- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

TIME RUNNING OUT: Privacy about to be criminalized in Australia - [MINISTRY] [PEACE] [CHILLING EFFECTS]
by Zenaan Harkness 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

Our liberties are close to going up in smoke, folks! Legislation is on its 2nd of 3 readings. $50K+ fines and 5 to 10 years jail for "Anybody who refuses to help the authorities crack a computer system when ordered". These (proposed) sentences are merely for refusing to give your phone PIN or computer (or other) password. Australia already has absolute despotism "on the books" - i.e. as part of the "anti terror legislation", already! (Arbitrary detention, no lawyer, no telling anyone, family must not tell anyone, solitary detention, torture, all in the name of "anti terror".) ALL WE ARE WAITING FOR (besides a little more of the despotic legislation, for example see below), is an actual despotic dictator as head of state and a 9/11 or "Pearl Harbour" type event - for example a global financial "reset" (started at the whim of the Rothschilds family of course, just like 1939). Something worse than Orwell's 1984 is nearly here folks. Be alert, Zenaan Daily Mail Now the police want your passwords – and you could be fined $60,000 or put in prison for five years if you refuse Alison Bevege 2018-09-27 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/now-the-police-want-your-passwords… People could face up to five years' in jail if they do not give their laptop password or mobile phone PIN to the authorities under proposed changes to the law. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton introduced the new laws to the Parliament, saying they are needed to help police and spies catch criminals who are hiding behind encryption technology. But civil libertarians say the changes go too far. 'The bill is a draconian measure to grant law enforcement authorities unacceptable surveillance powers that invade Australians' civil rights,' said Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm in an emailed statement to Daily Mail Australia. 'It appears that people who are not even suspected of committing a crime can face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years' imprisonment for declining to provide a password to their smartphone, computer or other electronic devices.' The penalty unit fine is actually more than $50,000 asthe value of a penalty unit has recently been increased to $210. img: a group of police officers riding on the back of a man: Civil libertarians are worried the new laws go too far towards making Australia a police state© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Civil libertarians are worried the new laws go too far towards making Australia a police state Anybody who refuses to help the authorities crack a computer system when ordered will face up to five years jail. If the crime being investigated is terrorism, the penalty for non-compliance is increased to 10 years' jail or $126,000. If Parliament passes the bill, tech companies will have to help authorities crack the encryption on users devices when told to help - or face up to $10 million in fines. If anybody at the company tells anybody that they have been told to do it, they will face up to five years' in jail. This will give authorities access to your protected online information in the event of an investigation. Under the legislation, foreign countries can also ask Australia's Attorney General for police to access data in your computer to help them investigate law-breaking overseas. img: a man holding a sign: A 46-year-old British-Australian software developer had his password-protected laptop and phone seized and inspected by Australian Border Force officers at Sydney Airport last month© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited A 46-year-old British-Australian software developer had his password-protected laptop and phone seized and inspected by Australian Border Force officers at Sydney Airport last month For the bill to become law, it has to pass through three readings in the federal Parliament. It is now on its second reading. More than 14,000 submissions of concern about the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 have been received. Submissions are open until October 19 so there is still time for you to have your say. img: a person standing in front of a fence: If anybody refuses to help the authorities crack into a computer system they face up to 5 years' jail or 10 years' if they are investigating a terrorism offence.© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited If anybody refuses to help the authorities crack into a computer system they face up to 5 years' jail or 10 years' if they are investigating a terrorism offence. As the Australian Government grapples with new technology challenging law enforcement and national security, lawmakers have passed increasingly tough legislation affecting individual rights over the past five years. Some in the community have become concerned about the risk of the authorities having too much power. 'This is another extension of powers which goes well beyond what is reasonable and necessary in a democracy,' said NSW Council of Civil Liberties vice-president Lesley Lynch. img: a person holding an object in her hand: If you don't give your mobile PIN or password when directed, you could face five years' jail© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited If you don't give your mobile PIN or password when directed, you could face five years' jail There is also reportedly a potential conflict between Australia's legislation and tough new data privacy laws passed in Europe. A 46-year-old British software developer had his password-protected laptop and phone seized by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers earlier this year as he travelled through Sydney Airport. The ABF would not say whether any files had been copied, but did inspect his devices. Nathan Hague told The Guardian he believed the ABF had cracked his laptop password and inspected his files. He said this potentially compromises his business, putting it in breach of Europe's tough new GDPR data privacy laws and he would have to give privacy breach notifications to his clients.

2 13

Crypto Crackdown: Ross Ulbricht's Life Sentence
by juan 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn85-am_JCU sorry I should have added this : doug casey is a motehrfucking piece of shit - and if judged by his comments about argentina he's completely out of his fucking mind. In reality casey is the poster scumbag for fake libertarian AND the guy is literally an accomplice of local argie politicians...while pretending to be an 'anarchist'.

2 2

Re: latest false flag attack?
by grarpamp 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

> MEK Doesn't matter, it's Islam (or any of many religions for that matter), all still fundamentally at odds with those who seek freedom... Convert, or pay tax and no free speech, or move out, or die. > Pucker up your sphincter for a war on Iran. US been angling pretty hard off and on, the fake pretext must be hard to solve for. > Russia cares about Iran a whole lot more than Syria? Oil and commies (or other less than free regions), duh. > while the world burns now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pKPNnk-JhE Now? How about then. And freedom downhill ever since the early 1900's for that matter. Wake up.

1 0

Crypto Crackdown: Ross Ulbricht's Life Sentence
by juan 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn85-am_JCU hey, call 911

1 0

Fake Music, New Issues, What's Real Head?
by grarpamp 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

>> Basically, after the Soviet Union collapsed ...there was a brief window in history where some say there was a chance. Many legendary world class bands strongly political around then too. An example... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzEwCc4WVKs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pine_Gap_by_Skyring.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures > the world burns now Many new issues now, yet bands hardly found a voice / platform, and the top grossers... crickets, fake, programmed entertainment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos But hey, it's fun, and hawt, right? Fuck that! Homework: Plug in any of today's issues / yours, post results... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=surveillance+music+video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hciiZbJph1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcACvjXuclA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEAqLf8-_Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiu-7Ij6CWI

1 0

[MINISTRY] “Downies being empowered” - where we are, today, in the public convo - [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

This is not funny. NOT FUNNY. Like, at all! Might be on the edge of uspporting the censorship of TDS now... TFW, like, traumatized! Trigger warning. No, not powerful enough --- TRIGGER FIRETRUCKING WARNING. YO‼ https://dailystormer.name/im-a-drag-queen-with-downs-syndrome/ …These people aren’t exploiting and mocking these Downies, they’re empowering them.

1 0

Re: Personal Black Box
by jim bell 01 Oct '18

01 Oct '18

On Monday, October 1, 2018, 8:09:12 AM PDT, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote: >Why have gadgets become black boxes when pistols are superior? I'm certainly not excluding guns. If anything, I'm a Second Amendment absolutist: I think that the only limitation on what a person should be able to own (and carry) is what he can afford. And today, that is not much of a limitation. The 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decision should be read for the principle that the 2nd Amended didn't "grant" rights, it guaranteed rights. And what the Founding Fathers wanted was that no weapons laws were to become stricter than they were in 1789/1791, when the 2nd Amendment was written and later ratified. (no "infringement" on such ability, where the root word is "fringe": Cannot be reduced, even at the edges.) When that Amendment was written, the only people who were not allowed guns were criminals while in prison, or criminals already sentenced to death-penalty offenses. (And they weren't getting out...) At that time, the latter were called "felons": All crimes less than death-penalty offenses were called "misdemeanors. As far as I know, all people who were released from prison automatically got back their RTKBA rights immediately. So, we can assume that the Founders were okay with taking away the RTKBA only from people sentenced to death. One problem is, in the subsequent 200+ years, the definition of "felony" changed to any crime punishable by over one year in prison. But the Founders never bought into the idea of denying RTKBA to anybody who had merely ever been convicted of a 1-year-penalty crime. Indeed, around 1900, before and later, many western American states had laws which actually required the prison to give the prisoner, upon release: A saddle, a $20 gold piece (to buy a horse), and a rifle. Only in 1933 did Federal law prohibit "violent felons" from possessing guns, and only in 1968 did the Feds prohibit all "felons" from owning guns. Problem was, one of the majority justices in Heller and McDonald (i'm assuming it was that fool Anthony Kennedy) insisted that they write into the decision the same piece of wording: "Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should betaken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on thepossession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, orlaws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive placessuch as schools and government buildings..." However, that is dicta, short and plural for "Obiter Dictum", a statement made in a legal opinion that is not necessary for that decision itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum "Obiter dictum (usually used in the plural, obiter dicta) is Latin phrase meaning "by the way",[1] that is, a remark in a judgment that is "said in passing". It is a concept derived from English common law, whereby a judgment comprises only two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only. Significance of obiter dicta[edit] A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case. Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are obiter dicta. Obiter dicta(often simply dicta, or obiter) are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dictainclude, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument".[2] Unlike ratio decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. The so-called Wambaugh's Inversion Test provides that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should invert the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different, had the statement been omitted. If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter." Unfortunately, and sadly predictably, courts (including appeal courts) have opportunistically taken this wording as an excuse to not apply the Heller/McDonald reasoning to those categories: "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill". Had they done so, they would have discovered that such prohibitions regarding "felons" were not actually "longstanding" at all, and certainly not as compared to the last 228 years, the life of the Bill of Rights. There was simply no basis to believe that adding those restrictions in 1933 or 1968 was constitutional. And one problem with relying on guns alone is that it's too easy to overcome a person, let's say merely by shooting him. Consider the case of Seth Rich, that DNC staffer who was killed before the 2016 election. He might have been saved if he'd had a gun with him, but that is by no means certain. If a record had been made of that incident, whether or not Rich had been armed, the murder would probably have been solved by now. And so, it might have been deterred. Jim Bell

1 0

Re: Personal Black Box
by John Young 01 Oct '18

01 Oct '18

Thanks for the TCM solace info. Tim may be in love with another person wiser than himself. So, too, Trump's bromantic trim Kim who out hair-doed the shaggy dude. At 12:05 PM 10/1/2018, you wrote: >I listened to the fresh interview with Tmothy C. May that was linked >to on this list not so long ago. Truly fascinating. He seemed to be >a calm, nice person nowadays. He didn't get any questions about the >1990's rants about "sandniggers" etc. > >MoB > >2018-10-01 17:12, John Young wrote: >>Why have gadgets become black boxes when pistols are superior? Best >>if only women have open carry pistols, or more powerful hurt tools, >>to balance men's physical advantage (strength, money, weaponry, >>crime, betrayal, treachery, band of brotherhoods). >> >>Gun control for men, enforced by hanging or castration if caught >>with a gun, especially military weaponry and WMD, would reduce >>predation on women and weaker peoples. >> >>Wilson, Assange, Trump and randy dog cult stud-flaunting sex >>entrapment is way too slow, rigged by male lawyers to exculpt their kind. >> >>Gadgets which instantly killed violators of male gun control and >>sexual exploitation would clear out a lot of useless vermin. >> >>Tim May's legendary urge to eliminate of useless breeders should >>begin at home, by his own loaded, maga-enlarged penile tools. Same >>for warmaking POTUSes. >> >> >

1 0

Personal Black Box
by John Young 01 Oct '18

01 Oct '18

Why have gadgets become black boxes when pistols are superior? Best if only women have open carry pistols, or more powerful hurt tools, to balance men's physical advantage (strength, money, weaponry, crime, betrayal, treachery, band of brotherhoods). Gun control for men, enforced by hanging or castration if caught with a gun, especially military weaponry and WMD, would reduce predation on women and weaker peoples. Wilson, Assange, Trump and randy dog cult stud-flaunting sex entrapment is way too slow, rigged by male lawyers to exculpt their kind. Gadgets which instantly killed violators of male gun control and sexual exploitation would clear out a lot of useless vermin. Tim May's legendary urge to eliminate of useless breeders should begin at home, by his own loaded, maga-enlarged penile tools. Same for warmaking POTUSes.

1 0

Solid/ Inrupt: “Father Of World Wide Web Launches Platform Which Aims To Radically Decentralize The Internet”
by Zenaan Harkness 01 Oct '18

01 Oct '18

“Father Of World Wide Web Launches Platform Which Aims To Radically Decentralize The Internet” proclaims Zerowedgie: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-30/father-world-wide-web-launching-p… "For people who want to make sure the Web serves humanity, we have to concern ourselves with what people are building on top of it,” Tim Berners-Lee told Vanity Fair last month. "I was devastated" he said while going through a litany of harmful and dangerous developments of the past three decades of the web. That's why "the Father of the World Wide Web" has launched a start-up that intends to end the dominance of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, while in the process letting individuals take back control of their own data. Berners-Lee's new online platform and company Inrupt is being described as a "personal online data store," or pod, where everything from messages, music, contacts or other personal data will be stored in one place overseen by the user instead of an array of platforms and apps run by corporations seeking to profit off personal information. The project seeks “personal empowerment through data” and aims to "take back" the web, according to company statements. The man who created the world wide web by implementing the first ever successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the internet in 1989 lamented that his creation has been abused by powerful entities for everything mass surveillance to fake news to psychological manipulation to corporations commodifying individuals' information. … Well, this is diversity I could get behind. The principle sounds right/ "solid", MIT license is just fine, let's see what the algo's are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_(web_decentralization_project) https://solid.mit.edu/ https://www.inrupt.com/ https://solid.inrupt.com/ https://github.com/timbl https://github.com/solid/solid https://github.com/solid/solid-ui/commits/master https://www.fastcompany.com/90243936/exclusive-tim-berners-lee-tells-us-his… If all goes as planned, Inrupt will be to Solid what Netscape once was for many first-time users of the web: an easy way in. And like with Netscape, Berners-Lee hopes Inrupt will be just the first of many companies to emerge from Solid. “I have been imagining this for a very long time,” says Berners-Lee. Choose your 'news' vendor: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/tim-berners-lee-reveals-vision-alternati… https://qz.com/1407428/tim-berners-lees-solid-and-inrupt-let-people-control… https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/09/30/1122238/tim-berners-lee-announces-… https://www.techspot.com/news/76691-inventor-internet-has-unveiled-plan-new… https://fossbytes.com/tim-berners-lee-open-source-project-solid-new-interne… https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9k3ufp/tim_bernerslees_solid_… https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9k4ekx/inrupt_tim_bernerslee_… https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/duplicates/9k2r4l/tim_bernerslee_presen… https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-what-is-the-essence-of-Sir-Tim-Berne… https://safenetforum.org/t/solid-social-decentralised-social-network-using-… https://www.npmjs.com/package/solid-server https://solid.github.io/dweb-summit-2018/

1 0