- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

jimbellproject.org is looking for volunteers
by Chad 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

> jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com > Tue Oct 24 10:22:39 PDT 2017 > > I'd like to understand the dispute. > Then you must look who is sending the "refugė́ė́s and why? I am sure you are familiar with what is happening in your country. You must defend your women and children, apanon.

1 0

[MINISTRY] Uni Illinois Professor Rochelle Gutierrez: algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege because …
by Zenaan Harkness 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

So we're reaching “Peak Liberal Lefty Loonies” it seems - now math “promotes White privilege” because Pythagoras was White. No "or something" on this one - and this from a University “Professor” (scare quotes intended). When the dust from the collapse of the USA empire finally settles, there will be rich mining opportunities for comedians chasing these seams of something slightly less than sanity. And get this - this "math is so huwaite" "problem" is actually argued in a recently published book. Yes, "education and intellect is dangerous" - you heard it on cypherpunks first. Everyone is -equal- dammit, and any dissent MUST be quashed (and such words are soon to be removed from the American language since they're a bit too big for many folks, and the average capacity shall be legislated - thus reducing the average by an average of 50%, which shall precipitate a further round of "privilege for the underprivileged" - Idiocrisy in real live action‼) ** Looney college professor says algebra and geometry promote white privilege. http://redpilltimes.com/professor-says-algebra-and-geometry-perpetuate-whit… Rochelle Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Illinois, made the claim in a new anthology for math teachers, arguing that teachers must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.

1 0

Voting machines: How hackers are rocking the vote
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Hi, lovely people! Sending this post for curiosity. You can hate the post, but you can't deny it's a very interesting subject! :D --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Voting machines: How hackers are rocking the vote" # https://qz.com/email/quartz-obsession/1108035/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kisses and Hugs! Take care, dear all. :* <3 Ceci ------- "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or your curiosity. It's your place in the world; it's your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live." - Mae Jemison

1 0

Re: How to shut down the US Federal criminal "Justice" System, for $10-15 million per year.
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

On Oct 24, 2017 08:08, "jim bell" <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: It's just a fictional placeholder for the future named site. Sorry, Jim. I was exhausted and sleepy when I received your post because it was 04:00, a.m. (DST since the weekend, ugh!) here. I need to re-read it with more attention. Thank you! :D

1 0

Re: How to shut down the US Federal criminal "Justice" System, for $10-15 million per year.
by jim bell 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

[an email sent elsewhere] How to accomplish the below project: INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENT: There is an online system called "PACER.GOV", which provides information on Federal Court records, both civil and criminal. This system can be searched to identify new Federal Criminal defendants, and likely their current addresses. (in jail, perhaps?) These records show full names, possibly addresses (home) as well, and the specific court in which the defendant was indicted. While I don't yet know this information, a given defendant for a given court is probably: 1. In unusual cases, is "bailed out", and allowed to live at home. His prior address will probably be valid.2. In the usual cases, he is arrested, and held in some sort of jail.2a. This might be some sort of Federal criminal jail, such as Seatac FDC in Seatac, Washington state. 2b. Or, it might be in some sort of county or city jail. What is needed is to identify his full name and current physical address, and possibly the name and address of his attorney. In 2016, there were about 77,000 new defendants, which amounts to 210 new defendants per calendar day. That attorney MIGHT be cooperative, and forward a letter to his client. At that point, all such newly-identified Federal criminal defendants should be mailed a letter, making the following offer: (announcement?) Dear Sir: Our records indicate that you are a newly-charged Federal Criminal defendant. We have what we hope will be some good news, a change from the bad news you have gotten. We have a project ongoing to encourage the use of the Jury Trial system in the Federal Criminal Court system. In 2016, of about 77,000 new defendants, 97.3% of those pleaded guilty. We think that's wrong. The large majority of those people were effectively extorted to plead guilty by threat of an increased sentence. We believe that the only people the Federal Criminal system should be able to convict and sentence are those who went through a jury trial. If that were to happen, the total number of people sentenced might drop by a factor of 20x. Most people in your position would have to be released without further charge. Therefore, we are telling you, and every other Federal Criminal defendant that we can find, that IF you plead not-guilty, and IF you demand a jury trial, and IF you receive that jury trial, we will be paying you $3,000 (three thousand dollars). This happens, regardless of whether you are found guilty or not-guilty. We encourage you to spread this message to any other Federal criminal defendant you may happen to meet. We have included extra copies of this letter for you to give to them. Further, please have your friends and family check out our website at: www.//liber....project.org. We believe that the Federal Court system can probably only put on 3,000 criminal trials per year. If "everyone" who is charged pleads not-guilty, and then insists on a jury trial, then the vast majority of those defendants will have to have their charges dropped. That's our intention. If you plead not guilty and insist on a jury trial, and receive it, you will get the $3,000. Our intention is that the vast majority of defendants will have their charges dropped and they will have to be released. If your charges are dropped, or reduced below the point that you can demand a jury trial, or you plead guilty, then you will not receive any money from us. But, hopefully you will get released, which is the goal. You do not need to do anything to "accept" this arrangement, But, we encourage you to respond to us by filling out the form, included, and returning it to us. It will speed the process. Sincerely,--------------------- Of course, there are 'mailing list' companies that make it a business to collect information and sell it. But this is a very odd and selective list. It is not "commercial": Ordinarily, it may not be possible to make money on such a list. Nevertheless, it may be possible to obtain this information (names and addresses of new Federal criminal defendants) via some existing source. FUNDING: The amount of money required for this project is: 1. Administration. Perhaps 10 people full time, paid with expenses perhaps $100,000 each. Or, perhaps $1 million per year. Each person can work from home. No central office should be needed. Mailing might be done automatically, using some automated commercial service, or perhaps manually. 2. Actual reward money: This will be limited by the product of the number of Federal Criminal trials that the Feds can put on yearly. Maybe that is 3,000, but shouldn't be much more. Multiplied by the amount of money that would be necessary to offer to each defendant, to get a large fraction of the Federal Criminal Defendants to plead not-guilty, and demand a jury trial. Currently I estimate that to be $3,000. It might be lower or higher, of course. While certainly there are defendants for whom a reward of $3,000 won't be significant or relevant, I believe that the large majority of them will be swayed by such an offer. And it is important that these people learn and know that EVERY new Federal Criminal defendant is being given the same offer. This will encourage them to act, as if they are in a group, and all will demand jury trials. Of course, it is my intention to virtually shut down the Federal Criminal "Justice" system, or at least drop its capacity for convicting people by a factor of about 20x. Who should be willing to give? It is not my intention that the burden of this project should be shouldered on libertarians, alone. Fortunately, I think there are many potential sources of funding, each with their own peculiar motivation: A: "Liberals", and especially "Hollywood Liberals". Newly rather beaten up by the Harvey Weinstein fiasco, liberals are famously in favor of illegal aliens (err...undocumented immigrants). While there are other ways to simply eject such people, one way requires a criminal trial: "Illegal re-entry", which is a felony, and conviction of that offense requires a trial, and they could insist on a jury trial. Liberals also should generally be against laws against currently-illegal drugs. B: "Conservatives", including "Libertarians", may actually believe in the 2nd Amendment, and believe that there should not be "gun offenses" except for people who actively employ a gun in the commission of a crime. ("Felons" were not prohibited from owning guns until the early 1930's, and even then the prohibition was against "violent felons". It was not until 1968 that "felons", in general, were prohibited from owning guns.) C: "Libertarians" will be against laws prohibiting victimless crimes, such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. The figure of $10 million per year can either be seen as "very large", or "very small", depending on how you look at it. As I explain below, this will save the Federal government perhaps $6.8 billion per year in prison costs. And, this should produce an ENORMOUS amount of publicity for libertarians. It will "force the issue" for freedom, in a way that is not normally considered possible. And, of course, this system could be expanded to cover the state criminal systems also: Together, they are about 10x times larger than the Federal system. Naturally, the cost will be higher, but if it is worth it for the Feds, it would be worth it for the State systems. Jim Bell, [something I wrote about a week ago] A few years back, probably 2011 (while I was still in prison) I thought of a marvelous way to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system. At least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is being destroyed. I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost little more than $10 million per year. There are many high-profile cases which would militate in favor of initiating such a system. One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for, ostensibly, running the Silk Road website. Another Kim Dotcom, who is threatened with extradition in New Zealand. Julian Assange, whose story is too well known here to need to describe it. Edward Snowden, who is presumably still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA information. There are also major drug cases, such as El Chapo, Joaquin Guzman. In some of these cases, the defendant should have had a lot of money, such as Ulbricht, although it was lost to the Feds. Kim Dotcom may still be rich. Julian Assange could probably raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as well. Guzman, and probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise millions per year, if they actually wanted to do this. Maybe even Martha Stewart would hold some residual grudges. Anyone who thinks he is at risk of Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system essentially shut down. How? Well, let's go to the statistics. Last year, there were 77,152 new criminal defendants in the Federal criminal system, see http://www.pewresearch.org/fa ct-tank/2017/03/28/federal-cri minal-prosecutions-fall-to-low est-level-in-nearly-two-decade s/ . According to https://www.ussc.gov/sites/d efault/files/pdf/research-and- publications/research-publicat ions/2017/FY16_Overview_ Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf , "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded guilty." If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably no more than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials. Perhaps this statistic would surprise most people. I think the average sentence is about 3 years. The ability of the Federal criminal system to actually put on criminal trials is very limited. There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil trials. It is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put on much more than those 2160 trials. That court space has to be shared with civil cases, as well. All, or at least most of those people had a right to a jury trial. If all, or most of those defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial, rather than plead guilty, havoc would ensue. Even if the number of trials could increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or 74,152, would have to walk free, because the system could not possibly try them all. The limitation is not merely court space: Trials are "expensive" in preparation, research, and evidence. And that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful" idea, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch. What would motivate all of these people to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are threatened with much more punishment if they plead not guilty and demand a trial, and lose. Like a variant on the "Prisoner's dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is better to 'take the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial. What would change this system around? Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal prison is poor, if he has no money. No money, no commissary. No drinks, cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc. I know: I spent 13 years in prison, time I shouldn't have spent. Many enter prison broke. What if they were offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury trial, and thus forced the government to actually put them on trial, form a jury, and put on a trial. If the government dropped the case, or reduced the charges to something that didn't require a trial, the defendant would get nothing. If we assume that the Federal court system could put on 3,000 trials, one defendant per trial typically, the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x $3,000, or 9 million dollars. It would be limited by the number of actual trials the Feds could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that would have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial. Tell each new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the $3,000. Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter. Have a trial, get the money, simple as that. I am merely guessing what the 'proper' figure would be, in order to motivate such people adequately. But if most people were already demanding a jury trial, and tens of thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to lack of ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to induce these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial. After all, they would know that if they didn't get the money, that would mean that they would have been freed. And that's the goal, isn't it? At least for the defendant, that is. You can imagine what would happen. The Feds would have to ration trials. Only the most "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted. And yes, there are definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!! But the total number of people who could enter the Federal prison system per year would drop from perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year. This year, there are about 185,300 Federal prisoners. Drop the input to 3,000 per year, and the total population could easily drop to 20,000, and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few years. Dozens of prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well over 100. It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal prisoner. Most of that money probably goes to prison staff salaries and supplies, and most of the rest goes to prison construction. Drop the total Federal prison population from 185,000 to 15,000, and they will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000, or about $6.8 billion dollars per year. Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal? We may speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project. Give them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act. There might arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of Federal prosecution. A donation of $50 per year, average, would raise $10 million. It would not take many tax evaders, resistors, or avoiders to foot the bill. People who resented a prior prosecution would add up, as well. Why not? Jim Bell

2 2

OPEN ARCHIVE
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

OPEN ARCHIVE https://www.aaronswartzday.org/openarchive OpenArchive is a free, open source application for android, available on the Google Play Store that enables you to send your mobile media directly to the Internet Archive over Tor (Orbot), and choose what metadata and Creative Commons license to include with it. The primary goal of the app is to empower the user to easily archive photos, video and audio from their mobile device to a secure, trustworthy, and remote storage service. OpenArchive is a free, open source application for android, available on the Google Play Store that enables you to send your mobile media directly to the Internet Archive over Tor (Orbot), and choose what metadata and Creative Commons license to include with it. The primary goal of the app is to empower the user to easily archive photos, video and audio from their mobile device to a secure, trustworthy, and remote storage service. ------- "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or your curiosity. It's your place in the world; it's your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live." - Mae Jemison

1 0

Chelsea Manning on Life After Prison, Plus Riz Ahmed
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Chelsea Manning on Life After Prison, Plus Riz Ahmed # https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/chelsea-manning… ------- "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or your curiosity. It's your place in the world; it's your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live." - Mae Jemison

1 0

[Very, Very OT] German Translation, please? + some PS :)
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Hi, cute people! Howdy? :D I am trying to make a card (origami or kirigami, cute suggestions please?) to send to two lovely Austrian children. Their parents know English, but the kids are still learning to read and only speak German. I don't want to ask help to their parents and would like to give the children the joy of understanding their card. It sounds a bit "magical" for them to receive a card from an unknown woman, who lives in another country very, very far... :D Who would like to help me with the translation, please? I don't trust Google's translations, sorry. Once, I made a test using Italian and "caro mio" ("my dear") was literally translated as "expensive mine". :P Kisses and hugs!!! And thanks in advance!!! <3 Ceci, la la la... :D * PS for grarpamp: - It's a bit old, but is sooo cute... It always make me smile! <3 # https://youtu.be/TsKghhQ41FM * PS for Shawn: - Forgive me. I am very late because I contacted two persons who talked with Aaron about that subject. I will contact the third person, who is one of the best lawyers in my country and a dear, very loved friend. God, I adore him! <3 # My Email Exchange With Aaron Swartz Shows An Original Thinker # https://www.fastcompany.com/3004769/my-email-exchange-aaron-swartz-shows-or… His CV is pretty outdated here. Life changes and he is better now than ever. I do love him and will always be thankful for sharing a bit of his awesomeness with me. <3 I am bbc-ying him only to promise more Japanese candies and make him smile. I am missing him a lot and will ask material about "tecno brega" ("cheesy techno", haha!!) in English later. He introduced the Creative Commons licenses in my country and - wow! - a lot of interesting concepts too. One of my dearest friends was his professor and always says he was his best student. Ronaldo, I will say you are sending a hug to him, ok? :D Yep, my English stinks more than old cheese and, please, don't answer on this list, my dear. We have all kinds of trolls here and some friends of mine are having problems with them. I love you very much. Take care, please. <3 ------- "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or your curiosity. It's your place in the world; it's your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live." - Mae Jemison

1 0

jimbellproject.org: gibbs me dats
by The Greatest Story Never Told 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

> juan juan.g71 at gmail.com > Sun Oct 22 22:42:13 PDT 2017 > > You are using militą́ry propaganda > Glow-in-the-dark f́biciániggers are not the militą́ry. The militą́ry is a sword, it knows nothing of why it does what it does. > to try to 'market' your system. > Viόlence is a failed system. 'Archive Politics' is the future. > US naźis > american naźis > naźi > This is an insulting and inaccurate label, halalanon. You should study your history. > I already mentioned a country > that is a way bigger threat to world peace > than ANY of the ones you mentioned > You mentioned nothing of the pale-stien occupied territories. > PENTAGON'S KILL LIST > PENTAGON > I think you mean 'hexagon', as in the 'Black Cube of Saturn'. > The complete list > those 4 countries > List states currently without a (((central bā́nk))). > If a state fails we should throw a party > Unironically acknowledging and validating the existence of a "state". Lol.

2 2

Decoding Simon and Speck: Block Ciphers for the Internet of Things
by Ryan Carboni 23 Oct '17

23 Oct '17

I have previously told the Tor developers that they should work in PR, now I believe that the NSA is also very good at PR. I shall decode Simon and Speck: Block Ciphers for the Internet of Things for you. " In a stable world, it’s a good strategy to specialize, but when conditions change rapidly, specialists don’t always fare so well" everyone uses AES. Or Keeloq. Or RC4. People select the protocol for the application they will use, hence why the IoT won't use WPA2. Of course digital signal processing requires many many gates so... "For example, the consensus has long been that a budget of 2000 GE is all the chip area that might reasonably be allocated for security on the most constrained RFID tags" Who sets the consensus? I believe Snowden and John Gilmore had something to say about IPsec consensus? Regardless, nearly 40% of the registers for 256-bit secure Simon is for the temporary key. It isn't hard to beat Simon's security for better RFID performance, but that would hurt it's performance on other applications. Every cryptographer, particularly the ones who work on examining Keeloq have totally failed to notice this. "One further point about AES: not every application requires the same high level of security that AES is designed to provide." AES is the worst cipher to be adopted by American industry since DES. Should've gone with Skipjack. "that almost exactly matches PRINCE’s latency and area; it implements the combinational logic for 5 rounds, and encrypts in b 44 / 5 c 9 cycles." Yes, designing a hardware implementation with reasonable parameters will reduce latency and area. Would you be surprised if Prince would be better as a 2 cycle implementation? "This is excellent performance relative to other block ciphers; indeed CLEFIA realizes the 'world’s highest hardware gate e ciency'" Other block ciphers may have been incompetently designed. "The C implementations of Speck 128/256 have better overall performance than the best C implementations of ChaCha20, a stream cipher especially noted for its speed." ChaCha is a 512-bit poorly keyed block cipher. To achieve diffusion over such a large block size, more rounds and instructions are needed. To achieve non-linear dependency on each key bit, more rounds are needed. Naturally they said in a previous paper that ChaCha doesn't compare to Speck because it is a stream cipher (weird meme). It is a sad comedy when a protocol uses SHA-2-512 and truncates it to 256-bits to key a cipher when to avoid slide and Meet in the Middle attacks one needs at least twice the round keys. Anyway, embedded micro controllers for storage devices are 100 MHz ARM CPUs that cost half a cent each. There exists cheap FPGAs with a thousand slices. "AES, on processors with cache memory can be particularly vulnerable to these cache-timing attacks" they just trolling you now and you don't see it "Because of their simplicity (and perhaps because of their source!)" The NSA is very sexy. Join us. "Simon and Speck have been quite thoroughly vetted by the cryptographic community in the two years since their publication." Simon and Speck are very secure because numerous papers have incrementally improved upon each other, fortunately there wasn't a major breakthrough because that might halve the number of papers released. (oddly enough many of the papers were from Chinese researchers) The NSA manipulates you to your face, and you have failed. Each and every one of you. P.S. The phone system was a trade secret, but now WPA2 specification is a paywall. All these bought off cryptographers are in a cover their ass operation. They know they overlooked it, they have to explain to you why they overlooked it so they can still appear valuable to you. We could've had the Clipper chip, but now we may as well be using Tribler's OFB with same IV (nothing to see here). Anyway, WPA3 is needed for post-quantum eventually. Everything should head towards some sort of post-quantum algorithm, now that NTRU's patent expired. There is no reason why NTRU is not used, and I'd suggest conservative parameters for a given amount of input entropy. Smart cards and post-quantum for everything. P.P.S. Binney is a pathological liar. Just watch A Good American on Netflix. It is no wonder that the EFF is currently ineffectually complaining about unconstitutional laws. John Schindler is right, he doesn't express himself well, but I'm pretty sure he represents the opinions of the intelligence community in that many of you are blind and incompetent. (naturally the same could go for the intelligence community...) Bonus round because a helicopter flew over my house: Schneier said: "There is too much mistrust in the air. NIST risks publishing an algorithm that no one will trust and no one (except those forced) will use." That means trust me, I am opposed to what is happening and I am an expert. Schneier then said: I misspoke when I wrote that NIST made "internal changes" to the algorithm. That was sloppy of me. The Keccak permutation remains unchanged. What NIST proposed was reducing the hash function's capacity in the name of performance. One of Keccak's nice features is that it's highly tunable. Oh, I was just exaggerating, trust me, I have gone over to the other's side. When a familiar face changes their mind, will you go along with them if you were wavering to begin with?

2 1