- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

riots in chile
by Punk - Stasi 2.0 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50106743 one obvious question : to what degree are the riots the result of a facebook-nsa-fukerberg-pentagon-etc experiment. as an interesting aside their are not mentioned here https://consortiumnews.com/ - I guess that site is an even bigger piece of shit than I thought.

2 1

Tik-Tok... It's NOT just for Pepe Pervs
by Razer 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

The company Nazis keep! Just wonder if they use pink hearts too? "Islamic State propagandists are reportedly trying to exploit social media app TikTok as a recruiting tool. The Wall Street Journal says social media monitoring agency Storyful recently identified around two dozen ISIS-related accounts, all of which have since been removed. The accounts posted videos aimed at recruiting followers and bolstering support for the terrorist group — featuring Islamic State anthems and footage of corpses and ISIS fighters. It’s not clear how big a presence ISIS has on TikTok. Terrorist propaganda is a perennial issue for social media platforms. Companies like Facebook and Google share a database of known terrorist imagery that can be automatically removed when it’s detected online. They’ve also faced (and won) several lawsuits for allowing it even temporarily on their platforms. Facebook said in September that it removed more than 26 million pieces of global terrorist propaganda over the past two years. TikTok’s parent company ByteDance didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about how much terrorist content TikTok finds and takes down. The accounts that Storyful identified also appear to be relatively small. The Journal identifies one video as earning 68 likes and some accounts as having around 1,000 followers; Storyful didn’t immediately confirm whether that’s typical of the accounts’ popularity, or whether these are the first accounts they’ve found on TikTok. TikTok videos circulate largely thanks to TikTok’s recommendation algorithm. And in this case, it’s not clear that the algorithm is promoting ISIS content, just that this content exists on the hugely popular platform. However, as the Journal notes, TikTok has a young user base and is known for lighthearted, joke-y content — sometimes to the point of alleged political censorship. So there’s an added incongruity when it’s used by terrorists." https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/21/20925416/tiktok-islamic-state-terrorist… Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail

1 0

covfefe net stream types
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

Attached. This is just a grab bag needing adding to.

1 0

covfefe packet switched network - user routing - hiding hop counts/ routing info, from intermediate nodes and GPAs
by Zenaan Harkness 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Example: A routes packet P, via nodes B then C, to node D. Nodes: A B C D PK means "public key", each node knows the PK of the other nodes it communciates with or routes to. Using PK is shorthand - actual encrypted link usually uses PK crypto to negotiate a symmetric session key, which might be changed over time and other complexities, but for the purpose of comprehending basic implementation steps and understanding issues arising, it's sufficient to think in simpler terms of just per node public keys. "Physical" hops in the following example routes: AB BC CD "Virtual" routes we can consider in examples: AB ABC ABCD and also BC, BD, and CD Each hop, e.g. AB, needs their comms to be encrypted to protect from eves droppers. So when A sends P to B, P is encrypted with B's PK. We can use a notation like B(P) to mean encrypt P with B's PK. Similarly notation B'(B(P)) to mean decrypt B(P) to get the raw/unencrypted packet P, from the encrypted version B(P). 1) A sends P only to B 1.1 A encrypts P to B, i.e. sending B(P) to B 1.2 B decrypts, doing B'(B(P)) to get P 2) A sends P to C, via B A wants B to not read P, only to forward C(P) on to C; So, naievely, A sends C(P) to B, with a request to forward C(P) onwards to C. This is naieve, since two problems arise: i) A's request to B is not encrypted, only P is encrypted as C(P). ii) A sends the encrypted packet C(P) first to B (with the routing instruction), and then B also sends C(P) (without any additional routing instructions), to C, but the same set of encrypted bytes has been sent first via AB, and second via BC; the obvious problem with this is that an onlooker (GPA), can simply see that "something" (encrypted) has been sent from A to C, which defeats the purpose of A sending via B at all - there is no benefit over just sending C(P) directly to C. This particular sub-problem can be solved in a couple of immediate ways: I) B receives C(P) from A, so instead of sending that to C, it sends C(C(P)) to C, which C can decrypt, but C needs to know, or guess how many layers to unwrap, and this puts extra unnecessary load on C - the more hops, the more load on the end point of the route, aka not good. II) A first encrypts P using C's PK, then does similarly for node B, so sending B(C(P)) to B, which B decrypts to get C(P), which B can on-send to node C with no extra encryption effort! This puts the load on A, to encrypt its packets according to the total route desired. This is logical, as A wants to minimize trust in any downstream nodes, so doing the work yourself pays off with certainty and less need for trust, greater privacy, and while A is at it, it can embed the required routing header for each hop, into the appropriately layer, thus encrypting all routing requests. A routing header can be denoted with the letter "r", followed if needed by the node letter for the target node of the route request, e.g. "rC" means "route this packet to node C". So for A to 'properly' send P to node C: 2.1 A sends B(rC+C(P)) to node B 2.2 B decrypts, getting rC + C(P) 2.3 B sends C(P) to node C An obvious information exposure bug in steps 2.1 and 2.3 is that the unless we somehow compensate for this, the packet B(rC+C(P)), is larger than the packet C(P) - so our GPA snoop can see that A's packet sent to B, is larger than B's packet sent to C, and it's not hard to guess that the difference is gonna be routing information. The simple solution to different packet sizes is to rely on B to pad C(P) with some random bytes (which need to be ignored by C), so that it's the same size as B(rC+C(P)). But this means once again, relying on B to do the right thing here. Can we get around this reliance on B? The problem only gets worse as we go to an example that includes the next hop, CD... Separating routing requests into separate packets ("control" packets or whatever we might call them) would have downsides of extra buffering and latency to handle dropped packets, packet sequence problems (we're talking UDP here), lower-level packet routing timing issues, requests to resend packets that don't arrive after a timeout etc etc. This is way too complex (reimplementing TCP basically), so forget that - routing requests must be embedded, attached or otherwise be very closely associated, with the packets being routed. Whether routing info is a "tag", a "byte", an IP (v4 or v6) address or etc doesn't matter - a smaller header doesn't make the problem go away, AFAICS.

1 0

South China Sea newspaper article of some interest what do you think
by ilsa 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Share. Enjoy

2 1

[gilmay97@gmail.com: GESTAPO TYPE CENSORSHIP?]
by Zenaan Harkness 20 Oct '19

20 Oct '19

Folks, this is what Free Speech looks like from the hand of Zuckerberg, the New York Times and CNN. ----- Forwarded message from Gil May <gilmay97(a)gmail.com> ----- From: Gil May <gilmay97(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 16:32:01 +1000 Subject: GESTAPO TYPE CENSORSHIP? *The Day Mark Zuckerberg publishes FREE SPEECH DECLARATION in WSJ, Facebook Deletes One of the Largest Donald Trump Facebook Fan Pages with 3,276,000 Fans* FACEBOOK DELETES ONE OF THE LARGEST DONALD TRUMP FACEBOOK FAN PAGES WITH 3,276,000 FANS! By Freedom Headlines, <https://freedomheadlines.com/the-latest/facebook-deletes-one-of-the-largest…> October 17 2019: Facebook is stepping up their game to try and prevent Donald Trump from winning reelection. They are quite literally meddling in the election process by using their influence and reach to censor the internet and prevent people with opposing views from sharing anything from a conservative viewpoint. The social network giant just removed one of the largest (if not the largest) pro-Trump Facebook fan pages. They cited that it was because, *“It looks like recent activity on your Page doesn’t follow the Facebook Page Policies regarding impersonation and pretending to be an individual or business.”* ----- End forwarded message -----

3 3

Re: OnionShare Tor
by John Young 19 Oct '19

19 Oct '19

Most promising. If USG and other governments are not involved. Big if. At 11:16 PM 10/15/2019, you wrote: >https://blog.torproject.org/new-version-onionshare-makes-it-easy-anyone-pub… > >https://github.com/cretz/bine >https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages >http://wiki.yacy.net/index.php/En:YaCy-Tor >https://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/06/free-speech-or-stone-age.html >https://www.arweave.org/

9 17

"Liberal" EU (Spain): decades of jail for individuals who literally organised a referendum! - Democratic Liberalism in Action! - [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 19 Oct '19

19 Oct '19

Joyous news today, folks! Wonders never cease, and finally we see some REAL democracy in the EU's Spain, as Catalan leaders are finally dealt justice with harsh multi year jail sentences - the longest for 13 years. This might finally teach Liberal EU citizens that democracy is putting its foot down when it comes to citizens organizing their own referendums! Really, what were these plucky Catalonians even thinking? Running a referendum for independence in the face of a centuries long willful stand by the majority of Catalonians? Please, compliance -is- willfulness for all you funny rebels :) At least someone, Spain's Supreme Court in this case, had the balls to slap down these plucky "the people's' will first" campaigners. Democracy shall NOT be slighted. At least not the EU. LOL, so funny. The prison roll from the last couple days: Weep For Catalonia - Separatist Leaders Handed Vicious Prison Terms https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/weep-catalonia-separatist-leaders-ha… https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/weep-for-catalonia-weep-for… As The BBC reports, Spain's Supreme Court has sentenced nine Catalan separatist leaders to between nine and 13 years in prison for sedition over their role in an independence referendum in 2017. The prosecution had sought up to 25 years in prison for Oriol Junqueras, the former vice-president of Catalonia and the highest-ranking pro-independence leader on trial. Junqueras was handed the longest sentence of 13 years for sedition and misuse of public funds. Others to receive prison sentences for sedition were: - Dolors Bassa, former Catalan labour minister (12 years) - Jordi Turull, former Catalan government spokesman (12 years) - Raül Romeva, former Catalan external relations minister (12 years) - Carme Forcadell, ex-speaker of the Catalan parliament (11.5 years) - Joaquim Forn, former Catalan interior minister (10.5 years) - Josep Rull, former Catalan territorial minister (10.5 years) - Jordi Sànchez, activist and ex-president of the Catalan National Assembly (9 years) - Jordi Cuixart, president of Catalan language and culture organisation Òmnium Cultural (9 years) The nine leaders, who had already spent months in pre-trial detention, were acquitted of a more serious charge of rebellion. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49974289 That an attempt to organise a democratic vote for the Catalan people in pursuit of the right of self determination guaranteed in the UN Charter, can lead to such lengthy imprisonment, is a plain abuse of the most basic of human rights. I was forced to withdraw my lifelong personal support for the EU when, in response to the vicious crushing of the Catalan referendum by Francoist paramilitary forces, when the whole world saw grandmothers hit on the head and thrown down stairs as they attempted to vote, all the institutions of the EU – Council, Commission and Parliament – lined up one after the other to stress their strong support for the Madrid paramilitary action in maintaining “law and order”. Today we see the same thing. As the Catalans are imprisoned for efforts at democracy, the EU Commission stated that it “respects the position of the Spanish judiciary” and “this is, and remains, an internal matter for Spain, which has to be dealt with in line with its constitutional order.” The Commission here is simply ignoring what is very obviously a fundamental breach of basic human rights. This is far worse than anything Poland or Hungary have done in recent years, and the Commission is also showing a quite blatant hypocrisy in its relative treatment of its Western and Eastern members. ... A million people are expected to march on Saturday in support of the EU. That is the EU which has just expressed its active support for the jailing of Catalans for holding a vote. They join Julian Assange as political prisoners in the EU held for non-violent thought crime. OMG, grandmothers being hit on the head by police - so funny what humans think they can get away with - VOTING of all things? LOL! JUSTICE for democracy and the EU at last! Spread the word folks, the system strikes back and stability of democracy is put first in Spain! Just as well millions are marching against Brexit and FOR the glorious neo Roman Empire, the EU!

4 5

[odaemonknighto@gmail.com: [2600-AU] sudo -u#-1 Does everyone know about this aleady?]
by Zenaan Harkness 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

----- Forwarded message from Daemon Knight <odaemonknighto(a)gmail.com> ----- From: Daemon Knight <odaemonknighto(a)gmail.com> To: 2600 Australia <2600-australia(a)googlegroups.com> Reply-To: 2600-australia(a)googlegroups.com Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [2600-AU] sudo -u#-1 Does everyone know about this aleady? List-ID: <2600-australia.googlegroups.com> Just sharing a recent post i came across regarding a sudo vulnerability. https://threatpost.com/sudo-bug-root-access-linux/149169/

1 0

Re: Richard Stallman Gets SJW'd
by Zenaan Harkness 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:49:48PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > I appreciate your wish to support me, but the way you are doing it > will lead people to think that I have said something racist and/or > sexist. That is not true. > > I would not say such things, since they go counter to my views. > I oppose bigotry. > > If people accuse me of "sexism" or "racism", those are false > accusations, based on distortions. Please do not validate > the false accusations against me. > > Would you please attach a note that I say I did not say anything > sexist, and people can see from stallman.org that I disapprove > of gender bias. > > -- > Dr Richard Stallman > Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) > Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) The above has been posted to the lwn.net discussion at issue. Further: Richard Stallman and the GNU project Posted Oct 11, 2019 5:52 UTC (Fri) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) > How can their words cause any harm to [RMS]? Is this a serious question? Posted Oct 11, 2019 6:17 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) Yes. You draw a distinction between words and "sticks and stones", presumably because there's a meaningful difference between them. If both can cause harm, what's the difference you're highlighting? Posted Oct 11, 2019 10:25 UTC (Fri) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) > You draw a distinction between words and "sticks and stones", > presumably because there's a meaningful difference between them. If > both can cause harm, what's the difference you're highlighting? To be ethical in the process of airing an accusation, any accusation, the accusation must provide an actual fact, and a clearly stated position in relation to that fact. This foundation provides an opportunity to the accused to respond (in whatever forum the accuser chose). Without both the fact in issue, and the position held by the accuser in relation to that fact, the accused is provided no opportunity to properly respond, possibly no opportunity to meaningfully respond at all. I have not yet seen any fact by anyone posting here at lwn.net or elsewhere (yourself included), which substantiates the "hollering" and "justification opinions" for RMS to resign (to have already resigned) from the FSF. All I have seen are opinions, innuendo, and hearsay. The claim that opinions, innuendo and/or hearsay are sufficient "evidence" or "cause" to "metaphorically crucify" an individual in the public (or any other) sphere of human interaction, is a call not founded in ethics but instead is founded in evil - is opposed to our lives. Such a call is a call for mob rule, a "witch hunt" abdicating due process and abdicating our responsibility to one another as human beings. Those who understand (let alone value) justice and righteousness, understand these very basic principles. Taking justice a step further, an accuser, per Matthew 18, is advised to go speak with the accused ("your brother") in the first instance, that he might hear you, and if he does not hear you, go with some number of witnesses, that the accused's response may be witnessed by a number of others. Such processes as are (very) summarised above under the banner "due process", provide for the opportunity (still yet no certainty) for the accused and the accuser to come to an understanding and possible resolution. The mob witch hunt provides almost no such opportunity, just a forum for heedens heeding the rumours of those who rumour mongor without facts, to join in their force of numbers and crucify a probably good man in the name of any flippant emotional weakness in some rando snowflake accuser. Posted Oct 13, 2019 18:23 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] > All I have seen are opinions, innuendo, and hearsay. I've seen people saying 'it happened to me'. The word for that is neither 'hearsay' nor 'innuendo': it's 'eyewitness evidence'. Posted Oct 14, 2019 3:05 UTC (Mon) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) > "it" happened to me What I have heard by reading a first hand account: Apparently RMS asked an 18 year old woman on a date. Apparently she was uncomfortable about that. This took all of 10 or 15 seconds, and RMS never went near that topic with her again after that. And now RMS has been lynched from MIT and the FSF which he founded. When I used the phrase "All I have seen are opinions, innuendo, and hearsay", we need to add the words "and no facts which in my eyes justify the public lynching to have RMS removed from his positions at MIT and the FSF which he founded." I thought that was obvious at the time I wrote the words, but in hindsight I can see how the point needs to be clarified. Hopefully this is sufficient clarification. Posted Oct 14, 2019 3:08 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) > Apparently RMS asked an 18 year old woman on a date. Apparently he has a history of this happening consistently. It was not a one-time thing. Posted Oct 14, 2019 23:53 UTC (Mon) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) I wrote: > > Apparently RMS asked an 18 year old woman on a date. [And this took all of 15 or so seconds and the topic was never raised again.] Cyberax wrote: > Apparently he has a history of this happening consistently. It was > not a one-time thing. So name the damn rule that RMS is not allowed to break! And be VERY PRECISE and CLEAR in your terminology, so that these older "bastards of the community" don't fall foul of the mob when they ask a woman younger than they are, on a date! Also, be damn clear about whether it is only RMS who is not allowed to ask women younger than "say, 30 years old" on a date, or whether it is "all men over the age of, say 40 years old" - or whatever the hell you rule is that JUSTIFIES THIS PUBLIC LYNCHING OF Richard Stallman, founder of the FSF and GNU! FFS folks appear so intellectually fraudulent and disingenuous at the moment. BY ALL MEANS tear one or another pathetic minor detail (in what I've written) to shreds, BUT AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY to address the core issue, and do so in a way which RMS, myself, and all other white men in this world can grasp YOUR POSITION so that YOUR RULES are not broken and so that YOU HEREAFTER REFRAIN from justifying these public lynchings. I expect more from you "Cyberax"! Is this the effing world YOU want to live in?!!

7 23