- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Anarchist Bibliography, please?
by anticon＠sigaint.org 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

Sole (Poet) Capitalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioP6sAtzyoI Coal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE-Zk9Y7Jdg Fuck Google: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehg3Hgkxkbo Sole could use your help with tech, as seen here: http://www.soledjpain1.lnk.to/Nihilismo

1 0

Re: Swedish warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled
by John Young 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

At 02:05 PM 8/15/2016, you wrote: >https://github.com/theshadowbrokers/EQGRP-AUCTION/ This repository has been disabled.

1 0

Swedish warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled
by grarpamp 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11049316 http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/4-Years-Later-Sweden-Accepts-Ecuadors… https://twitter.com/wikileaks Sweden has cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected.

2 3

[DEMOCRACY] From the NSW Hansard: Peter Phelps on greyhound racing
by Zenaan Harkness 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

I wish this were shorter, but it is what it is. That said, if you just want the TL;DR, read the sentence in the last paragraph, which seems somewhat apropos the punk side of cypherpunks. Here is Australia, the Liberal party is the conservative/ less debt/ rational economic and self responsibility type party, where Labour, our other 'main' national party almost invariably increases national debt, raises taxes, increases handouts. Both parties are still well funded by the corporates of course... ----- Forwarded message ----- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:51:42 +1000 From: Gil May <gilmay97(a)gmail.com> Subject: From the NSW Hansard: Peter Phelps on greyhound racing *From the NSW Hansard: Hon Peter Phelps on greyhound racing* Posted on 7:06 pm, August 11, 2016 <http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/08/11/from-the-nsw-hansard-peter-phelps-on-g…> by Sinclair Davidson <http://catallaxyfiles.com/author/sinclair-davidson/> *The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (17:43): *When we arrive in this place as parliamentarians we always hope that we will be able to promote good policy which is also good politics. Occasionally we have to promote good policy which is bad politics. Two things that spring to mind immediately are the GST and the leasing of poles and wires. Sometimes we have to promote things which are bad policy and good politics—the inevitable elements of pork-barrelling that happen because, quite frankly, winning elections is important. Occasionally we have legislation and regulation that comes before us which is both bad policy and bad politics. Bad policy I will go into later but, in my view, this legislation is bad politics. The sort of people who get energised by animal rights activism will never vote for us; they have The Greens and the Animal Justice Party to cater to their needs—and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people have asked me how I can support a bill that is supported by The Greens and is it not axiomatically bad that the Coalition would be supporting something The Greens support? My answer to that is no, and my mind turns back to the very significant reforms we did in relation to campaign finance in this State. Too often, between the Coalition, The Greens and the Animal Justice Party it is a zero-sum game: we cannot assist them without hurting our own base. I contrast their peculiar and occasionally bizarre policy prescriptions with those held by the large number of people in marginal seats that the Liberal Party hold on the peri-urban fringe of Sydney—that great swathe which we have taken from Putney to Picton and which we hold quite proudly—because there was a period of time when we resonated with what might be called the aspirational voters, the blue-collar conservatives who decided, with the election of the Howard Government, that they would give the Liberals a chance. We say, “Oh, don’t worry about them. Greyhound racing is just a hobby; they will move on from that.” That is not true for three reasons. First, we would not apply the “Oh, it is just a hobby; they will move on” if we were to ban rugby league. If we were to ban rugby league people would not say, “Oh, we will just move on from that. We will take up an interest in rugby union or the AFL.” Secondly, it is not true because, more so than rugby league, greyhound racing is a participation sport. There is an investment of time and capital in the sport by the owners, the breeders and the trainers; it becomes part of their personae: “I am a greyhound racer”, “I am a greyhound owner”, “I am a greyhound trainer”—it is inextricably linked with what they are. Thirdly, the “Oh, it’s just a hobby; they will move on” is fundamentally disproved by what happened to a large number of our voters subsequent to the 1996 gun law changes. Anyone who worked for a Coalition member in a marginal seat after the 1996 gun law changes knows what happened: they never forget. One wag once said that in politics friends come and go but enemies remain forever. The visceral nature of the gun owners, who 20 years ago were chagrined at the Howard Government, remains, to a large extent, true today. For that reason I think this is bad politics. I also think it is bad policy. I have read the McHugh report and there are some terrible stories in it. But is this industry so irredeemable that it must be banned? If the 12 apostolic saints came down from heaven and we appointed them to the board of Greyhound Racing Australia, would this industry be so corrupt and unbearably fixable that it must still be banned? The Hon. Mark Pearson said that 10 out of 10 witnesses who were called to the inquiry—nine, actually; one was implicated—said that they used live baiting. I could select 10 former members of Parliament who, if we were to interview them and use their evidence as evidence of a grander theme within New South Wales parliamentarians, we could say are all corrupt. The selective use of 10 out of 10 witnesses who were specifically chosen because they were believed to be dodgy anyway is not a great argument. In fact, McHugh makes that point in the report. He said that what those people said there were ex post facto rationalisations to cover for their own malfeasance in the industry. In fact, he put the element of live baiting at between 10 and 20 per cent as a more realistic figure. The consequences that flow from the inevitable passage of this legislation today are going to be horrendous. Let us look at what this legislation is based on: firstly, the concept that there was illegality, not by a majority, not by everyone, not by a plurality but by a small but significant minority—10 to 20 per cent; that is the illegality—that there was knowledge of it at the highest levels; that it involved injury to animals during racing; and that it involved wastage rates, the polite euphemism for killing off those dogs that cannot run fast enough. There are many instances in our society of unaddressed endemic problems and systemic failure to correct those problems. One could look at cycling and talk about endemic doping and systemic failure to reject such doping. One could look at the endemic corruption occasioned by subcontinental bookmaking in cricket. One could go back to rugby league and say, “Look at the incidence of alcohol abuse, drug use, match fixing, steroid use, sexual abuse and domestic violence.” More importantly, one could say there is also an endemic and systemic problem in relation to the practice of overpaying players, conveniently breaching the salary cap, but no-one is suggesting that rugby league be banned. On a closer level one could say that the problem is evidenced in the live export trade in sheep and cattle, including the tactics used by animal rights activists, could lead to calls for the banning of the live sheep and cattle trade. In fact, the Coalition rightly slammed the Gillard Government when it called for a temporary closure of the live sheep and cattle trade industry. Perhaps the greatest threat we face is from the direct analogy and that is horseracing. Is there illegality? Is there knowledge of illegality? Is there injury to animals and are there wastage rates? The answer is yes, exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhaging. Researchers at the University of Melbourne have shown that 56 per cent of racehorses have blood in their windpipes and 90 per cent have blood deeper in their lungs. Are there deaths in racing? Yes, famously Red Cadeaux in the 2015 Melbourne Cup and the year prior to that Admire Rakti and Araldo. Indeed, the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses gives a figure which indicates that Australia-wide 127 horses died on Australian racetracks and thousands more have disappeared from the sport in the calendar year 2015. I note that the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses has the somewhat revealing and pointed website*horseracingkills.com <http://horseracingkills.com>*, which gives an indication of exactly how objective it is in that regard. If people are agitated about a 30 per cent rate of muscular and ligamentary damage in greyhounds, imagine how they will feel if they get vision of blood pouring out of a racehorse’s nostrils? Are there incidences of doping? Yes. A quick Google search will show allegations of doping with erythropoietin [EPO], cobalt chloride to produce EPO, caffeine, xenon gas and formaldehyde, the practice of stomach tubing and even today the old practice of gingering a horse. Indeed, in talking about wastage, when a thoroughbred destined for racing is born in Australia its chances of being a successful racehorse are slim. It is estimated that only 300 out of every 1,000 foals produced will ever start a race. That means of 13,000 thoroughbred foals born each year in Australia alone, approximately 9,000 will be considered useless and thousands will end up at the knackers. Of the horses that do race, one Australian study found that approximately 40 per cent earned no money at all and only 13 per cent earned money to cover costs. These figures did not include the initial purchase price. Dr Paul O’Callahan, Chief Veterinary Steward of the Victorian Racing Club, stated that less than 2 per cent of horses actually earn their keep. Ariella Hayek in 2004 in her study “Epidemiology of horses leaving the racing and breeding industries” noted: Of the twenty knackeries that participated … three plants processed 200 or more horses per month. Plants that processed larger numbers of horses tended to process younger horses. The managers of these plants suggested these horses tended to be sold to the slaughterhouse as a result of economic difficulties … [and] also reported slaughtering large numbers of racehorses … Given the low market value for ex-racehorses, the high costs of care and level of experience required, it is likely that if this large number of horses did not enter slaughterhouses, they would be prone to conditions in which their welfare would be a cause of concern. I am not suggesting that the horseracing industry should be abolished but the same sorts of arguments that are being made today for the abolition of the greyhound racing industry can and will be made and are in fact currently being made by animal rights activists to shut down the trotting and horseracing industries. Animals are property; they are not persons and the mere fact of sentience does not grant one comparable rights to humans. But that is not the view of animal rights activists. Selective culling is vital for breeding. That is why 95 per cent of male calves are castrated and sold for meat. When one is using the coercive power of the State to ban an entire industry that is a pretty big decision to make. I want to quote one paragraph from the report. Paragraph 1.114 states: It would be surprising if these failings of the industry had not destroyed the community’s trust in the industry. Moreover, these failings have occurred in a context where greyhounds in NSW are now primarily, almost exclusively, bred for commercial purposes to race for prize money and to create gambling opportunities. The reality is that, for many, perhaps most, of those who participate in the industry – whether as punters, breeders, owners or trainers, greyhounds are commercial commodities, not animals to be cherished and loved. Let me take that paragraph and just change a couple of words to show the hysterical temper of this report: It would be surprising if these failings of the industry had not destroyed the community’s trust in the industry. Moreover, these failings have occurred in a context where beef cattle in NSW are now primarily, almost exclusively, bred for commercial purposes – to be killed and sold for food. The reality is that, for many, perhaps most, of those who participate in the industry – whether as … breeders or owners … beef cattle are commercial commodities, not animals to be cherished and loved. It is ridiculous and it is applying a double standard; it is a “How much is that doggie in the window?” moralising. Nobody is calling for the live export trade to be banned for sheep or cattle. I certainly am not—except that actually some people are. The sort of people who enthusiastically support the greyhound ban are exactly the same people who want to shut down the live export trade, shut down horseracing and harness racing and, in many instances, believe that ownership of pets is abhorrent. The precedent that this establishes is very dangerous. In New South Wales we have hunting with hounds. The Sydney Hunt Club exists. Are we going to ban that too? The irony is that greyhounds now could be bred as companion animals and could actually hunt rabbits in the field, but they could not be used for chasing a mechanical hare around a track. The second problem we face—and this is an even more dangerous precedent—is the problem of acknowledging as a conservative Government the concept of a social licence. It is a vague, imprecise method; it is a tool uniformly of the Left. One never hears people say, “Wind farms have lost their social licence” or “the CFMEU has lost its social licence”. We are a party of the rule of law and laws which are rules, not touchy, feely opinions. Social licence is a hammer used by the cultural Left to attack that which is legal but which they dislike—coal, coal seam gas [CSG] and mining—a vague, imprecise tool where any demagogue can claim to be the authentic voice of the people. “So you don’t like something; well let’s ban it.” Why? Because it has lost its social licence. But who determines social licence? Is it just an update of the concept of “the common good” that demagogues and dictators everywhere can use to justify their actions as “the will of the people”? Has hunting with hounds lost its social licence? What about hunting with firearms? What about plain old ownership of firearms? If the only metric in social licensing is 50 per cent plus one, we can ban anything we dislike. For the ideologues of the animal welfare extremists, this is just the thin end of the wedge. Think for a moment: Does this bill encourage or discourage them? Are they going to roll up their swags and go home and say, “That is it; we have fixed all the problems we have”, or are they going to take this as yet another step on their path to ideological purity? This week we had People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] calling for Eggs and Bacon Bay in Tasmania to be renamed. These are the sorts of people we are dealing with. Allow me to move briefly into the realm of prophecy. This bill is a rod for our own back, a rod with which we will be beaten in the future by these activists. PETA or some other animal welfare organisation will recruit someone, probably a bright young woman, to go to a trainer, probably one in rural or regional New South Wales. It will not be Gai Waterhouse; it will be some trainer in regional New South Wales—maybe old Cec at Queanbeyan Racecourse. This woman will say, “I really love horses, but I cannot break into the industry. Can you let me in? You do not need to pay me. I just want you to teach me all you know about the industry.” Old Cec, who might be doing it tough, might think, “This is great”, and take her on. Then every day she will come in miked up and with a hidden camera. Cec, who is not a vet—he goes about what he does based on 40 years of experience and what his dad taught him—might have a few folk remedies. He loves horses, but they are not his living. Some will not run, some will go to the knackery, some will bleed from the nostrils and some will have injuries. In the end, the edited tapes will be handed over to *Four Corners *and we will be back here again. The argument I have heard is, “This won’t be applied to the horseracing or harness industry.” Why not? The eye roll from the Hon. Mark Pearson when the Minister started talking about the higher standards of conditions in other forms of racing spoke eloquently about what he really believes about the conditions in those other forms of racing. That eye roll gave the game away. What is the moral precept or the ideological world view that divides racing greyhounds from racing horses? Is it mere numbers? How much wastage is too much? Is it the historical decline of greyhound racing? If we are talking about the historical decline of industries as a rationale for euthanasing them, there are a whole range of non-racing economic industries we could kill off on that basis. Is it simply the number of industry participants—that horseracing is too big to fail? Is it popularity? If it is popularity, that sets a dangerous precedent. Nobody has clearly enunciated exactly why the radical animal liberationists will not use this prohibition as an encouragement, as a propaganda springboard, for their activities in the future. During his contribution, the Hon. Peter Primrose quoted Coalition members at length. What he failed to acknowledge was that there is also dissent within the Labor Party. I will not go into too much detail, but this whole idea that “disunity is death”, that we should remain a Punch and Judy show where we whack each other over the head rather than let a plurality of ideas and a Socratic discourse take place, is, I think, abhorrent. What happens is that we legitimise a system where politicians are absolved from the necessity of thought and consideration of public policy issues. I want to leave everyone with a thought experiment. If the Premier had come out and instead said, “We are not going to ban the industry; we are going to work on a reform package”, who seriously believes there would have been a groundswell in the Coalition parties to then ban the industry? My concern is not that people have strong views on this matter. My concern rather is that we are invoking the full suite of coercive powers of the state, violating freedom of association, freedom of action and ownership of property, based on no strong views whatsoever—a lackadaisical authoritarianism which I cannot and will not support. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

DDoSCoin: Proof of malicious work
by Steve Kinney 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh fuck. Time to advance the Digital Doomsday Clock. How many days past midnight was it yesterday? https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot16/workshop-program/presentation/w ustrow or https://tinyurl.com/ddoscoin "In this paper, we present DDoSCoin, which is a cryptocurrency with a malicious proof-of-work. DDoSCoin allows miners to prove that they have contributed to a distributed denial of service attack against specific target servers. This proof involves making a large number of TLS connections to a target server, and using cryptographic responses to prove that a large number of connections has been made. Like proof-of-work puzzles, these proofs are inexpensive to verify, and can be made arbitrarily difficult to solve." CliffNotes version: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/12/ddoscoin_cryptocurrency/ :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXr+veAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqa/QH/0woHuLRvAlsOHp/ecjHUFy/ msvAplK6H1ivNIJhYqqBf9DRumuw1g8N4B4N57+R/IclP26O+Rx/qLzlOtRHCB30 3jGrP+pfuCkHoN+7My9MjKArIzpj6C7jurHnK4ip+Nb5D0/mZZn509YcS5+p1EzA F3iv+iHtFUotzQnGMR8ndW6Owwnjg2fqHBzBlIQzKlAgPLOWzL5CWqnsvPiK4WEZ qVmB6mB6uWSqPGZfw/+W1MshH6nQK4BWX5drFIy8VrjTnjl2RWr4fBymlSu5ikAN TUUwJ3/wqXRj6WGfWcJrfFV7/wfio/Mr2HoWV6sSuzJ2FQzNBx0/Si489S++6vM= =zk5J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Attempted coup d'etat in Turkey
by Georgi Guninski 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

Consider searching the web for: news Turkey coup d'etat Someone old told me coup d'etat's are common for Turkey, the search terms are: history Turkey coup d'etat Does the NATO's Turkey have nukes?

6 23

Cost Of Storage By NSA / Corp
by grarpamp 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

http://www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte http://ns1758.ca/winch/winchest.html http://www.newegg.com/ Don't forget "government" pricing models, whatever that may mean. For Jim, who may have last mentioned storage in a post. And all.

1 0

PascalCoin?
by Bastiani Fortress 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

1 0

tor promises to be good*
by bbrewer 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

No worries, JUAN, they promise no backdoors… (I’m with you on your design stance, btw) https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-social-contract "The Tor Social Contract Posted August 9th, 2016 by alison in • ethics • human rights • social contract At The Tor Project, we make tools that help promote and protect the essential human rights of people everywhere. We have a set of guiding principles that make that possible, but for a long time, those principles were more or less unspoken. In order to ensure that project members build a Tor that reflects the commitment to our ideals, we've taken a cue from our friends at Debian and written the Tor Social Contract -- the set of principles that show who we are and why we make Tor. Our social contract is a set of behaviors and goals: not just the promised results we want for our community, but the ways we seek to achieve them. We want to grow Tor by supporting and advancing these guidelines in the time we are working on Tor, while taking care not to undermine them in the rest of our time. The principles can also be used to help recognize when people's actions or intents are hurting Tor. Some of these principles are established norms; things we've been doing every day for a long time; while others are more aspirational -- but all of them are values we want to live in public, and we hope they will make our future choices easier and more open. This social contract is one of several documents that define our community standards, so if you're looking for things that aren't here (e.g. something that might be in a code of conduct) bear in mind that they might exist, in a different document. Social goals can be complex. If there is ever tension in the application of the following principles, we will always strive to place highest priority on the safety and freedom of any who would use the fruits of our endeavors. The social contract can also help us work through such tensions -- for example, there are times when we might have a need to use tools that are not completely open (contradicting point 2) but opening them would undermine our users' safety (contradicting point 6). Using such a tool should be weighed against how much it's needed to make our technologies usable (point 1). And if we do use such a tool, we must be honest about its capabilities and limits (point 5). Tor is not just software, but a labor of love produced by an international community of people devoted to human rights. This social contract is a promise from our internal community to the rest of the world, affirming our commitment to our beliefs. We are excited to present it to you. 1. We advance human rights by creating and deploying usable anonymity and privacy technologies. We believe that privacy, the free exchange of ideas, and access to information are essential to free societies. Through our community standards and the code we write, we provide tools that help all people protect and advance these rights. 2. Open and transparent research and tools are key to our success. We are committed to transparency; therefore, everything we release is open and our development happens in the open. Whenever feasible, we will continue to make our source code, binaries, and claims about them open to independent verification. In the extremely rare cases where open development would undermine the security of our users, we will be especially vigilant in our peer review by project members. 3. Our tools are free to access, use, adapt, and distribute. The more diverse our users, the less is implied about any person by simply being a Tor user. This diversity is a fundamental goal and we aim to create tools and services anyone can access and use. Someone's ability to pay for these tools or services should not be a determining factor in their ability to access and use them. Moreover, we do not restrict access to our tools unless access is superceded by our intent to make users more secure. We expect the code and research we publish will be reviewed and improved by many different people, and that is only possible if everyone has the ability to use, copy, modify, and redistribute this information. We also design, build, and deploy our tools without collecting identifiable information about our users. 4. We make Tor and related technologies ubiquitous through advocacy and education. We are not just people who build software, but ambassadors for online freedom. We want everybody in the world to understand that their human rights -- particularly their rights to free speech, freedom to access information, and privacy -- can be preserved when they use the Internet. We teach people how and why to use Tor and we are always working to make our tools both more secure and more usable, which is why we use our own tools and listen to user feedback. Our vision of a more free society will not be accomplished simply behind a computer screen, and so in addition to writing good code, we also prioritize community outreach and advocacy. 5. We are honest about the capabilities and limits of Tor and related technologies. We never intentionally mislead our users nor misrepresent the capabilities of the tools, nor the potential risks associated with using them. Every user should be free to make an informed decision about whether they should use a particular tool and how they should use it. We are responsible for accurately reporting the state of our software, and we work diligently to keep our community informed through our various communication channels. 6. We will never intentionally harm our users. We take seriously the trust our users have placed in us. Not only will we always do our best to write good code, but it is imperative that we resist any pressure from adversaries who want to harm our users. We will never implement front doors or back doors into our projects. In our commitment to transparency, we are honest when we make errors, and we communicate with our users about our plans to improve. • alison's blog"

5 9

NSA TS REL NZ GCSB... Fiji, Fullman, Dotcom...
by grarpamp 15 Aug '16

15 Aug '16

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/14/nsa-gcsb-prism-surveillance-fullman-fij… https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/special-investigation-inside-on… http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10876424 2016-08-15T02:11:29+00:00 Tony Fullman is a middle-aged former tax man and a pro-democracy activist. But four years ago, a botched operation launched by New Zealand spies meant he suddenly found himself deemed a potential terrorist — his passport was revoked, his home was raided, and he was placed on a top-secret National Security Agency surveillance list. The extraordinary covert operation, revealed Sunday by Television New Zealand in collaboration with The Intercept, was launched in 2012 after New Zealand authorities believed they had identified a group planning to violently overthrow Fiji’s military regime.

1 0