June 2020 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Ars Technica: Plundering of crypto keys from ultrasecure SGX sends Intel scrambling again
by jim bell 10 Jun '20

10 Jun '20

Ars Technica: Plundering of crypto keys from ultrasecure SGX sends Intel scrambling again. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/06/new-exploits-plunder…

1 0

Re: Personal Black Box: Armed, black business owner mistaken for robber, punched by white Alabama cop
by jim bell 10 Jun '20

10 Jun '20

https://www.al.com/news/2020/06/decatur-police-officer-punches-liquor-store…

1 1

Social Atomization and Social Capital
by recondite＠tuta.io 10 Jun '20

10 Jun '20

What do you guys think about the loss of social capital through atomization of society via tech? Trying to figure out the ways that atomization is being sold to the masses as a perk, like working from home, but where it actually makes it easier to control them Here's a section of the piece I'm working on. ##Atomization and Social Capital## The relationshipbetween social atomization and social capital is something thathasn’t been so firmly established, if at all. Surely, at firstglance they seem to be similar, almost exactly the same but they’renot. Atomization, in a sociological sense, is the breaking down ofsociety into smaller pieces; in scientific terms to atomize somethingis to spray it, like gasoline into the cylinder of a car. Diffusionis a synonym to both uses. Social capital,though, is a much slippery term. I think it is most succinctlydefined as: the networks of relationships among people who live andwork in a particular society, enabling that society to functioneffectively. We have entered aburgeoning era in western society where there is less and less socialcapital needed between people for the society to continue tofunction. For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer todeliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDAwhich sets qualifications for producers to meet so that the food inthe grocery store doesn’t harm anybody. There are numerous agenciesand technologies that have the sole purpose of existing in order tolessen the amount of trust that we need in each other. I don’tthink this is a bad evolution in society, to the contrary, I thinkit’s a net benefit for all involved. Therefore, thedeclining amount of social capital needed in our society for it tofunction is good for our economic production and physical well-being(at least at face value, but that’s a topic for another time.) Onthe other hand, what this allows for is further societal atomizationwithout any harmful effects to economic production and/or physicalwell-being. The danger instead is shifted to our personal lives.Belonging to a community that has no other interest other thangetting together with people that have similar ideologies, the amountof people growing a family, public recreation, and many otherpro-social activities are all declining. The most recentdevelopment is in the workplace. Many workers have been operatingremotely since the onset of the pandemic and the organizations theywork for have been realizing that productivity has not beendramatically affected. Jack Dorsey recently announced that mostTwitter employees would not be required to come into the office evenafter the pandemic slows, and in general the ability to work fromhome is being sold to us as a perk. But in the long run “Workingfrom Home Post-Coronavirus Will Give Bosses Greater Control ofWorkers’ Lives” as mentioned by Luke Savage in his article of thesame name as well as essentially abolish casual co-workingsocialization and further diminish social capital in the work place. Frankly, we don’tneed these social aspects in life to have our basic necessities metbut it’s well known that most are beneficial, sometimes critical,for psychological growth and well-being.

4 5

Chat History and Contact Mysteriously Erased In Telegram
by Karl 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

On Sun, May 3, 2020, 9:10 PM Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Karl. Hope you are feeling much better, calmer, and happy. > > Sorry for being late again. Let's try Telegram for sending messages to > each other, what do you think? My alias there is > > I love it, very interesting, cute and secure: <https://telegram.org> > > Try to install it on you cellphone and sending me a message, please. > > Hugs! <3 > > Ceci > >

5 8

handling false dichotomies - build something new
by Zenaan Harkness 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

tl;dr build something new Ideas For Righteous Revolution - Deeper Into The Fourth Turning, We Go Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com, https://www.peakprosperity.com/ideas-for-righteous-revolution/ https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ideas-righteous-revolution-deeper-fourt… .. I’m by no means an experienced revolutionary, so take everything that follows with a massive boulder of salt. But watching the nightly riots raises the question: Is there a more effective way to create positive societal change? .. Ideas For A Righteous Revolution 1. Boycotting The Big Banks .. 2. Living Debt-Free .. 3. Converting The Media .. 4. Exposing The Villains .. .. The above are just ideas. None of them is a silver bullet. There may be, and probably are, many better ones out there for the righteous revolutionary to adopt. The point of this piece is to demonstrate that there are effective options for protest and rebellion that don’t require bloodshed, looting and property damage. And that may prove materially more effective than confrontation in the streets at resulting in positive change. But whatever tactics are ultimately pursued, it’s key to have an ideological platform underlying the revolution. You can’t just be “against” the current order; you need to stand “for” a constructive vision or set of principles for doing things better. As Buckminster Fuller said: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” .. We have warned for years in our writing here at PeakProsperity.com that we are all now well into a Fourth Turning, where the old order breaks down and a new one, often violently, replaces it. https://www.peakprosperity.com/neil-howe-the-predictable-creative-destructi… .. Our general advice to concerned individuals is to prioritize staying safe and reducing your vulnerability profile to crime and violence. That remains the case. https://www.peakprosperity.com/video-personal-safety-home-security-pp-semin… ..

2 2

Re: Cryptocurrency:
by Zenaan Harkness 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

(BTW, to be useful to more people, we ought generally keep such conversations on list.) On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:11:31AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote: > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 2:07 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen(a)freedbms.net> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 11:28:30PM +0000, other.arkitech wrote: > > > > > In USPS, as long as the network is big, it makes harder -not impossible- to reconstruct the state from recorded transactions because nodes handle only a fraction of the traffic. > > > Still, addresses are anonymous, > > > > I don't believe this statement to be correct. > > the last one?, why? > anonymous in the sense of bitcoin, where there is no easy link between addresses and people. Let's keep it clear that "anonymous" in that sense is marketing guff at best, deceptive and misleading at worst. Re useful anonymity, IPv4 addresses give you, literally, less than 'none' - they are -good- for tracking people and transactions! > > > and nodes mix all of them as they arrive, > > > > Your mixing protocol will need to be well documented at some point, this is not the easiest problem. > > Not easy, not trivial. Good thing is that I've gone through it already. So I speak about it backed with my impl that works as I expect. > > > > For example, can a mixing protocol help to handle rogue clients (CIA writes their own USPS client) which does things it should not do, or does not do things it should do? > > The system has been built knowing there's gonna exist evil tweaks to the code. So it is all about honest nodes dealing with untrusted nodes that are 'telling lies' or not following the protocol. > > > > Some issues can be handled by protocol - as in, verifiable/ enforced by other clients - some cannot, and so those fail paths must be considered - are they important, do they only matter when predator nodes reach 50%+1, or whatever... > > issues that cannot be verifiable/enforced by other nodes shouldn't be issues at all, but without mentioning any of those failpaths I cannot narrow a better answer to this. > If -colluding- predators acquire >50% voting power, the network failed and the system burns in flames, collapses, eaten by a dark hole. > Meaning that the situation is for an aeronautical engineer equivalent to an air crash where people die. Listen - in computer communication land, any relevant privacy, any relevant anonymity, wallet safety, and much more, is really hard. Every challenging question to you, is another opportunity for you to strut your stuff - NOT a benefit to the asker of the question (in general) -- so every brushed off question (e.g. "without you giving me really precise question, I won't put my mind to this further"), every non-answer (e.g. "it's all about honest nodes," "the design knows there are evil nodes" etc) is sort of telling us "I'm not going to explain the design further until I release it, y'all just have to trust me till then." And that's OK - you are of course free to ask folks to wait, just test it, and trust you till then. But please don't complain again that you are getting insufficient feedback, then wonder why the next conversation once again fell flat... > > > making the equivalent of a big tx with many inputs-many outputs > > > on every consensus cycle. > > > > Mixing may be good, may also have downside (?), but needs analysis by a number of people to assess benefits/problems. > > > > > Still yes, individual tx can be recorded as they arrive with a trivial patch. This would allow to follow the money across anonymous accounts. And this could lead to potential associations with separate events (e.g. I buy something and then I buy other thing; an observer could find a parallelism using time and sequence to narrow or find out addresses belonging to me). As an aside, and by the way, I strongly, as in STRONGLY, suggest that you stop using the misleading term 'anonymous' in the contexts in which you continue to use that term. Perhaps create some new, more verbose, and less misleading and hopefully actually accurate terms, e.g.: - account bound to IPv4 address - account not bound to IPv4 address - by default not recorded, node-internal mixing transactions - node-external non-mixing txn etc etc Some folks tend to take your lack of accurate terminology as deceptive, or at least as blatant marketing ... to state the obvious. > > Also, IPv4 addresses are directly mapped to end users by ISPs therefore governments. ISTM that this mandatory use of IPv4 address actually precludes the possibility of true/proper/possible anonymous transactions - if this view/intuition is true, then this feature would make USPS a non starter for many folks ... > > > > > I have ideas to tackle these cases which are very real theoretically, although only for a minority of people would result of some real concern (to me is a concern)) > > > To be added in the future, as the concern grows bigger, a mixer implemented as a public algorithm (my name for ~smart contract). With this feature one could use it anytime they can break the potential traceability of their money moves, which is already difficult if the network is big. > > > Privacy to me falls more on the ability to do real P2P end2end (real end2end) encrypted trades between 2 nodes without awareness of the rest. > > > > Except for time being, AIUI, you are demanding at the protocol level, an IPv4 address to transact... > > IPv4 doesn't mean a privacy violation. > Bcs IP can be traced to people, which is correct. > But the think you learn from that tracing is that you are running a node of the network (and its address, which you dont need to use in your private activity). These three sentences are unfortunately very unclear. > You cannot trivially map any transaction, any other address observed in the system to any IP address. But because of your IP address requirement, a node/client can trivially map all tx he processes. You may not agree, but for those hunting for "better than BTCes" riches, that right there is an instant and easy elimination of USPS from their consideration set. > If you could study traffic, you could deduce thing from patterns in traffic, which can be treated with a complimentary measure like chaff traffic. Which is not of great concern to those who can afford to run 1000s or even 10s of 1000s of high capacity (read, naturally preferenced) USPS clients! > Knowing that you run a node, it does not mean your activity is exposed That is not correct. This one is very important for you to understand - can you see why your statement is not correct? > > Good luck, > > HTH Dude! these qustions are for you - they're what you need to answer sufficiently, or must answer via code or design doc, if you want the hope of seeing any relevant "market traction"... If you are being seen (in the minds of the one's interested in USPS) an dodging or unable to answer foundational questions, they will likely wait a while for starters. If you must keep your secret sauce private for a time, well OK, that's where you're at ... but again, may be don't complain too loudly when the conversation goes a bit flat. Good luck. PS: keep the tech convo on-list, time is precious and it's unfair to put the burden of assisting you onto one person. If you forget, is it ok in future to forward such emails to the list for you?

2 1

Re: Cryptocurrency:
by grarpamp 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

>> so where are the 'second generation coins'...? Instead of being special asshole you can go search and post some, make wiki compendium, or go create some new generation. > history record... blockchain... immutable Immutability of value held in UTXO does not necessarily depend on having any sort of rollable tx log from genesis. That is indoctrinated ridgid thinking imparted by old school first gen BTC. If however way one does reach and accept consensus over any set of facts, then all that led up to everyone's knowledge of that or their own particular state in time is irrelevant and can be discarded. Yes there are many use cases for "blockchain" tech where history preservation, view keys, nonprivacy, industry, application integration, messaging, inventory, voting, and all sorts of other memes may be useful. The blockchain space is flooded with thousands of examples of those projects. But for cash/metal/chickens/etc, which in all of history rightly has none of those memes... those use cases are not relavant, and impede optimal solutions to a minimalist pure digital cash. All one ultimately needs to know is did their own nominal value increase/decrease in relation to another's by some mutually trusted mechanism [1], be it hand to hand, or over digital distance. 1) That final entry, that UTXO, is all one needs. 2) And note very clearly that cash/etc even goes further by its final UTXO not having any "inputs" record at all... cash is a private ideal state of self existance without reference to or dependence on anything else. Any "cryptocurrency" project that does not implement one of those two forms of UTXO, the second being the highest form, is not absolutely not worthy of calling itself a cryptocurrency version of cash/metal/chickens. Instead, it is a crypto intended to do a bunch of random other bloated appfeature shit, that in some cases might happen to have some tokenizable transferable value, these days usually back to its GovCorp stock/stake holders. [1] Including principles of known issuance, nominal values and the transaction network both within cost bounds of attack immunity, a network capable of holding and/or honoring the consensus over the UTXO state db it produces, etc, etc. Far too many projects are simply blindly following the "Satoshi" "Genesis -> blockchain stored forever" model, they're assuming that's the only way the problems can be solved. What most are not doing is enough research into discovering other ways, or into proving that there is no other way. Too little looking "beyond the now traditional blockchain". This ongoing fundamental science research, the calls for and support for it under recognition that today's technology is very first gen and nowhere near being a complete field of work, are what appears to not being done enough. Or in case it is being done, it's being drowned out in noise from all the first gen Satoshi model self maximilism projects trying to dominate the scene. That's nature, but will be quite fun when further novel research catches and embarrasses them all out of the scene for good. That's another reason why cross-chain DEX (distributed, anonymous, noncustodial, atomic, etc) must be an absolute research development priority now today... like the need to escape trap of GovCorp, you don't want to be trapped in legacy coin models for 10, 100's, 1000's years. Cross-chain DEX is the freedom oriented path out of those. > Bitcoin_Satoshi_Vision-BSV ... for information preservation That and all the rest of the Satoshi models do not then have the minimal set of properties cash does, therefore they are something different from cash, a message/storage/token net whatever, they are not a minimal cash. They are clearly lacking its privacy, non-bloat-storage, scaleability properties, among others. BSV Craig Wright has even voiced and brought some things into BSV and coinspace theory and talk that many people including cryptoanarchists might find highly undesireable, and that Satoshi never spoke. From patents, to attitude, to police state, regulation, and more. All feel differently on BSV. It's still a satoshi type coin, and like all launched coins is already baked, can't evolve much or quickly, regardless if people want them to or not. Hardly such thing as a single cryptocurrency one can like, only a set of evolving technologies, capabilities, simplicities. Cryptocurrency technology still obviously very early days, no coin considered sacred or special or guaranteed to last to even 20 years out. Therefore... The self maximalist single-coin insanity cults out there... must end. The shilling of pointless shitcoins, getrichcoins, clonecoins, metoocoins, scamcoins, partnercoins, foundercoins, corpcoins, bankcoins, govcoins, governedcoins, taxedcoins, kyccoins, votercoins, votedcoins, stablecoins, waroncashcoins, antiprivacycoins, censorcoins, closedcoins, cabalcoins, preminedcoins, centralcoins... all fiatcoins in general... must end. Blocksize debate... is a random configuration setting, not a meaningful fundamental underlying wholesale part, class, or sector of cryptocurrency technology development... must end. Less of those, more conferences on some fundamentals... OG cryptoanarchy cryptocurrency philosophy and movement, privacy, etc. General ongoing cryptocurrency tech research advancement. Use a variety of whatever is available now, but must develop and adopt good cross-coin DEX tech to shift between in future. Hardly any are trying to do a real featureless cash-only privacy coin, or a true DEX. Only selfless altruists will forgo embedding their premine, ongoing skim, and governance... and try incorporating resistance tech. Those the crypto projects to look at. The rest fiat scams. Unfortunately today they probably number n<=10:2500, if you can find post or create them, indeed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apI1T_w9GRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDydB3z-6Y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ogU3s2StM https://github.com/Blockstream/satellite https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=antonopoulos+privacy

6 42

Re: the British Queen, the Crown, and Australia - Fwd: ASIO & Palace Letters
by Zenaan 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

Unfortunately we do not (and have never had) an actual representative democracy - notwithstanding Switzerland. Your definition of democracy is quite reasonable, though it fails to recognise that all people are definitely not equal - in fact we have massive differences in each area of capacity, such as cognitive awareness, mental ability, empathy, and of course physical mobility. Now of course we can vary this definition to rather than speak to equality, to speak to rights - this is a safe area since we are, in the democratic sense at least, each with a "right to have a say in the laws we are called upon to obey." This is un unchallengeable foundation principle, in any system which has laws. The anarchist of course would say something like 'feel free to aspire to whatever you might think are political structures and positions in those structures you want to try to fill, just stay the flip away from me and leave me out of your democratic "utopia", I have no need of any 'leader', elected or otherwise, thank you very much!' Next the issue of Australia's head of state being "a foreigner": - Australia is a constitutional monarchy. - we were founded as a constitutional monarchy - we were founded with a rather reasonable constitution - in the scheme of "democratic constitutions" at least - our constitution is one of the best, perhaps because it is one of the youngest and the consequent benefits of hindsight, and perhaps because the crown had had enough of bloody revolutions, and perhaps due to the approach that our forefathers (those involved in the constitutional conventions) took in being diligent, persistent and respectful - importantly, our constitution has built in, a section outlining its change (referendum of course) and so is not "permanently fixed in stone" so to speak - but be careful as it's easy to create more problems when trying to fix things - when great power is vested in a system, or office/role/person, there exists the possibility of abuse of that power, corruption, and the impulse to collect more power by enslavement, abuse etc - due to this potential problem tending to arise in the centralisation of power, in principle when we consider systems and structures of power, it seems prudent to not put 'too much' power in the hands of any one authority - in other words to attempt to create a balance of powers, not a single centralised power - on this principle of 'a balance of powers is better than a single centralised power', combined with a benevolent dictator, there may be wisdom in having a (largely titular) head of state who can declare, and more importantly veto, war - at Federation, we were and continued to remain, British citizens with the full benefits thereof - somehow our bumbling Australian politicians, without referendum, unilaterally gave up (at least nominally) all British citizenship for us, and therefore the benefits and considerations that go with this - this may not be in our (an Australians) interests You may have noticed, both democracy and republics have glaring problems. Monarchy is not inherently wrong, though one can certainly argue that in the present era, that it may be sub-optimal. And the specific issues and nuances re our Australian structure are interesting. We are not a democratic monarchy, but a constitutional monarchy, and yes we have problems in our political arena. Bind a monarch or "benevolent dictator" to 'Godly' principles - benevolence - and we have a reasonable start. Enough for now, good luck. On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:31:27AM +1000, CARR wrote: > The monarchy is well past its use-by date, not because it is inherently bad, but it makes a mockery of the principle of democracy. The definition of democracy is the equal franchise for all citizens - the principle that every person is equal and every person can aspire to any political position, INCLUDING head of state. > > In Australia, the current head of state is a foreigner who attained her position by virtue of accident of birth, nothing more. Her ancestors managed to slaughter and defeat their opposition, so the Queen became the latest in a line of monarchs who killed off their opponents to retain those positions of power. This is not a good enough reason to retain the monarchy in the modern era. Just as colonialism was a very acceptable practice only a couple of hundred years ago, but very unacceptable now, the same goes for monarchy. > > Australia touts itself as a democratic monarchy, but that is very far from the truth. Australia is not a democracy, but a "partyocracy", where elected representatives of the people do not listen to the people, but to the dictates of their party leaders and are kept in line by party "whips", who often force those representatives to vote against the demands of their constituencies. > > State governments are nothing more than "kleptocracies" that run money-grabbing rackets to fleece people of their money with revenue-raising scams such as traffic cameras that are incapable of preventing accidents and deaths on our roads. After all, they are just cameras on sticks that are connected to cash registers that generate fines. Not one government minister or police officer has managed to produce one instance of a traffic camera preventing an accident or death, however I can produce a number of photos of vehicles colliding with speed cameras that were incapable of stopping them. > > As for the principle of monarchy disallowing democracy, I am a citizen of Australia, yet I can never attain the position of head of state. That alone tells me that Australia is not a democracy and will never be a democracy until this nation abolishes the monarchy and installs a presidential system where any citizen - such as myself or anybody else who qualifies can be elected. > > I have nothing at all against the Queen - she is a very gracious woman and the Australian system of monarchy has served us well - BUT - it is NOT a democracy in any way. And to me, that is wrong. We are no longer in an era that should tolerate being governed by unelected monarchs, even remotely. Remember that the Queen rubber-stamped the deposing of an elected Australian government, even if it was warranted. In essence a foreigner overthrew the legitimate government of this nation. That is not something that should be tolerated in any truly democratic nation. And I hated Whitlam and his regime with a passion. > > So my point is that if we are to live in a true democracy, it has to be a republic with an elected President who is elected by popular vote. Otherwise whatever we live under may work, but it is not democratic. > > Cheers, Ziggy > Webmaster, Campaign Against Ripoff Rackets > info(a)carr.org.au > www.carr.org.au > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: zenaan(a)gmail.com [mailto:zenaan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Zenaan Harkness > Sent: Saturday, 6 June 2020 11:05 AM > To: cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org > Subject: the British Queen, the Crown, and Australia - Fwd: ASIO & Palace Letters > > The queen had, and almost certainly still has, interests in Australia > - as in financial interests, and Whitlam wanted to buy back the farm, and shirt was going down re Vietnam. > > Personally, individuals, including the Queen, have a right to uphold and at least attempt to defend their interests. > > But, speaking as an Australian, when "our" British monarch/ the Queen, > > a) has been stripped of or has abdicated any relevant political power, and > > b) is not useful for the protection of basic human freedoms, for a recent example the matter of the Assange case, > > then it's hard not to ask "well what use is the Crown/ the Queen, to us?" > > There's nothing inherently wrong with at least some powers being vested with a Monarch or dictator, just so long as that authority is actually benevolent, and so long as we the people are with sufficient awareness and authority and will to hold any and all such authority to the required standard of benevolence, and with sufficient authority and power to remove such an authority from power should they fail to uphold benevolence, righteous justice, etc. (Most folks these days can see glaringly devolving and apparently structural compromise in our so called "democratic' system.) > > There is wisdom in having the hierarchy of power and authority be distributed so to speak - a balance of powers, and in our present system technically (though perhaps no longer practically) the Crown holds only one remaining formal power in Australia - the power to declare or veto war. Such power OUGHT be used as a check and balance against the corporations and bankers who lust for the econmic windfalls of war, and when this check and balance no longer exists, then again, on this point, the Crown loses its relevance to the rest of us, the King or Queen of the day little more than an attractively presented financial burden upon us. > > A lot of folks get caught up in envy of the wealth of another, and we must be absolutely diligent in casting aside such base, petty and demeaning (of ourselves no less!) such envy and implied 'negative' > aspersions (e.g. "that person has a lot of wealth, they must be a bad person"). > > What we MUST uphold, is our individual and collective human rights, and dignity. Although the Crown ought in general be held to higher standards of principles, the Queen is no less deserving of dignity than anyone else. That said, the issues surrounding Vietnam, Pine Gap and other matters, may or may not be scandalous - but we the Australian people have the right to make our own assessments of past events such as the sacking of our democratically elected prime minister Gough Whitlam in that Vietnam era. > > With the letters and much of the behind the scenes of the events hopefully to be soon disclosed (see below), we might be able to meaningfully comment further, but as a principle, there's a chance Gough Whitlam missed the JFK memo - it's not a good idea to be the lone hero for all, that just makes you an individual target. > > Instead, better to speak to the people, be public on a daily basis, and stick to fundamental principles of human rights, fairness, and legitimate interests of individuals, groups and especially allies (so far as they are actually allies). > > Allies don't demean, allies don't enslave, allies don't deny justice, most especially that founded in righteousness (Julian Assange is today's prime example). > > Let's aim to (re)build Australia's dignity on the world stage, which for starters demands that we treat all nations, and all people, with dignity and respect. > > And to those who would consider themselves Australia's allies - yes, it can be scary to have to -actually- trust an ally, but surmounting that fear is the price for a truly strong relationship, which can of course never properly exist on a foundation of lack of trust. > > Hopefully our politicians will begin to get the memo. > > > > ---- Forwarded message from Gil May <gilmay97(a)gmail.com> ----- > > From: Gil May <gilmay97(a)gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 08:23:37 +1000 > Subject: Fwd: ASIO & Palace Letters > > *ASIO & Palace Letters:* As you read this remember that Whitlam wanted to bring in a law to prevent foriegn ownership of Australian assets, that all had to be at least 51% Australian owned. The iportance of this today is very relevent where China and others hold massive investments of our assets. > > He wanted all mineral assets to be Australian, think of the billion$ in opposition that caused, his raid on ASIO and Pine Gap that was opperating without any knowledge of what it's operations were and the US refusal to advise the government of such. IF as we were told Whitlam was a danger to Australia and all the terrible things he was suposed to have done, THEN WHY weren't all his law changed when the LNP came to power???????????? His laws still stand today. > > I told Lionel Murphy, The Attorney General, to tell Whitlam to call Malcolm Fraser in and tell him if he does not passs the Budget Bill, you will break the 'Book of Pairs' and would have given him a majority of one, and that would be the end of the Westminister sytem of government forever, but Whiltlam a stickler for traditional proceedures would not do it. GM > > > > I am sure you will remember these events clearly, so the following may interest you. > > . > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: citizensparty.org.au > <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3671&email=…> > *Will ASIO stop Australians from seeing the palace letters ?* > > The 29 May High Court judgement that the palace letters between Queen Elizabeth II and Governor-General John Kerr in the Whitlam dismissal should not remain secret is a significant step in the fight for Australian sovereignty. It s not a foregone conclusion, however, as the Director-General of the National Archives who has a say in what is released, David Fricker, is a former Deputy Director-General of spy agency ASIO. This is a massive conflict of interests, as ASIO was up to its neck in the intrigues against Whitlam, not least because Whitlam s Attorney-General Lionel Murphy raided the agency he was supposed to be in charge of, but which withheld terrorism-related information from him. ASIO then, as now, operated under what is now known as the Five Eyes , dominated by US and British intelligence, which regarded Whitlam as a threat; indeed, ASIO is effectively the Australian subsidiary of Britain s Security Service MI5, whose assistant director in the 1970s, Peter Wright revealed in his book *Spycatcher* that MI5 saw its loyalty as to the Queen personally, not to the elected government. > > Monash University historian Professor Jennifer Hocking, who initiated the case to have the letters released, has already indicated she is having trouble in her negotiations with Fricker, and Fricker told ABC News that releasing the palace letters won t be simple, and that some records may not be released as exemptions for things like national security still apply. > We are not like a library or a museum , Fricker said. I am required to diligently go through those things and just make sure that our release of these records is responsible, it s ethical and it complies with the law. > > This is unacceptable, and Australians should demand their release in full. > If they are released in full, Australians may soon discover secret details of the Queen s role in the 1975 coup to overthrow Gough Whitlam, a democratically elected Prime Minister. Buckingham Palace has to date intervened to ensure the palace letters remain secret, a clear indicator that much is at stake, including the role of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British Intelligence Services (MI5, SIS and GCHQ), the latter of which have since 2011 been overseen by Prince Charles in his capacity of Royal Patron of the Intelligence Services. > > Prof. Hocking s four-year legal battle to access the palace letters has met enormous resistance. Sir Edward Young, the queen s private secretary, has indicated the release could damage not only international relations but also the trusting relationship between Her Majesty and her representatives overseas . The 211 palace letters were placed in the custody of Australian Archives on 26 August 1978 by the then Official Secretary to the Governor-General, David Smith. The letters comprise 116 from Kerr to the Queen, mostly through the official secretary; and 95 letters from the Queen, all of them through her private secretary. > > At the time, Smith wrote to the Australian Archives in a letter of deposit: > This package contains the *personal* and confidential correspondence between the Right Honourable Sir John Kerr, AK, GCMG, GCVO, K St J, QC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia from 11 April 1974 until > 8 December 1977, and Her Majesty the Queen. (Emphasis added.) Smith declared the letters would remain closed until 8 December 2037 and thereafter subject to further caveat at the whim of the British Crown. > > The Australian Archives has continued to argue that the palace letters were personal correspondence and therefore should remain private. Prof. > Hocking explains otherwise. Before lodging them in the Archives, the letters had been kept by Smith in the Government House strong room under absolute security again in an official capacity, which scarcely suggested the letters were personal , wrote Hocking in a 1 June article <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3672&email=…> > at Pearls and Irritations, the blog run by retired public servant John Menadue, who was head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Whitlam at the time of the dismissal. It is surely an unusual position for the National Archives, which describes itself as a pro-disclosure organisation , to contest this action at significant expense initially of almost one million dollars at a time of severe budget and staff cuts , Prof. Hocking wrote. Fortunately for Hocking the High Court has ordered the Australian Archives to pay her legal costs. > > The latest High Court ruling makes clear that the palace letters were not personal at all, but constitute Commonwealth records within the meaning of the *Archives Act 1983* . The court ordered that a writ of mandamus issue to compel the Director-General of the National Archives of Australia to reconsider Professor Hocking s request for access to the deposited correspondence , and so overruled the previous Federal Court ruling against Prof. Hocking. > > *What is at stake?* > > In a 16 April article > <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3673&email=…> > at Pearls and Irritations, Prof. Hocking had said that the more than two hundred letters is simply a staggering number , and should they be released the Palace letters will be the most important record of the inner workings of the vice-regal relationship during a time of political crisis that we have ever seen . > > Veteran journalist John Pilger indicated what is at stake in a 1 June article <https://cec.enudgemail.com.au/securl.php?nudge=y84zpr11221&link=3674&email=…> > for Consortium News. There is an historical amnesia among Australia s polite society about the catastrophic events of 1975 , he wrote. An Anglo-American coup overthrew a democratically elected ally in a demeaning scandal in which sections of the Australian elite colluded. This is largely unmentionable. > > Pilger explained how the Whitlam government provided significant opposition to Vietnam war crimes and threatened to close the secretive US-run intelligence facility at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs: Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion. And the role of British intelligence cannot be > overstated: In 1975, Whitlam discovered that MI6 was operating against his government. The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office , he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans . > > Whitlam s plans to control Australia s mineral wealth for the benefit of all Australians clearly displeased the Queen, who was long the largest individual shareholder of minerals giant Rio Tinto. This plan to buy back the farm so Australians would own our nation clearly ran against the British imperial agenda, and the City of London and Wall Street banking interests. Will the released papers convince Australians to abandon the fairy tale that the Queen is above politics and merely plays a ceremonial role? Will we now fight for sovereignty? > > ----- End forwarded message ----- >

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Privacy Add-ons
by grarpamp 07 Jun '20

07 Jun '20

https://www.coindesk.com/europol-bitcoin-privacy-wasabi-wallet https://www.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/1_5096130532387848318.p… https://github.com/cointastical/P2P-Trading-Exchanges/ There are numerous early toolsets that claim to effect or could be composited to help add some level of protection for users of non-privacy coins from being attacked by retailers, payees, data scrapers, etc. Do your own research.

1 0

The Daily Hodl: Cryptographer Matthew Green Warns Access to End-to-End Encryption Is Under Attack
by jim bell 07 Jun '20

07 Jun '20

The Daily Hodl: Cryptographer Matthew Green Warns Access to End-to-End Encryption Is Under Attack. https://dailyhodl.com/2020/06/05/cryptographer-matthew-green-warns-access-t…

2 1