- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

US Pres. Cand. Carly Fiorina Comes Out Against Crypto and Privacy
by grarpamp 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/14/exclusive-carly-fiorina-… When Fiorina was CEO at Hewlett-Packard, the NSA called her after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 asking for help. “They needed help getting a large amount of equipment very quickly. The reason they needed help getting that large amount of equipment quickly was because they were trying to stand up their ability to track people that were of a suspicious nature,” Fiorina explained. I diverted a lot of equipment from paying customers to the government in a very short period of time. I was happy to do it. “Number one, I would retaliate against China and Russia. They have hacked into some of our most sensitive systems and we haven’t done much about it,” she said, vowing, “I would retaliate.” “First that means there has to be laws that have to be passed. There are some things that have to be permissible legally, which would allow the private sector and the public sector to share information,” she said. One of the places we need help is to deal with all of these encrypted communications...we have to be able to work around it “It’s important for people to understand that because they’ve misunderstood that, and this address is one phone number to another phone number, that’s it,” she said, adding, “There is no content discussed. “ teaching people how to disappear online. They have online help desks.” Fiorina [babbled on about] the terrorist attack in San Bernardino

3 2

Concrete containment of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano desperately needed - please urgently contribute
by Zenaan Harkness 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Witness the awesome 11km high CO2 destructive power of Eyjafjallajokull: http://www.icelandontheweb.com/articles-on-iceland/nature/volcanoes/eyjafja… Donations can be sent to my personal account. Thank you and regards, Zenaan PS 11km high is quite impressive, even for a volcano - this beast must be stopped! PS2 The following is a rather interesting link, bringing into question a few things, hopefully its purported facts are factual: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php PS3 But do note the precise wording by the Professor below - one would hope his wording is precise since he is a professor and all... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Author's credentials: Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Born 12 February 1946 (age 68) Residence Australia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia> Nationality Australian Fields Earth Science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Science> ,Geology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology> ,Mining Engineering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Engineering> Institutions University of New England <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_%28Australia%29> ,University of Newcastle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Newcastle_%28Australia%29> ,University of Melbourne <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Melbourne> ,University of Adelaide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Adelaide> Almamater <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater> University of New South Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_South_Wales> , Macquarie University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_University> Thesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis> The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia < http://www.worldcat.org/title/pipe-deposits-of-tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth-… > (1976) Notable awards Eureka Prize <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prize> (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenary_Medal> (2003), Clarke Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal> (2004) Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad. Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs. Well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it. Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change'- you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But, hey, relax and have a nice day anyway. ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

The FBI, Carnegie-Mellon University, CERT/CC, and Tor
by Rayzer 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

> The news of CMU’s possible assistance in compromising Tor’s most > critical feature, anonymity, presents an opportunity for many to > attack the integrity of CERT/CC and the researchers at the Software > Engineering Institute. Bruce Schneier and others have been quick to > point out that this incident has erased (or at least greatly > diminished) CERT/CC’s hard-earned reputation as an honest broker. It > is certain to be a warning to other CSIRTs around the world that they > should transparently define their relationships with law enforcement > agencies. From Just Security (legal): https://www.justsecurity.org/28343/fbi-stop-undermining-norms-root/ Reports surfaced last month suggesting that Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) has been helping <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/11/did_carnegie-me.html> the FBI crack Tor, the secure browsing application used by privacy-conscious Internet users for both legal and illegal activities. Normally, an academic institution assisting law enforcement in fighting crime wouldn’t raise any eyebrows, particularly if that assistance came in the form of responding to subpoenas. But this isn’t your average case. Beyond the complicated (and unclear) set of facts involved, CMU houses the Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center (CERT/CC), one of the world’s most important hubs for coordinating information about various cybersecurity vulnerabilities and attacks. More than a month after the news first broke, the details are murky at best. Tor has alleged <https://blog.torproject.org/blog/did-fbi-pay-university-attack-tor-users> that the FBI paid CMU to crack the system’s anonymity feature in exchange for payment. CMU’s own statement <https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/november/media-statement.html> about the incident says that many of the media reports have been inaccurate, but acknowledges that the university — and by extension CERT/CC — complies with valid subpoenas that it receives (as it must). It also said that it receives “no funding for compliance.” The FBI has said <http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/11/18/fbi-cmu-tor-million-d…> that reports on the payment are inaccurate, but stopped short of saying no payment was made. And Tor has responded <http://www.wired.com/2015/11/carnegie-mellon-denies-fbi-paid-for-tor-breaki…> by saying that these vague responses raise a whole host of questions on their own. The public saga leading up to the recent accusations began in July 2014, when Ed Felten, the then-director of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, noted <https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/why-were-cert-researchers-attacki…> that CERT/CC researchers at CMU had submitted a presentation abstract to organizers of the Black Hat security conference discussing a new vulnerability they had found in Tor. The timing of CERT/CC’s pitch to Black Hat aligned with a large-scale attack on Tor that lasted from January to July 2014, during which CERT/CC researchers shared only “hints” about the vulnerability they had discovered. As for the abstract, it was abruptly withdrawn in July when CMU failed to approve the content of the talk for public release. Eyebrows were again raised in January 2015, after the arrest <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/did-feds-mount-a-sustained-attac…> of a man who allegedly helped run Silk Road 2.0, a large online trading post on the dark web whose visitors often use Tor to access the site. At the time, some speculated that his arrest was tied to the attack against Tor in the first half of 2014. Most recently, in mid-November, Tor accused CMU of accepting payment and assisting the FBI — in ways that indicate a warrant was not involved — to “attack hidden services users in a broad sweep, and then sift through their data to find people.” These allegations are hugely problematic for CERT/CC. As an entity that espouses <http://www.cert.org/about/> to be “a trusted, authoritative organization dedicated to improving the security of computer systems and networks,” finding and not disclosing vulnerabilities is a good way to undermine that trust. Exploiting those vulnerabilities is even worse. But let’s take a step back for a moment. Why, beyond the obvious privacy concerns raised by Tor, is this such a big deal? CERT/CC, and indeed the Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) community as a whole <https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/csirt-basics-for-policy…>, is a pillar of global cybersecurity. (CSIRT is another term often used to describe the type of organization CERT/CC is.) Generally, CSIRTs are responsible for receiving, reviewing, and responding to computer security incident reports from a set of clients, which can include government agencies, private companies, security researchers, and ordinary Internet users. Since the late 1980s, CERT/CC, as the name suggests, has been a major coordination center for global CSIRT activities. As as result, it has access to a wide array of incident information and vulnerabilities, which could, hypothetically, be used to help crack Tor’s anonymity feature. In addition, the organization — initially funded as a DARPA project and still funded <http://www.cert.org/faq/> with federal money — is largely transnational in nature and serves as the secretariat for national CSIRTs, more than 100 of which are distributed across the globe. CSIRTs are increasingly referenced in international discussions as a key component in efforts to build global capacity to combat cybersecurity threats and develop norms of behavior among nations in the cyber realm. For example, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on cybersecurity suggested <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/174> this summer that special teams authorized to respond to cybersecurity incidents, such as CSIRTs, should not be used to “engage in malicious international activity” and should not be the target of attacks. If CSIRTs are to be held out as off limits, they need to be impartial (like, say, the Red Cross <http://time.com/3713226/red-cross-cyberspace/>) and cannot be political actors, lest they become legitimate targets. CERT/CC, and many other CSIRTs around the world, collect information that can be very useful for both identifying and capturing criminals. They rely heavily <https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/csirt-basics-for-policy…> on the trust incident reporters and vulnerability researchers have in the CSIRTs, trust that is garnered after developing close ties with the constituencies they serve. When a CSIRT is discovered, or even rumored, to be acting in a way that is negligent or undermines network security of perfectly legal services, this bond of trust is fractured. Less trust means less information for CSIRTs. To pour salt on the wound, the controversy around the latest story undermines the effectiveness of CERT/CC both to carry out its own duties and to assist the FBI in the future. Though it is often not explicit in documentation, a relationship between CSIRTs and law enforcement agencies is often assumed. Indeed, such cooperation can be helpful for both law enforcement and CSIRTs. Law enforcement can obtain important technical information about incidents from CSIRTs, which in turn helps law enforcement identify and pursue cyber-criminals. On the flipside, some industries (particularly in the US) have close relationships with law enforcement that result in law enforcement becoming an important reporter of incidents to the CSIRT. But if these two types of bodies are to have close working relationships, they should follow explicit and transparent guidelines in accordance with due process. If the FBI is engaging with CSIRTs to essentially break a feature of Internet security en masse, it is making its own life more difficult down the line by removing the legitimacy of a key ally in cyber criminal investigations. To be clear: This is not an indictment of CSIRTs working with law enforcement. As I explain in detail with my colleagues Isabel Skierka, Mirko Hohmann, and Tim Maurer in our recent report <https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/11916-national-csirts-and-their-r…>, cooperation between CSIRTs and law enforcement is not necessarily a bad thing. A comprehensive approach to addressing cybercrime would ideally meld the technical expertise and access CSIRTs have painstakingly developed with traditional law enforcement expertise found in agencies like the FBI. In fact, many national-level CSIRTs actually sit within law enforcement, intelligence, or national security organizations or have formal liaisons with those agencies. Indeed, most in the CSIRT community seem ready to accept that CSIRTs have reached a point in their maturity where a formal, transparent relationship with law enforcement is practicable. This is because the quandary facing CSIRTs is one that has pervaded the American intelligence community for decades: Some activities simply do not pass the front-page test; meaning that some actions, when they come to light, will hurt the reputation of the organization. As New America Cybersecurity Fellow and Georgia Tech professor Peter Swire wrote earlier this year <https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/the-declining-half-life-of-secrets/>, the half-life of secrets is diminishing, and interactions like CERT/CC’s with the FBI are likely to become known much sooner than they would in the past. For the CSIRT community, which relies so heavily on trust for effectiveness, keeping their relationships with the government secret will be both extremely difficult and may undermine their reputations once they come to light. The news of CMU’s possible assistance in compromising Tor’s most critical feature, anonymity, presents an opportunity for many to attack the integrity of CERT/CC and the researchers at the Software Engineering Institute. Bruce Schneier <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/11/did_carnegie-me.html> and others <http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/11/why-tor-attack-matters.html> have been quick to point out that this incident has erased (or at least greatly diminished) CERT/CC’s hard-earned reputation as an honest broker. It is certain to be a warning to other CSIRTs around the world that they should transparently define their relationships with law enforcement agencies. Regardless of how fault should be apportioned in this particular instance, the news comes as part of a larger trend in the CSIRT community. Once relatively apolitical, these technical teams are undergoing a process of politicization. National level CSIRTs, many of which once resided outside of government in academic institutions and non-governmental organizations, are being pulled into government structures. At the same time, their relationships with law enforcement agencies are becoming closer and (to those outside of the agencies) more opaque. What can be done to protect the credibility and neutrality of these important pillars in the network security ecosystem? The recommendations we outline in our report provide a roadmap: * The first step to protect trust in these teams is to reverse the recent trend and /not/ place them under the control of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such agencies are incentivized to use the tools at their disposal to investigate crime, collect intelligence, and pursue threat groups, and thus will often disregard the apolitical information coordination role CSIRTs play. * Second, CSIRTs and law enforcement must more transparently define the terms of their cooperation, including how and under what circumstances they interact. They should also clearly define what kinds of information and expertise are exchanged and what direction(s) shared information flows. * Third, for CSIRTs to remain trusted brokers, they must clarify their mandates and missions. Traditionally, a CSIRT has placed remediating damage from incidents and returning systems to operation as top priorities. Is this still the case, or is CSIRT expertise being poured into combating cybercrime and assisting law enforcement agencies in developing tools and methods to discover criminals? Finally, though not included in our recommendations in the report, to recover the trust it has recently lost, CERT/CC’s mission and role needs to be clearly defined by the organization itself, its funders, its partners, and its constituency. Is it essentially a second US national CSIRT alongside the Department of Homeland Security’s US-CERT <https://www.us-cert.gov/>, or is it something closer to a private CSIRT that plays a role in maintaining global cybersecurity? If it is a global, non-government CSIRT, transparently defining its relationship with law enforcement, intelligence, and other political actors — both inside and outside the US — is all the more important. In the end, the actions of the computer security professionals at CERT/CC who allegedly aided the FBI are somewhat understandable. Their overarching goal is to secure computer systems. The traditional CSIRT approach focuses on technical identification and remediation of incidents, in addition to promoting technical measures to protect systems from attacks in the first place. The goal of law enforcement bodies in cybersecurity is to lend a helping hand in preventing attacks from taking place by rounding up the likely and past perpetrators. That aligns with the CSIRT community’s goal. But the allegations of the researchers’ work (the cybersecurity applicability of which is dubious at best) to crack Tor demonstrate the damage that can be done when when a CSIRT’s interaction with law enforcement is not openly and strictly governed. The controversy surrounding this story represents something much larger than the alleged incident. CSIRTs are meant to be apolitical actors concentrating on computer and network security. The ramifications of politicization and muddied mandates could permeate up to states’ efforts to develop international norms of behavior in cyberspace, like those outlined <https://ccdcoe.org/2015-un-gge-report-major-players-recommending-norms-beha…> by the UN Group of Governmental Experts, that rely on the integrity and independence of global CSIRTs. By undermining these norms before they take root, the FBI, and by extension the US government, undermine their own efforts to promote an open and secure cyberspace through norms for responsible state behavior. About the Author Robert Morgus is a Policy Analyst with New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative and International Security Program. You can follow him on Twitter (@robmorgus). -- RR "You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around with mine until it worked..."

1 0

About that 'sharing economy' thing...
by Rayzer 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

Nice. No equal opportunity regulations here. I'll repeat this, the "Sharing Economy" is a FEUDAL ANTIDEMOCRATIC economy Harvard study finds what it calls widespread discrimination by home-sharing company Airbnb's hosts. http://www.reuters.tv/Ysw/2015/12/11/study-finds-airbnb-hosts-discriminate Sorry, can't post a video... It's a 17 minute piece on how your "Sharing Economy" is tantamount to a return to Jim Crow. -- RR "You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around with mine until it worked..."

1 0

Jeremy Hammond Rejects and Redirs OpISIS and Co-opted Anon
by grarpamp 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

https://freejeremy.net/2015/12/10/reject-opisis-and-the-co-opting-of-anonym… Reject #OpIsis and the Co-Opting of Anonymous In this new writing, Jeremy shares his views on Anonymous, #OpISIS, and the recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment that has been sweeping the nation. ________________________________ The attacks in France were a terrible but unfortunately predictable response by desperate people who, after a decade of war and occupation, want the west to taste what we have been regularly dishing out. But we cannot allow them to be used to justify more war. In the wake of the Paris attacks, the Western governments are provoking Islamophobic hatred in order to escalate military operations in the Middle East and push police state powers. It’s a familiar script, and from prison, I’ve been following these developments, disturbed about the attacks on immigrant and Muslim communities and the resurgence of the fascist right. I remember in the wake of 9/11, the waves of blind patriotism and xenophobia that the war-mongering politicians used to push police-state laws, mass surveillance, and rampant militarization. It was never about fighting terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, but about US empire: control over land, oil, and drug production, like all wars. Hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered by the US military over the longest war in our history while we escalated drone warfare elsewhere in Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, creating the conditions which gave rise to ISIS in the first place. That same post-9/11 hysteria is back and all the war-mongers are again frothing at the mouth with hate for immigrants and refugees, pushing for national Muslim registration databases, and for regime change in Syria. But I never thought Anonymous would join in on their frenzied call for war. Apparently, GhostSec and others purportedly associated with Anonymous have been DDoSing forums, taking down Twitter accounts, and reporting IP addresses to law enforcement in collaboration with shady military contractors like Kronos Advisory. The naïve fools behind the operation are being manipulated by intelligence agents taking advantage of the emotional reaction to the Paris attacks to harness our skills to fight their hypocritical “war on terrorism.” As someone who hacked with Anonymous and marched against the war in Iraq, I completely oppose #OpISIS and any attempts to co-opt our movement into supporting the government’s militaristic agenda. Escalated US military involvement is certainly going to result in more civilian deaths, as it already has. All deaths of innocent civilians are a tragedy, and we cannot value one life over another. (And you are still more likely to be shot down by police than in a terrorist attack.) The same intelligence industry that runs their own NSA hacker operations against ISIS uses the same counter-terrorism justification to spy on everyday civilians with no regards for rights to privacy, encryption, or anonymity. They have always targeted Anonymous and other dissident groups as terrorists, and when they aren’t trying to discredit or imprison us, they are attempting to co-opt us – sometimes openly by attending conference like DEFCON, seducing us with promises of money or calls for patriotic duty, other times covertly lurking around IRC channels attempting to steer us unwittingly into supporting their agenda. Remember, Sabu asked me to hack government websites of Syria and Turkey, among others, which I did, unaware he was an FBI informant. They didn’t want to talk about it at my sentencing hearing, but they did condemn my attacks against police and military contractors at length. The agents out there encouraging you to “hack the terrorists” will have no problem turning around and locking you up for years if you are not useful to their agenda. We won’t let Anonymous be unwittingly used to further the military industrial complex’s imperialistic operations around the world. We don’t work for the government – we are against all governments. We are on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressors. We support the victims of war, not the war-makers. If you want to report membership lists and IP addresses of suspected terrorists, go join the CIA or hang out with wannabes like Stratfor or the th3j35t3r. Call it state-sponsored hacking, patriotic hacktivism, whatever – just don’t you dare call yourselves Anonymous. I urge my comrades still out there in the trenches, sitting on some hot 0day, ready to loot databases and trash systems. If you want to stop war and terrorism, target who Martin Luther King Jr. called the “largest purveyor of violence in the word today” – the US government. So Anonymous, get to it – drone manufacturers, white hat infosec contractors, CIA directors, Donald Trump, and your local police department – they all have blood on their hands, they are all fair game.

2 1

A woman with balls ^B ovaries! - Fwd: Ann Barnhardt's response to a Muslim death threat.
by Zenaan Harkness 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

So, you think you are -not- a sheeple who's compliant with despotic external authority (of any kind)? Try Ann Barnhardt's response on for size. My kind of woman! Make that, my kind of human! Regards, Zenaan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jim <jim.sovereign(a)optusnet.com.au> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:56:51 +1100 Subject: Ann Barnhardt's response to a Muslim death threat. FW: Please Pass the Pork Crackle - ----- Original Message ----- Subject: FW: Please Pass the Pork Crackle - Hi everybody, this is a very courage's lady. - Werner This is the lady who used bacon strips as bookmarks while reading from the Koran and then she ripped out the pages and burned them...... all on video. Ann Barnhart is described as "a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant, American patriot, traditional Catholic, and unwitting counter-revolutionary blogger." She has taken on Islam and they have noticed. https://www.truthorfiction.com/ann-barnhardt/ Summary of eRumor: This is a feisty response from an Colorado woman named Ann Barnhardt to a person who sent a message through her web site that included a death threat against her. Barnhardt is a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant who, among other things, has been critical of the Obama administration and of Islam. The Truth: Ann Barnhardt told TruthOrFiction.com that the death threat was real and so was her public response, which she posted on her web site. The death threat came from an alleged Muslim who posted a comment in July 2011 to a video that Barnhardt released on YouTube. Click for Barnhardt's website. updated 10/09/11 A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet: Ann Barnhardt is described as "a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant, American patriot, traditional Catholic, and unwitting counter-revolutionary blogger. She can be reached through her business at www.barnhardt.biz." She has taken on Islam and they have noticed. DEATH THREAT: To:annbarnhardt I'm going to kill you when I find you. Don't think I won't, I know where you and your parents live and I'll need is one phone-call to kill ya'll. ANN'S RESPONSE: Re: Watch your back. Hello mufcadnan123! You don't need to "find" me. My address is 9175 Kornbrust Circle, Lone Tree, CO 80124. Luckily for you, there are daily DIRECT FLIGHTS from Heathrow to Denver. Here's what you will need to do. After arriving at Denver and passing through customs, you will need to catch the shuttle to the rental car facility. Once in your rental car, take Pena Boulevard to I-225 south. Proceed on I-225 south to I-25 south. Proceed south on I-25 to Lincoln Avenue which is exit 193. Turn right (west) onto Lincoln. Proceed west to the fourth light, and turn left (south) onto Ridgegate Boulevard. Proceed south, through the roundabout to Kornbrust Drive. Turn left onto Kornbrust Drive and then take an immediate right onto Kornbrust Circle. I'm at 9175. Just do me one favor. PLEASE wear body armor. I have some new ammunition that I want to try out, and frankly, close-quarter body shots without armor would feel almost unsporting from my perspective. That and the fact that I'm probably carrying a good 50 I.Q. points on you makes it morally incumbent upon me to spot you a tactical advantage. However, being that you are a miserable, trembling coward, I realize that you probably are incapable of actually following up on any of your threats without losing control of your bowels and crapping your pants while simultaneously sobbing yourself into hyperventilation. So, how about this: why don't you contact the main mosque here in Denver and see if some of the local musloids here in town would be willing to carry out your attack for you? After all, this is what your "perfect man" mohamed did (pig excrement be upon him). You see, mohamed, being a miserable coward and a con artist, would send other men into battle to fight on his behalf. Mohamed would stay at the BACK of the pack and let the stupid, ignorant suckers like you that he had conned into his political cult do the actual fighting and dying. Mohamed would then fornicate with the dead men's wives and children. You should follow mohamed's example! Here is the contact info for the main mosque here in Denver : Masjid Abu Bakr Imam Karim Abu Zaid 2071 South Parker Road Denver, CO 80231 Phone: 303-696-9800 Email: denvermosque(a)yahoo.com I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you. Frankly, I'm terribly disappointed that not a SINGLE musloid here in the United States has made ANY attempt to rape and behead me. But maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, so let me do that right now. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER submit to islam. I will fight islam with every fiber of my being for as long as I live because islam is pure satanic evil. If you are really serious about islam dominating the United States and the world, you are going to have to come through me. You are going to have to kill me. Good luck with that. And understand that if you or some of your musloid boyfriends do actually manage to kill me, The Final Crusade will officially commence five minutes later, and then, despite your genetic mental retardation, you will be made to understand with crystal clarity what the word "defeat" means. Either way, I win, so come and get it. Deo adjuvante non timendum (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of). Ann Barnhardt https://www.truthorfiction.com/ann-barnhardt/

2 4

Jacob Appelbaum Speech at openDemocracy
by grarpamp 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZHOgWeg8T0 Published on Nov 25, 2015 Journalist and researcher for the Tor project, Jacob Appelbaum talks about technology, freedom and resisting surveillance at the World Forum for Democracy. Read a transcript of the speech here: https://goo.gl/WSE3mK This video is published as part of an openDemocracy editorial partnership with the World Forum for Democracy. The insights gathered during the annual Strasbourg World Forum for Democracy inform the work of the Council of Europe and its numerous partners in the field of democracy and democratic governance.

1 0

Peter Sunde On... [re: Assange believes too late for any pervasive privacy]
by grarpamp 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen(a)freedbms.net> wrote: > Feels like a sell out. I suspect he feels he's being pragmatic. > https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rFNQ8ytnE Too late? Selling out? Giving up? Or the realization of much bigger things at play, and focuses yet to come... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-i-have-give… Pirate Bay Founder: ‘I Have Given Up’ Written by Joost Mollen December 11, 2015 // 02:26 PM EST “The internet is shit today. It’s broken. It was probably always broken, but it’s worse than ever.” My conversation with, Peter Sunde, one of the founders and spokespersons of The Pirate Bay, did not start out optimistically. There’s good reason for that: In the last couple of months, the contemporary download culture shows heavy signs of defeat in the battle for the internet. Last month we saw Demonii disappear. It was the biggest torrent tracker on the internet, responsible for over 50 million trackers a year. Additionally, the MPAA took down YIFY and Popcorn Time. Then news got out that the Dutch Release Team, an uploading collective, made a legal settlement with anti-piracy group BREIN. While it might look like torrenters are are still fighting this battle, Sunde claims that the reality is more definitive: “We have already lost.” Back in 2003 Peter Sunde, together with Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm, started The Pirate Bay, a website that would become the biggest and most famous file-sharing website in the world. In 2009, the three founders were convicted of “assisting [others] in copyright infringement” in a highly controversial trial. "Stop treating internet like it's a different thing and start focusing on what you actually want your society to look like." Sunde was incarcerated in 2014 and released a year later. After his time in jail he started blogging about the centralization of power by the European Union; ran as a candidate for the Finnish Pirate Party during the elections to the European Parliament; and founded Flattr, a micro donation system for software developers. I wanted to speak with Sunde about the current state of the free and open internet, but this conversation quickly changed into an ideological exchange about society and capitalism—which is, according to Sunde, the real problem. The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. MOTHERBOARD: Hey Peter, I was planning on asking you if things are going well, but you made it pretty clear that that isn’t the case. Peter Sunde: No, I don’t see any good happening. People are too easy to content with things. Take the net neutrality law in Europe. It's terrible, but people are happy and go like "it could be worse.” That is absolutely not the right attitude. Facebook brings the internet to Africa and poor countries, but they’re only giving limited access to their own services and make money off of poor people. And getting government grants to do that, because they do PR well. Finland actually made internet access a human right a while back. That was a clever thing of Finland. But that’s like the only positive thing I have seen in any country anywhere in the world regarding the internet So, how bad is the state of the open internet? Well, we don’t have an open internet. We haven’t had an open internet for a long time. So, we can’t really talk about the open internet because it does not exist anymore. The problem is, nobody stops anything. We are losing privileges and rights all of the time. We are not gaining anything anywhere. The trend is just going in one direction: a more closed and more controlled internet. That has a big impact on our society. Because they are the same thing today. If you have a more oppressed internet, you have a more oppressed society. So that's something we should focus on. But still we think of the internet like this new kind Wild West place, and things are not in chains yet, so we don’t care because everything will be OK anyhow. But that is not really the case. We have never seen this amount of centralization, extreme inequality, extreme capitalism in any system before. But according to the marketing done by people like Mark Zuckerberg and companies like Google, it's all to help with the open network and to spread democracy, and so on. At the same time, they are capitalistic monopolies. So it’s like trusting the enemy to do the good deeds. It is really bizarre. Do you think because a lot of people don’t consider the internet to be real or a real place, they care less about its well-being? Well, one thing is, we have been growing up with an understanding of the importance of things like a telephone line or television. So if we would start to treat our telephone lines or TV channels like we treat the internet, people would get really upset. If someone would tell you, you can’t call a friend, you would understand then that this is a very bad thing that is happening. You understand your rights. But people don't have that with the internet. If someone would tell you, you can’t use Skype for that and that, you don’t get the feeling it’s about you personally. Just by being a virtual thing, it's suddenly not directed at you. You don't see someone spying on you, you don't see something censored, you don't see it when someone deletes stuff out of the search results out of Google. I think that’s the biggest problem to get people's attention. You don't see the problems, so people don’t feel connected to it. Screenshot from the documentary TPB - AFK (The Pirate Bay - Away From Keyboard). From left to right: Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij. I would rather not care about it myself. Because it’s very hard to do something about it, and not become a paranoid conspiracy person. And you don’t want to be that. So rather just give up. That’s kind of what people have been thinking, I think. What is it exactly that you have given up? Well, I have given up the idea that we can win this fight for the internet. The situation is not going to be any different, because apparently that is something people are not interested in fixing. Or we can't get people to care enough. Maybe it's a mixture, but this is kind of the situation we are in, so its useless to do anything about it. We have become somehow the Black Knight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail. We have maybe half of our head left and we are still fighting, we still think we have a chance of winning this battle. So what can people do to change this? Nothing. Nothing? No, I think we are at that point. I think it’s really important people understand this. We lost this fight. Just admit defeat and make sure next time you understand why you lost this fight and make sure it doesn’t happen again when we try and win the war. Right, so what is this war about and what should we do to win it? Well, I think, to win the war, we first of need to understand what the fight is and for me it’s clear that we are dealing with ideological thing: extreme capitalism that’s ruling, extreme lobbying that’s ruling and the centralization of power. The internet is just a part of a bigger puzzle. And the other thing with activism is that you have to get momentum and attention and such. We have been really bad at that. So we stopped ACTA, but then it just came back with a different name. By that time, we had used all our resources and public attention on that. The reason that the real world is the big target for me, is because the internet is emulating the real world. We are trying to recreate this capitalistic society we have on top of the internet. So the internet has been mostly fuel on the capitalistic fire, by kind of pretending to be something which will connect the whole world, but actually having a capitalistic agenda. Look at all the biggest companies in the world, they are all based on the internet. Look at what they are selling: nothing. Facebook has no product. Airbnb, the biggest hotel chain in the world, has no hotels. Uber, the biggest taxi company in the world, has no taxis whatsoever. "I have given up the idea that we can win this fight for the internet." The amount of employees in these companies are smaller then ever before and the profits are, in turn, larger. Apple and Google are passing oil companies by far. Minecraft got sold for $2.6 billion and WhatsApp for like $19 billion. These are insane amounts of money for nothing. That is why the internet and capitalism are so in love with each other. You told me the internet is broken, that it was always broken. What do you mean by that and do we have extreme capitalism to blame for it? Well, the thing is the internet is really stupid. It works really simply in a simple manner and it doesn’t take any adjustments for censorship. Like, if one cable is gone, you take the traffic through some other place. But thanks to the centralization of the internet, (possible) censorship or surveillance tech is a whole lot harder to get around. Also, because the internet was an American invention, they also still have control of it and ICANN can actually force any country top level domain to be censored or disconnected. For me that’s, a really broken design. But it has always been broken, we just never really cared about it, because there always have been a few good people that made sure that nothing bad happened before. But I think that’s the wrong idea. Rather let bad thing happen as quick as possible so we can fix them and make sure it does not happen in the future. We are prolonging this inevitable total failure, which is not helping us at all. So, we should just let it crash and burn down, pick up the pieces and start over? Yes, with the focus on the big war on this extreme capitalism. I couldn’t vote, but I was hoping Sarah Palin won last time in the US elections. I’m hoping Donald Trump wins this year’s election. For the reason that it will fuck up that country so much faster then if a less bad President wins. Our whole world is just so focused on money, money, money. That’s the biggest problem. That’s why everything fucks up. That’s the target we have to fix. We need to make sure that we are going to get a different focus in life. "We don’t have an open internet. We haven’t had an open internet for a long time." Hopefully technology will give us robots that will take away all the jobs, which will cause like a massive worldwide unemployment; somewhat like 60 percent. People will be so unhappy. That would be great, because then you can finally see capitalism crashing so hard. There is going to be a lot of fear, lost blood, and lost lives to get to that point, but I think that’s the only positive thing I see, that we are going to have a total system collapse in the future. Hopefully as quick as possible. I would rather be 50 then be like 85 when the system is crashing. This all sounds quite like some sort of Marxist revolution: a total crash of the capitalist system. Well, yeah, I totally agree with that. I’m a socialist. I know Marx and communism did not work before, but I think in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal access to everything for everybody. Most people I meet, no matter if they are a communist or a capitalist, agree with me on this, because they understand the potential. So, is there like a concrete thing we should focus on? Or do we need to aim for a new way of thinking? A new ideology? Well, I think the focus needs to be that the internet is exactly the same as society. People might realize that it’s not a really good idea to have all of our data and files on Google, Facebook and company servers. All of these things need to be communicated al the way to the political top, of course. But stop treating internet like it's a different thing and start focusing on what you actually want your society to look like. We have to fix society, before we can fix the internet. That’s the only thing. Topics: Open Internet, Pirate Bay, piracy, capitalism, Internet, culture

1 0

Weinstein Waxes On Govt Lying About Crypto Backdoors
by grarpamp 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001137.html http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/12/13/2322214/why-governments-lie-abo… http://www.vortex.com/privacy http://www.networkworld.com/article/3014057/security/fbi-director-renews-pu…

1 0

"Octopus Not So Great!"
by coderman 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

by @mollycrabapple

3 3