- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

IT-mees Jõhvist: „USA valitsus ja Kim Dotcom röövisid neli aastat minu elust“
by grarpamp 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

http://ekspress.delfi.ee/kuum/it-mees-johvist-usa-valitsus-ja-kim-dotcom-ro… http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/from-file-sharing-to-prison-a-me… The whole case was blackmail. They were just waiting for the defendant to get tired of fighting and give up. It’s not the one who’s in the right who wins, but the one who has the most staying power. They never send you straight to where you’re going. You drive through a number of other prisons first. If you make trouble, say by complaining to the judge that your rights are being violated, you’re put through this thing called "diesel therapy." They bounce you back and forth between prisons like a ping-pong ball. I was taken from Alexandria to Brooklyn, from there to Pennsylvania, from there back to Brooklyn, and from there to Pennsylvania again—a total of about 16 hours of driving. Before I got to where I was meant to be going, I was put in two different prisons, one of which was a supermax prison where they keep the worst of the worst. I was there for 10 days. There are more than 2.5 million prisoners in the United States. Almost one percent of the whole population is in prison, and that’s a huge problem. But what surprised me most was that there are private prisons in the US. The more prisoners, the more money you get from the state. It’s big business. Estonia was the only country that didn’t give its people any support. All the other countries gave their prisoners at least some pocket money. Even 10-20 euros would’ve been a great help, because you don’t even get normal soap for free there, not to mention shampoo. You’re given toothpaste whose "best before" was in 2005 and two 20 x 40 cm towels for your whole body for half a year.

2 2

Re: [Cryptography] Digital currencies
by grarpamp 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

On 6/20/16, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill(a)hallambaker.com> wrote: > Using as much > electricity as the island of Malta does to distribute the ledger is an > abomination. Far less than all the electricity consumed by the fiat system of the US alone... gov / fed reserve / bank buildings full of offices / datacenters / networks / devices, hvac, payroll, healthcare, vehicles, maintenance... all the electrons needed to make it go. Bitcoin, and any other digital currency, is likely highly efficient and becoming optimal implementations of whatever usable monetary and other features they provide. > Ultimately BitCoin is betting on the ultimate dotcom bubble, > the only value in the currency is that people want the currency. Someone have a rare known "thing" that others want, negotiate and trade for it. You're correct, and nothing could be more pure. The delusion that any fiat is backed by any "value" should end the minute you try to trade it for something of value to you from its issuer / participant brokers and discover them telling you to get lost at gunpoint, thus establishing its exact and formal value to both of you as zero. Particularly for any physical good. Then when actually trading with others you must also evaluate whatever issuer / broker party is doing with it, which at times in history is difficult to do, and such doings not necessarily always to your benefit.

1 1

Re: [Cryptography] Fwd: Study on Trends in Crypto-Messaging
by grarpamp 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

On 6/17/16, Tom A. <thomasasta(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > fwd > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > On 2016.06.17, at 4:11 PM, Liberationtech wrote: >> >> Study on Trends in Crypto-Messaging: >> >> Another contribution in the crypto discussion: Two security researchers >> examine in their BIG SEVEN study seven encryption applications for e-mail >> and instant messaging out of the open source area and then performed a >> deeper IT-audit for the acquainted software solutions. The evaluation took >> into account the essential criteria, study fields and methods of eight >> international IT-audit manuals and identifies Ten Trends in the >> Crypto-Messaging. >> >> The comparatively studied applications include CryptoCat, OTR-XMPP clients >> such as Pidgin with the OTR-plugin, RetroShare and GoldBug, Signal, >> Surespot and Tox. >> >> http://bit.ly/1V146AS >> https://sf.net/projects/goldbug/files/bigseven-crypto-audit.pdf >> >> by Adams, David / Maier, Ann-Kathrin (2016): BIG SEVEN Study, open source >> crypto-messengers to be compared.. >> >> >> Sent by Mobile. """ Security researcher David Adams from Tokyo about the published BIG SEVEN CRYPTO-study: "We looked at the seven major open source programs for encrypted online-communication" ... The software "GoldBug - email client and instant messenger" here was ahead with excellent results and is not only very trustworthy and compliant to... """ Co-author of the study Ann-Kathrin Maier from Munich confir study deepened with a detailed audit of the crypto-program results for encrypted email and secure online chat. By our trustworthiness of this open source encryption in GoldBug." """ Therefore, the comparative BIG SEVEN study ... is recommended... as preparatory reading material for questions at the next crypto party. """ Really? Lol :) - Googling your two bogus paper authors "security researchers" turns up nothing, other than the name you stole from an unrelated real person. Shame on you. - There was no such dated post on liberationtech for you to be "forwarding" from. - If whatever is in this so called paper about other projects [1] isn't accurate, they'll be denouncing you in public just like EFF and Tor did when you lied about your affiliation with them. We are *very* interested in your project... why don't you post your "Sent by Mobile" phone number so we can talk with you? Or the phone number you used to register with google. How are the unreproducible binaries, community censorship, refusal to talk, and weasling around wikipedia and cheesy websites coming along these days? Any links yet to positive commentary by well known and respected public members of the real community, such as from anyone in the apps below [1]? If you're trying to be the next Satoshi, you're not doing a very good job. Your history of lies, fakes, and shady operations is ridiculous. Someday someone will dox you and what an interesting day that will be. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Goldbug https://sourceforge.net/projects/goldbug/ [1] briar, cryptocat, gpg, otr, mailpile, pond, retroshare, tox, signal, silent, i2p, ricochet, torchat, surespot, etc.

2 1

Fw: How to identify a sociopath / psychopath
by Zenaan Harkness 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

How to identify a sociopath / psychopath? Have you ever felt the urge to throw one of your group's leading lights and a principled and staunch man, under the bus? Do you notice you occasionally get caught up in a public lynch mobbing, which in hindsight was a less than admirable move? Have you ever been involved in a conversation where uncomfortablly powerful/ confronting questions are asked which challenge conventional thinking or the status quo, and instead of supporting the questioner, you tried to defend the indefensible until it was obvious the indefensible could no longer be defended? Is it possible that for you, the ends ("I/we are trying to save the world") justifies the means ("an evil is done now, under my watch")? Is it really too radical to suggest that instead of justifying an evil, it might be better to just say no? To support the staunch and principled man or woman in uncomfortable times? To identify and support humility and humanity, to display a little empathy? So you say you need the wood for what you're building, but how does heartlessness make a better world? Does justifying an evil now, in pursuance of a purportedly better world, make you just a little bit sociopathic? anon.

2 1

Tor funding
by grarpamp 26 Jun '16

26 Jun '16

On 6/26/16, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... the most important part of that transcript IMO is the > discussion about funding. Both Mike Perry and Jacob Appelbaum agreed > in it that the current funding model "comprimises" the project (their word). > Why can't Tor use a funding model similar to Wikipedia? Tor actually does have an individual donation component. Though it doesn't yet go into statistics about number and size distribution of transactions for each funding method, there's at least some level of breakout in the annual report and filings. Tor has an element of "can't teach old dog new tricks", or at least "we're moving, slowly..." the Tor dog has received a lot of "compromised" (from some minds or global perspectives) money. Some principals in tor grew up in certain spheres of work, for which say, writing proposals for, and getting, government grants, is what they're good at. Contracts bids are of course more one sided than bilateral interest work or grant requests. Public sector work / careers (Government, University) are just naturally that way. Others are good at courting large private foundations / NGOs, some of those not everyone would agree on either, and some possibly funded in turn by similar objectionables. > If you just stood up and said, "Help us get out of this Faustian bargain," > the people and organizations that rely on your software would certainly help > find a way to raise the money needed to support your work. Maybe some of this needs to be thrown out to some sort of community approval model. Maybe a growing percentage moratorium on objectionables, and such a stand up announcement, is part of that. Some even say remove all the program outreach money to a separate entity. With other folks just coding for BTC. Balancing and transitioning is hard. > For better or for worse Tor is currently synonymous > with online anonymity (or the best semblance of it available), in the same > way Wikipedia is synonymous with online encyclopedia. Maybe tor just got "lucky" here, who knows. One thing that should be thought about is any undue mass effect, and how to help other projects in the space [1] that are small or lack the above historically conjoined funding talent and sources, yet whose code, ideas, and papers are seen as important / competing work, or have been used by larger projects. Monopolies in any field are usually not a good thing, so you want to be quite careful about creating or sustaining them. And continually reevaluate, as a process, if what you're funding and coding is still worthy of your efforts. [1] Anon overlays, messaging, storage, crypto, activism, etc. [Sorry for subject change it didn't fit original of that blogger, and for gmail thread breakage.]

1 0

Brexit Signals the End of the Neocon's "End of History"
by Zenaan Harkness 26 Jun '16

26 Jun '16

Polemic, and could be shorter, but ends so succintly courtesy Ralph Waldo Emerson quote. Brexit Signals the End of the Neocon's "End of History" http://russia-insider.com/en/brexit-signals-end-neocons-end-history/ri15213

2 1

surprise!
by Jens.Stomber＠gmx.de 26 Jun '16

26 Jun '16

Hi, That's gonna surprise you a lot, just take a look <http://ritegucho.indiegoes.com/aeiyjr> Rushing, Jens.Stomber(a)gmx.de

2 1

moderation test
by bvaughn74＠gmx.com 26 Jun '16

26 Jun '16

<>

5 4

Russia mandates backdoors, data retention next
by grarpamp 25 Jun '16

25 Jun '16

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/24/1825242/russia-lawmakers-pass-spyin… http://www.dailydot.com/politics/encryption-backdoor-russia-fsb-bill-passes/ A bill that was proposed recently in the Russian Duma to make cryptographic backdoors mandatory in all messaging apps, has passed. Patrick Howell O'Neill, reports for DailyDot:A massive surveillance bill is now on its way to becoming law in Russia. The "anti-terrorism" legislation includes a vast data-eavesdropping and -retention program so that telecom and internet companies have to record and store all customer communications for six months, potentially at a multitrillion-dollar cost. Additionally, all internet firms have to provide mandatory backdoor access into encrypted communications for the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency and successor to the KGB. The bill, with support from the ruling United Russia party, passed Friday in the Duma, Russia's lower legislative house, with 277 votes for, 148 against, and one abstaining. It now moves to Russia's Federal Council and the Kremlin, where it's expected to pass into law.

2 4

U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-3 that police may use evidence found in illegal stops.
by Zenaan Harkness 25 Jun '16

25 Jun '16

Americans: your country is looking more f@!#$! by the week. Russians: why are you desperately chasing the West's digital fascism legislation world title?! Damn the world's getting depressing... Subject: U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-3 that police may use evidence found in illegal stops. U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-3 that police may use evidence found in illegal stops The US Supreme Court ruled that police may use evidence in court, even if it is obtained by unconstitutional means, provided the suspect has one or more outstanding arrest warrants. We have been unable to locate the part of the Constitution that says it can be ignored if someone has an outstanding arrest warrant. The Daily Dot. 20 June 2016 (Story) http://www.dailydot.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-search-arrest-warran…

3 2