February 2020 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Coronavirus: Martial Law Expansion and General Power Grab Push via Quarantine Festival of Fear (PapersPlease, etc)
by grarpamp 06 Feb '20

06 Feb '20

https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/01/31/can-quarantine-orders-restrict-trave… https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/10/14/cdc-proposes-martial-law-in-the-guis… http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/probate/quarantine.shtml https://ktla.com/2020/01/30/quarantine-ordered-for-passenger-who-tried-to-l… https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2017/06/01/emergency-preparedness-i… https://ktla.com/2020/01/28/flight-from-wuhan-china-to-land-at-ontario-inte… https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/coronavirus-quarantine-cruise-i… https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0129-cdc-telebriefing-2019-novel-c… https://www.courthousenews.com/us-says-dont-go-to-china-as-virus-deaths-top… https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-woman-avoided-airport-tes… https://www.pe.com/2020/01/30/coronavirus-evacuee-quarantined-at-march-air-… https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338900711_6_Rejecting_Quarantine_A… https://www.rivcoph.org/Portals/0/Coronavirus%20update%201.30.20.pdf https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/they-can-leave-cdc-wont-quarantine-… How might the coronavirus change our world? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22251388 " In Shanghai (pop. 24M), IR scanning is also required to drive into the city and to enter the subway. The paper says that anyone with a high temperature is held in a quarantine area for hospital pickup. In my district at least, an IR scan is also required to enter shopping malls, and at least some apartment complexes (including mine). This morning the nearest Starbucks started requiring IR scan. You have to register with the pharmacy in order to buy fever medicine. " " Can “quarantine” orders restrict travel and movement? Imagine that you are a US citizen living or traveling overseas, and find yourself in a place of possible danger. The US government, as part of its “services” to US citizens abroad, offers to charter a plane to evacuate US citizens and repatriate them to the US, and you agree to pay a pro-rated share of the cost of the flight back to a US gateway airport, from which you are told you will be free to proceed to your home or to wherever else you choose to go. But the flight, which was scheduled to take you to San Francisco International Airport, is diverted first to Ontario [CA] Airport and then to an Air Force Reserve Base in the Mojave Desert, where passengers are confined in a cordoned-off section of the base. When one of you tries to leave, they are detained by the authorities. This is what has happened to 195 US citizens “evacuated” from Wuhan, China. Have they been “rescued” by their government? Or have they been kidnapped? Questions are already being raised about this and other incidents of individual and mass “quarantines”. Some have questioned the medical argument for quarantine orders, while others have suggested that the current panic reflects ethnic and national bigotry. Our particular concern is — as it has been for many years, and as it has been for other legal experts who have criticized the Federal quarantine regulations — with the legal basis and procedures for restricting the right to freedom of movement, extrajudicially, on ostensibly medical grounds, rather than relying on existing legal mechanisms for the issuance by judges of temporary restraining orders or injunctions restricting individuals’ movements. Unfortunately, US authorities, especially the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have tried to avoid acknowledging the scope of the authority they claim, or giving either the public or specifically affected individuals clear notice of their rights. Instead, as in other recent incidents of quarantine orders, they have tried to avoid any judicial review of their actions by persuading individuals to waive their rights, just as police avoid judicial review of other types of detentions, searches, and interrogations by intimidating members of the public into giving “consent”. KTLA television reports that “None of the passengers showed signs of the illness after being evacuated from the epicenter of the deadly coronavirus outbreak. However, they agreed to stay voluntarily, according to Dr. Chris Braden of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” The CDC claim that passengers “agreed to stay voluntarily” seems to be contradicted by other facts reported in the same news story: One of the Americans evacuated from Wuhan, China… has been placed under quarantine after trying to leave March Air Reserve Base, where a chartered flight landed the previous day, Riverside County health officials said Thursday. As a result, the traveler will be required to “stay for the entire incubation period or until otherwise cleared,” according to a statement from the agency. The incubation period is two weeks. According to the Associated Press: After the plane chartered by the U.S. government arrived at the base Wednesday with the evacuees from the Chinese city of Wuhan, federal officials dodged questions from reporters on whether people would be allowed to leave before a three-day testing and monitoring period was up. And the Washington Examiner reported that: When pressed, Rear Adm. Dr. Nancy Knight, the director of the CDC’s Division of Global Health Protection, confirmed the passengers could leave at their own will, as they are not being quarantined. “They can leave, however, they are sitting in the middle of a military base,” Knight said. “Any discussion around departure would be just that.” The actual scope of the powers claimed by the CDC is spelled out in regulations that were issued in January 2017, which we described at the time they were proposed as giving CDC employees “sweeping martial-law powers of warrantless search, interrogation, tracking of movements, arrest, and extrajudicial mass detention (at the detainees’ own expense!) of individuals or entire groups of unlimited numbers of people for unlimited periods of time.” According to the formal comments we submitted to the CDC: The CDC’s proposal completely ignores existing medical and legal procedures for involuntary commitment of individuals determined to constitute a danger to themselves or others…. The proposed rules would allow any designated CDC “official” to issue, “A Federal order authorizing quarantine, isolation, or conditional release” of an “individual or group”. Violation of such an order would be subject to criminal penalties. The proposed rules would place no limits on: the size of the group subject to such an order; the duration of such “quarantine or isolation” (detention) or “conditional release” (restrictions on movement, assembly, and/or other liberties); or which CDC officials could be designated as authorized to issue such orders, or the medical, legal, or adjudicatory qualifications of such officials. The only review of such an order provided by the proposed rules would be a “medical review” by a single “physician, nurse practitioner, or similar medical professional”. This review would be limited to “ascertaining whether the CDC has a reasonable belief that the individual is infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage,” and would exclude any consideration of legal or other objections to the order. An unlimited number of such reviews could be consolidated in a single proceeding before a single reviewer. An indigent detainee could be “represented” before the reviewer by a “medical representative”, but that “representative” would be appointed by the CDC, and would be a “physician, nurse practitioner, or similar medical professional”, not an attorney. There are no provisions in the proposed rules for access of detainees to legal counsel, representation of detainees by retained or appointed counsel, confrontation or cross-examination of witnesses, compulsory process for obtaining evidence or testimony, independence of the reviewer from the initial decision-maker, judicial review, or any other aspect of due process. So the lowliest single CDC employee, subject only to review on an exclusively medical basis by a single reviewer employed by the same agency and with qualifications “similar” to those of a nurse practitioner, could order the extrajudicial arrest and detention for an unlimited duration of a “group” defined in any manner and including an unlimited number of individuals. The CDC brushed off our objections and more than 15,000 other comments from members of the public including public health organizations and unions representing airline flight attendants. The proposed rules were finalized with only minimal changes. The final rule was modified slightly, in response to our objections, to allow a detainee to be represented by a lawyer at the kangaroo-court CDC “medical review”, but the final rules promulgated in 2017 and in force today still make no provision for consideration of legal objections in the “medical review”, or for judicial review of CDC “quarantine” orders. This is in notable contrast to quarantine orders issued by state and local authorities under California law, or the laws of other states, which are subject to explicit procedures for judicial review. The CDC regulations also entirely ignore and bypass existing legal procedures for involuntary commitment and/or involuntary treatment of persons determined to pose a danger to themselves or others, which are also subject to judicial review. The CDC rules also require airlines to provide passenger information to the CDC on demand, and allow the CDC to enter lists of individual names, categories, and/or algorithmic criteria into the “no-fly” rule set used by the TSA and CBP to decide on issuance of Boarding Pass Printing Results sent to airlines to determine who is, and who is not, allowed to fly. It appears that the CDC is eager to avoid judicial review of these rules, and has avoided issuing Federal quarantine orders in favor of getting local officials to order the detention of individuals who don’t “voluntarily” agree to Federal “requests”. Whatever the legitimacy of current concerns about coronavirus, the potential for abuse of such sweeping, extrajudicial CDC powers appears great. Please let us know if you hear of any legal challenges to Federal “quarantine” restrictions or “no board” orders. "

1 0

Early Warning: Distributed OpenSource Apps and CommsNets (re: Coronavirus, Government Fails)
by grarpamp 06 Feb '20

06 Feb '20

> https://www.thedailybeast.com/up-against-the-coronavirus-chinas-surveillanc… > https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/01/28/the-power-of-myth/ > https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/the-coronavirus-no-need-to-panic.html > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus https://www.wired.com/story/ai-epidemiologist-wuhan-public-health-warnings/ https://bluedot.global/ >From nukes to rabid bats afly, don't expect governments to text you a warning. https://hackaday.io/project/159467-open-source-ultrasonic-phased-array https://hackaday.com/2015/04/07/build-a-phased-array-radar-in-your-garage-t… https://hackaday.com/tag/phased-array/ https://zinka.wordpress.com/ http://www.codeforge.com/s/0/Phased-Array-System-Toolbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/SeedlingHORNE.pdf http://freesourcecode.net/matlabprojects/62210/phased-array-design-toolbox-… https://github.com/jgbos/phased-array-radar http://www.wovre.com/2019/04/matlab-phased-array-toolbox-and-radar.html https://www.theprepperjournal.com/2013/06/17/guerrilla-networking-keep-comm… https://www.excitingip.com/2496/what-is-ftth-fiber-to-the-home-advantages-o… https://www.rtl-sdr.com/adsb-aircraft-radar-with-rtl-sdr/ https://flightaware.com/adsb/ https://www.adsbexchange.com/ Whatever nukes, virus, thugs, zombies or other... be building your own PlanB.

3 5

Researcher: Backdoor mechanism still active in devices using HiSilicon chips | ZDNet
by jim bell 05 Feb '20

05 Feb '20

https://www.zdnet.com/article/researcher-backdoor-mechanism-discovered-in-d…

2 1

A+ Certification
by rooty 05 Feb '20

05 Feb '20

Hey just wanted to share with friends that I got my A+ certification yesterday. Next up N+ thanks for all the help and support. Rooty

2 3

Iowa surprise, Hiltasha Clintonov wins
by Zig the N.g 05 Feb '20

05 Feb '20

In a huge surprise at the Iowa DNC caucuses, Hiltasha Clintonov wins. Details: Surprise Candidate Hiltasha Clintonov Declared Winner Of Iowa Caucuses https://babylonbee.com/news/dark-horse-candidate-hiltasha-clintonov-declare… ... In an unrelated development, all the other candidates have turned up dead. In other news, Bloomberg Purchases First Supporter For $1.7 Billion https://babylonbee.com/news/bloomberg-purchases-first-supporter-for-17-bill… Study: People Tend To Tune Out By The Fifth Threat To Our Democracy Per Day https://babylonbee.com/news/study-people-tend-to-tune-out-by-the-fifth-thre…

1 0

Juan Guaido declared winner of Iowa Caucus
by Razer 05 Feb '20

05 Feb '20

> Due to the immense rigging by the far left Democrat regime in control > of the American government, the official results are illegitimate. > Juan Guaido is the true winner of the Iowa Caucus. Congratulations to > Juan Guaido! https://telegra.ph/Juan-Guaido-declared-winner-of-Iowa-Caucus-02-04 (and if you think that's funny, check the domain owner) Ps. Walker Bragman, Paste magazine "Not great optics here, folks: - Dems paid company literally called Shadow to create caucus app - Buttigieg campaign also paid Shadow, FEC records show - Caucus app fails - Buttigieg declares himself Iowa winner with no results 9:59 PM · Feb 3, 2020" https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1224573131731369994

2 2

The FAX by mailinglist
by Anonymous Remailer (austria) 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Facts are important. There is an idea that they are becoming bifurcated and will soon be obsolete. I think this is a false idea. A truth is only as true as the ideas surrounding it. Following are 5 links. In order of creation and a short description of each. They are hosted on Google servers, so they should be safe and work. Take the time and precautions you see fit. I have. Disney Disabled Services Letter.pdf A letter to Disneyland's disabled services: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qc2h_Z5ZYKefjRgJ_Ahfp0uU8r2O5-JV-R_SvbD… 1fTx0DDN.txt & dontdoanythingaboutthisplease.txt are the same document, a letter to CIA Director Haspel: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlaL5oONIH0mB_vUamNbcMLrmwsPbhttfzTVILg… jiminiproject.pdf - An AI (patent pending) https://drive.google.com/file/d/15t_fHDgwa06bB4w0tWKoZZR8kjrJYxeB/view?usp=… Business letter.pdf a letter to Chelsea Manning sent to her jail cell in Virginia by mail, with a copy sent to her lawyer via twitter messenger: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CsvbTWchuMlaJLIb06iqKfRImG1tC3p6uZVZU0w… A list of Fax numbers I have sent these documents to. Sorting by Date or phone will give you a good idea of where I was trying to communicate to. The "Done - Good" tab at the bottom is only successful faxes with page count confirmations as copied from my account: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bexjO2Q_Zyd3Y15DpuC6xWuD6ViztzWWn0S… There are other facts, but these are some of mine. Please look into this. Thank you.& Aloha -Rob

2 1

Re: Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
by other.arkitech 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

>> closed sources running in a dedicated environment = no risk regarding security. >> For those concerned about running a node behind a firewall there is always the option to isolate it >> remote login ... ssh port 16671 >DMZ or not, the box is internet connected, and nobody >knows what it's doing or can do. Even if not connected, >you could be trojaning their flash / firmware / microcode. Yes I potentially could, and I assume you think I am evil. but still the unique point for raising concerns is the network activity, since who cares what is going on in the raspberry pi apart from how much electricity is taking or how much heat is dissipating. Think what do you know about the software running in your router, likely proprietary software, same thing. Regarding network activity all you'd see is around 15 connections to other nodes exchanging around 10kbps of encrypted packets. Particulrly you are able to verify the node is niether scanning the LAN not attempting to connect to any local computer. You can even run it in different vlan to prevent it. So, even when I am firmly an open-source advocate and the whole source code of the system will be released, this won't happen before I have enough user-base to justify the creation of a dev-community. >It's not your box, undisclaimed this would be unethical >positioning, especially for money environments, doubly >when it's not your money either. >If you need logins, run your own nodes, >and ask for $ if you need for buying them. >Sure people can be asked to accept the risks. >But missing the risks is not making crypto optics. >> But this is like disconnecting your OS from automatic updates. >If this is the reason, make sure people know >it's important for development that they pull >down their own updates. Besides, the ongoing >network will have so many old and hacked up attack >versions that now is good time to experience and >deal with that in protocol. Else the network will fall >apart on day one. Updates are pulled by an script on the node that retrieves signed binaries from other nodes. I do not need, as the one who is compiling the binaries, to have access to nodes. If I do during alpha development is only for development purposes and any possibility of anyone accessing your node including me is controlled exclusively by the node-owner. >> It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet >> The restriction is that if you want to run a private system ot generate another public genesis you have to be licenced. >A rather anti-fork iron-fist approach :) Indeed, although I support nodes working for different forks, I don't want to lose the mainnet (I call it channel 0) In fact I have running two forks. There are nodes working in both channel 0 and channel 4348 which is a licensed private network, different blockchains. I'd like to see a big number of forks with different ledger structures running different local economies. All nodes securing other blockchain also secure channel 0 blockchain, this is the main licence restriction, it is not about paying money for acquiring licences, to make a big public system. >Real crypto money is by nature anti-statist, and must be >generally anon to survive long term, else just admit fiat >and go use that. And who are you that is going to >stand and sue the planet, with what money (tax?). >And how are you going to sue when users take it on darknet >and screw your license anyway. What about how top-secret >actors and govcorp lawmakers won't care about abusing even >the HESSLA license to abuse users, or try to shut it down. >What about clean reversing and cloning the protocols. >Are you hoping to sell product to govcorp, that will be funny. >A real cryptocurrency should stand on its own >such that forks are not tempting or relavant. I am not enforcing licences. Think microsoft, they dont pursue home piracy, they just make sure big corps are paying for their software. >>Users don't want to sign up (aka: leak info) to >>some central to run their money either. This is anonymous system as far as underlying tech allows (IP4 transport). > And they won't want to be seen hooked to clearnet IP > broadcasting their transactions and traffic patterns into > trivially network analyzed clearnet. They will want TLS and > compatibility with onion / i2p / cjdns / socks5 and whatever > else happens to give at least some cases better than clearnet. Information travels encrypted end2end, aka node2node >> Sybil / IPv4 >Sybil attacks are mostly a human problem with mostly a >human solution, some web of trust. People have no idea how >easy it is for agents to spin up IP nodes worldwide, IPv4 is not >an obstacle for them. >Even Tor can nuke 100 fakeass nodes a month. Roll human >solutions into the node culture, and or pump adoption numbers >so high that Sybil becomes negligible irrelavant ratio, then >Sybil gives up and goes home, to run its own legit node >so it doesn't starve to death. >Politicians are a Sybil too, until you show them how to get >unstoppable decentral Swiss Bank on their own Phone :) My algorithm just enforces there are no more than 6 nodes per IP4. Enough measure to safely grow to million nodes from the perspective of 51% attack. Once reached millions, more nodes can be allowed per IP or even IP6 can gradually be enabled. The system doesn't care whether there are many people running a single node, or there is one person running multiple nodes. The global economy is run on the basis of nodes/addresses for the shake of anonymity. It can be assumed the network would stabilise on a node-human ratio distinct of 1:1. Which is fine. No need to enforce 1:1. Enforcing 1:1 would require disclosure of identities breaking anonymity. >Also, there are millions of legit and desirable users behind NATs, >tens to thousands behind one IP... schools, corp workers, >phones, roomates, hotels, VPN's, tor... and users transporting >their nodes all over with them, etc. They'd end up blocked out. Innocent people could be prevented from running a node given the IP4 restriction mentioned above. But this would be happening only while the network grows in size. Reached a point, preventive countermeaures could be relaxed allowing the participation of more people. >> If in the Tor network the entry/guard nodes (who are witnesses of >>your IP4 address) could forward a hashed version of the IP4, I would >>solve the sybil protection based on IP4 without exposing the real IP4 >>address. I don't (initially) think it would compromise anonymity >Rainbow tables for all IPv4 IP's already exist. I am not tackling specially the problem beyond IP4 disclosure. I first solve the system assuming IP4 disclosure is OK for 80% of the people. If the demand goes big enough a separate work on how to hide IP4 addresses can be undertaken without invalidating any of the work done so far. >> secp256k1 >>https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography >>Sure BTC and a lot use secp256k1 so there can be >>motivation there, but if for purely to follow potential >>legacy BTC choice, that choice should probably >>seek some review before deploy. >> As part of scalability solution I am spinning around the following idea: >> what problems I am not foreseeing this approach imply? >Seems to get into things like DHT, message routing >between clusters, etc. Not clear if you are seeking >potential solutions, or have potential one for review. >> mainnet beta 50 nodes now >So what is the launch mechanism... >Beta is a premine, no new genesis, leadtime till genesis, etc? The program is: genesis block, Node #1 - Nov-2018 FFF arounf the world invided to collaborate. alpha-rc6, Node #50 - Apx Feb-2019 Told everyone to not spread the word, so I keep maneageable network size for dev. alpha-11, around ~60 Nodes (Jan 2020) ... (more nodes, I invite more people, YOU?) beta ... 1.0 >> Sounds impossible. >> In order to find the current state you need to process the blockchain. >This is legacy first implementation default ideation. >Seek ways to make what is thought impossible... possible. >It may be possible to do away with backhistory >and simply maintain a UTXO db. There were generic >posts on "UTXO" here, and some "history chain since >genesis not needed" "UTXO database" whitepapers do >exist out there on the subject, you will have to find and >post them please. > investigate more on how cheaper a public system could > be compared to current ones. >#OpenFabs and #GuerrillaNetworks >Publishing a philosophy and technical overview whitepaper >would assist all the understanding, review, and development >processes, and answer a lot of people's questions. Without >paper, or source code, it's hard to see what you propose. >Covering classic scaling, coin privacy, economics, consensus, >etc... all the usual issues, plus whatever your value add is. >Protocol modularity and ability to smoothly transition >any parts of the system as needed. etc. For the shake of leveraging my effort I am not writing much literature yet. Will do as caring about the impl is less needed and can allocate more time to doc. >You see how all the cryptocurrencies fight. >If you are creating something unique, just ignore everyone, >else they will take away the unique and any solution it offers. That's how I am going on : ) >I think I understand some picture of your coin philosophy, >and look forward to whitepaper for more. Thanks. Thanks to you, Cheers OA

4 17

Schneier was right
by Ryan Carboni 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

Two years he says? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/nsa_hacking_of_.html Assume that anything we learn about what the NSA does today is a preview of what cybercriminals are going to do in six months to two years.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: ZKP - Mix tornado.cash, Z-DEX, zk-DEX
by grarpamp 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_GQ__w3tZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9n5QsILFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytydO0-ibhg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcmvMs4AMbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUs1bH85X9I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjcUG5St2Xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugi-cDxCnzQ DEX over i2p/cjdns/tor/etc Now!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTD7MxsDeY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_jaw0dT9M

1 0