and my old email adddress (jimbell(a)pacifier.com) and references to 'assassination politics' and 'AP' should be heavily present, have a huge advantage. If they aren't (still) there, I will notice it. And they aren't. And I did. You presumably don't notice it, at least not until I explain what should be present, yet isn't present. Quite understandable. But now you know. I suggest that you read my comments for the last 3 or so days on CP. In some of them, I point out that the text string 'jim bell' does not seem to be present in the 1995 archive you are maintaining, nor in the Venona file for that year. And the text string 'AP', in the limited meaning of the name of my 1995 essay, "Assassination Politics", which soon enough the vast majority of the time was shortened to merely 'AP'. Yet, I first entered the CP list about March 1995, and was solidly responding to dozens, of messages, per day. And other people, many dozens of them, were posting similar, and responding, messages back to me, and to others on the list. None of that seems to be present, at least not before November 2005, and yet it is solidly present in 2006. And yet, mysteriously, references to me and my then-email address, jimbell(a)pacifier.com simply don't occur until November 1995. But if you compare the 1996 archive, and the Venona-file equivalent, you will see that these text strings are subsequently heavily present that later year, 1996, as in fact they should also have been for more than the last half of the year 1995. And in fact, there should be far more references to "AP", per day in mid-late 1995, than eventually would be (and, I presume, still are) found in 1996. (only clueless, malicious people like Razer don't comprehend this, or at least they pretend not to be able to figure it out.) Since you are sympathetic to the Cypherpunks cause (why else would you be here?), I can tell you that there is some very good news, There is no reason to believe, now that I have discovered a major problem with the tampering, that it will be impossible to re-acquire most if not all of the emails making up what should be the archive. But the not-quite-so-good-news is that perhaps you ought to mentally re-orient yourself, shift gears a little. Yes, I agree that making and maintaining an accurate Cypherpunks archive it good and important. But you don't mow the grass when your house is on fire, do you? I say we have an 'emergency', since I have discovered massive and deliberate tampering with the CP archive. Because of your motivation to maintain an accurate list, I think you should also be motivated to figure out who managed to engineer such an abhorrent fraud, And you will notice that these tasks heavily overlap. To generate an accurate archive now requires determining what material has been omitted. And that is a difficult task: Prior to this, I suppose you thought you were dealing only with accidental, inadvertent data omissions. Now, you are aware that that there is at least one huge, deliberate, malicious fraud. And just because I noticed (so far) one of them, doesn't mean that there are not others, ones that I haven't yet noticed. Clearly, the fact that this fraud wasn't discovered until 3 days ago means that the "tools", and "system" that we should otherwise expect will find this sort of thing didn't actually work. So, if they are not changed, there is no reason to believe they will begin to work in the future. You were aware of some omissions, you just didn't understand what they were and how they were caused: "I have an uneasy feeling that many of the posts from this era may already be irrecoverably lost. If this is true it would be a great shame for future generations who want to learn about this vital period of internet history and development." Also, you should be aware that deliberately tampering with computer data is a Federal felony. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/1… The people who accomplished this forgery are in grave danger of prosecution, or at least they should be if the government prosecutors do their job. And part of OUR task will be to expose AND publicize this corruption sufficiently well so as to help guarantee that the Feds don't have any alternative to prosecute them. Do you think you can do that? And that includes finding out the nature of the forgery, in at least enough detail to allow a prosecutor to bring a winning case. Are you getting excited now, Mr. Busby? It's only going to get more "real" from here on in. "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEEh0GF_C8 Jim Bell -- Brian Merchant ===== The One DeviceTerraform, Motherboard @ VICE -- Will StephensonAssistant EditorHarper's Magazine212-420-5724

1 2

Re: Cypherpunks FOIAs [was Re: The Cypherpunk's 1995 Archive has been forged, and what are we going to do about it? (was:Re: Could someone add news of Cypherpunks Archive...]
by coderman 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 25, 2019 6:52 PM, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ... >>the denial using Glomar exception is here: > https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/02/11/1-29-19_MR67282_REJ-G_106095… > > This document doesn't say why the Glomar exception is applicable. It does not even include the term "Glomar". Frustratingly, in this PDF format I cannot select and copy text. Why??? welcome to FOIA! the agencies do this on purpose, usually returning scanned images of documents rather than searchable text or annotated PDFs. this is a "feature" for them, not a bug :) [ almost the entire CIA CREST archive is like this, once they released it from the confines of the National Archives in Maryland ] regarding Glomar, any time "can neither confirm nor deny" is the response, it is categorized as "Glomar" denial. > How would the (re-)disclosure of these Cypherpunks emails, which were originally disseminated to thousands of people, including (presumably) foreigners, result in "identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage to the national security"? The simple answer is, 'No way in hell!!!'. That response was deliberately wrong. agreed; again, typical of FOIA - blanket denials, and upon appeal, more specific denials. (and maybe, if you're lucky, a partial response!) > This is still true. A re-filing might be better done in another person's name, to ensure that the concepts of "collateral estoppel" and "res judicata" aren't used to reject the claim a second time. hey Ryan! ;) (MuckRock has a clone request feature. wink wink nudge nudge...) > Given that recent case out of the Northern District of California, it seems likely that a better tactic would be to have somebody else file essentially the same FOIA application in the Northern District of California, citing that precedent, and then have the right to appeal the agency's denial(s) to that California district. However, I see no reason that both tactics could not be pursued, in parallel. Except, that the last time I heard of what it was, a District Court docket fee was $350, but it might have changed. Getting a waiver of the docket fee ("In Forma Pauperis") might be possible, but it might merely be in a form which delays the payment, not completely waives it. > > It would also be useful to pre-load the FOIA requests with arguments as to why things like the Glomar exception shouldn't apply: The Cypherpunks mailing list was never "secret"; it was always open to anyone who wanted to subscribe to it; everyone who posted to it knew that their postings would be sent to hundreds (eventually thousands) of subscribers. In principle, any person who wanted a copy of the entire (or a portion) of the Cypherpunks email database could have 'easily' achieved that by simply subscribing to it: It certainly isn't clear why the collection of Cypherpunks emails, all of which were public and moreover were fully intended to be public, would be a 'matter of national security'. Make them WORK for the exceptions! And, if re-filed in the Northern District of California, cite that as relevant precedent. having someone file in Northern District of California, with preemptive refutation of Glomar applicability is a good idea. paging all FOIA nerds! best regards,

2 1

None
by valentin.brekher＠gmail.com 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

1 0

Fw: Cypherpunks FOIAs [was Re: The Cypherpunk's 1995 Archive has been forged, and what are we going to do about it? (was:Re: Could someone add news of Cypherpunks Archive...]
by jim bell 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

On Monday, November 25, 2019, 10:52:43 AM PST, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: My comments inline: Jim Bell On Monday, November 25, 2019, 08:48:49 AM PST, coderman <coderman(a)protonmail.com> wrote: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 25, 2019 6:34 AM, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ... Can I see the denial decision? >the denial using Glomar exception is here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/02/11/1-29-19_MR67282_REJ-G_106095… This document doesn't say why the Glomar exception is applicable. It does not even include the term "Glomar". Frustratingly, in this PDF format I cannot select and copy text. Why??? The relevant claim seems to be in Paragraph 4 of that cited letter: "We have determined..." Some PDFs are easily selectable and copyable. For example, look at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Judicial-Watch-v-De… Why is this copyability not true of the PDF from Muckrock, above? Note a relevant part of that cite, section (2)(b) on page 34: "b. Defendants fail to demonstrate that all 52 records reasonably could be expected to cause identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Even if Defendants could show – which they cannot – that each and every record pertainsto one or more classification categories, Defendants fail to demonstrate that the disclosure of all 52records “could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the nationalsecurity.” EO 13526, § 1.4. In addition, because the records have been purportedly classified asTOP SECRET, the type of identifiable or describable damage must be “exceptionally grave.” EO13526, § 1.2. In an attempt to support Defendants’ claim that the release of each and every recordreasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security,Director Bennett describes two types of records: (1) Harm to National Security from Release ofImages of bin Laden and (2) Harm to National Security from Release of Information pertaining toCIA Intelligence Activities and Methods. " [end of quote] Similarly, as to the FOIA for Cypherpunks emails, it is extremely hard to justify withholding material that was previously publically disseminated, by people who knew and intended to do precisely that, and yet say something like: "reasonably could be expected to cause identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage to the national security. How would the (re-)disclosure of these Cypherpunks emails, which were originally disseminated to thousands of people, including (presumably) foreigners, result in "identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage to the national security"? The simple answer is, 'No way in hell!!!'. That response was deliberately wrong. In addition, the Paragraph 5: "In addition, this Agency...". Those laws need to be checked. >> But you might want to look into the twin legal concepts "Collateral Estoppel" and "Res Judicata". They are confusingly so similar that many lawyers don't know the difference This is still true. A re-filing might be better done in another person's name, to ensure that the concepts of "collateral estoppel" and "res judicata" aren't used to reject the claim a second time. >i should note that none of these requests have gone to litigation. the FOIA process handles appeals internally, and after an appeal is refused, contesting before a judge in court is possible. I don't know the rules for the precedents on FOIA requests. In ordinary Federal Court cases and appeals, any precedent from other Appeal Circuits can be citeable, but generally precedent from the specific Circuit (1-11 and DC; there is also a Federal Circuit for patents) is strongly preferred. (that includes the concept of being 'binding'. If a precedent is 'binding' a judge is supposed to be required to follow it.) And, can a person who filed for a FOIA in Massachusetts appeal to a a District Court in a different Circuit? Doesn't sound likely. Given that recent case out of the Northern District of California, it seems likely that a better tactic would be to have somebody else file essentially the same FOIA application in the Northern District of California, citing that precedent, and then have the right to appeal the agency's denial(s) to that California district. However, I see no reason that both tactics could not be pursued, in parallel. Except, that the last time I heard of what it was, a District Court docket fee was $350, but it might have changed. Getting a waiver of the docket fee ("In Forma Pauperis") might be possible, but it might merely be in a form which delays the payment, not completely waives it. It would also be useful to pre-load the FOIA requests with arguments as to why things like the Glomar exception shouldn't apply: The Cypherpunks mailing list was never "secret"; it was always open to anyone who wanted to subscribe to it; everyone who posted to it knew that their postings would be sent to hundreds (eventually thousands) of subscribers. In principle, any person who wanted a copy of the entire (or a portion) of the Cypherpunks email database could have 'easily' achieved that by simply subscribing to it: It certainly isn't clear why the collection of Cypherpunks emails, all of which were public and moreover were fully intended to be public, would be a 'matter of national security'. Make them WORK for the exceptions! And, if re-filed in the Northern District of California, cite that as relevant precedent. Jim Bell

1 0

tor stinks, take #376032
by Punk-Stasi 2.0 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/sniper14.pdf " extremely low cost - highly destructive denial of service attack used to anonymously disable arbitrary Tor relays" even more interesting : "adversary can quickly, efficiently, and perfectly identify all guards of hidden service H. Moreover, the discovery process looks fairly innocuous to H, which only sees a series of normal rendezvous requests. Of course, all such requests are to the same rendezvous point, the connections may appear abnormally fast, and no data is ever carried on the circuits. If stealthiness is a goal, the attack could be mounted from client with normal rendezvous point selection, at a slower rate, and including some typical data requests as cover. This would come at the cost of some speed and efficiency. Note also that Øverlier and Syverson [34] describe a less-efficient method of guard identification that depends on performing traffic correlation that is less precise but is more robust to countermeasures." the reader should put 2 and 2 together and consider what can happen once the guards for a 'hidden service' are found.

1 0