- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Your tax dollars at work: Federal agents steal Bitcoin
by jim bell 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-agents-stole-bitcoin-silk-road-probe-… Jim Bell

3 2

Re: all your trusted computing bases
by coderman 30 Mar '15

30 Mar '15

On 3/28/15, Markus Ottela <oottela(a)cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > A microcontroller as TCB doing OTP with HWRNG-generated keys. Sounds a > lot like the OTP-version of Tinfoil Chat ( github.com/maqp/tfc ). It > doesn't take a spy or terrorist to create something like this: TFC was a > hobby of a CS-student. HSMs for the masses! > Distribution of key material isn't the big problem, keeping the keys > secure from end-point exploitation is... usually keeping keys secure is part of key management, of which distribution also a part. "key management is the problem" perhaps sums it up :P > ... as TAO, ANT-implants, COMMONDEER, > VALIDATOR, QUANTUM w/ UNITEDRAKE/SALVAGERABBIT etc. make it hard. But > even these could be addressed in TFC - enforcing the need for close > access operations, close proximity malware injection or retro reflectors > and other HW implants is the only way to avoid untasked targeting from > becoming the mass surveillance of next generation; It's the sweet spot > of security, as the attack can not be automated, and the cost increases > linearly with the number of targets. eve out of business, then force mallory to burglary! i would like to note, that claims of "this shit so hard they gonna come at you sideways nextdoor and high power before black baggin'" is not the best way to market the security benefits. a fair goal. how far to get there? [ this is your threat model, after all! https://edwardsnowden.com/category/revealed-documents/ ] best regards, P.S. Cisco is now shipping to drop houses for redirects to sensitive customers. not that it would help, but amusing none the less!

1 0

Firefox 36+ listens on UDP:1900
by Georgi Guninski 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Firefox 36+ listens on UDP:1900, which appears SSDP. Search the web or check the fiasco: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1111967 This well might have privacy and/or security implications. As is probably known, my opinion of Firefox is close to that of exploder. -- georgi

5 14

Re: [Cryptography] "Most Americans Don't Mind Being on Candid Camera"
by grarpamp 28 Mar '15

28 Mar '15

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Ray Dillinger <bear(a)sonic.net> wrote: > Privacy as we knew it is a memory. No. this memory... this privacy... is in part defined by what was input and remains in the brain memory of the individual. You walk through a park and on the whole, nothing in particular was ever specifically input, remains in, or is recallable from your memory. What we have now is an applied technological error against humanity occurring faster than the human capacity to process the ramifications. Some would say nuclear weapons fall into this same category. It's that old carnal visceral human control, power, advantage, destruction, against others and innocents thing for which the only real fix is self learning and moderation. There should be no cameras bulk surveilling public spaces, they are offensive to the individual and their memory thus their privacy. The only one who could have one there is the individual for their own purposes... a personal notebook, journalism, research. Not a larger corporation or the government against the privacy/memory of any individual... they both can do no more than record their own front doors. Cameras and databases are an affront to privacy whenever their context can be or does switch from seeing blurry anonymous mass, to the individual. Watching traffic flows is one thing, watching plates is another. Blobby humans moving around vs. doing facialrec on them. Yes, every individual in office of the government should be subject to surveillance by the public during the course of their duties when interacting with other officeholders. LE interacting public should be taped under policy of the public as vested authority accountable. But people need to get off the idea that if everybody watches everbody in one big happy camera pool that all is fair and that that excuses individualizable and individualized surveillance. And most certainly in public or databases where there is no individualized interaction, or permission of individualized recordee, with the recorder. That's incorrect and against humanity. > "Most Americans Don't Mind Being on Candid Camera" [quoting the subject] Bullshit. Ever walk up to someone and stuff a camera in their face? They'll tell you to fuck off and delete that shit, maybe smash your camera, and maybe even smash you. Same as if you try to troll through their purse, wallet, phone, house, car, or computer. It's not that they don't mind, it's that humans don't tend to actively notice and rage against cameras mounted far away. But it does register in their subconscious and builds a silent well of rage that will someday explode singularly or in mass. Why? Because human DNA is a free range animal, not a caged one, and surveillance and databases are a cage. And like nukes, humanity is a bit slow to conciously realize those kinds of errors. The fact that people around the world are even talking about this should tell you that something's gone wrong and brakes need applied. > Several times several thousand counts of murder. > Murder isn't political. It isn't "war" unless it's a > dispute between nations. Random yahoos with some islamic > jihad Terror is a fictional infection of news, politics, and the mind. Rational people would know that, treat it as any crime, accept it as the price of freedom, rebuild and move on. Instead the world chose 15 years of ongoing irrationality. They'll be lucky to ever realize or recover from that error.

4 3

Introduction
by nightchild＠riseup.net 28 Mar '15

28 Mar '15

New-ish member here. Was a long time member of the original list. Finally decided to join the new one. Hello, hello, fellow cypherpunks.

3 2

Re: state cordblood requirement ...
by Softy 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

Not too disagree with the notion it might not be at sometime, but currently? No. Also, not disagreeing with the notion of how it will be abused. In fact I don't think any jurisdiction anywhere currently requires or even recommends any storage of cord-blood. Would be nice if they did actually - it's a very useful thing to have for one's future. All states already require permanent cryobanking of > neonates' cord-blood; how soon before we start > screening it for diseases-to-be, all in the name > of universal-risk-pooling which will be oh so surely > couched in paternalistic common good (Obamacare)? > > --dan > >

1 0

For whom the Book Tolls
by Steven Schear 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

Jim, You might be interested to learn that a spy novel, written by a friend and for which I consulted, features AP and Zombie Patriots (another CPunk concept from the early days) trade-craft. You are, of course, credited. Steve (Innovator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol)

2 1

Re: [Cryptography] "Most Americans Don't Mind Being on Candid Camera"
by grarpamp 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Barney Wolff <barney(a)databus.com> wrote: > So it's ok to declare war on Hezbollah but not on ISIS? If I decide to > build my own WMD I'm a criminal but if Pakistan fails to prosecute the > guy who helps me then I'm an enemy combatant? > > Seems to me the criterion should be the level of the threat, not fine > distinctions on who's making it. Show me any written declaration of war made since WWII. Problem is you've made everything so gray since then that not even you yourself can see straight anymore. That's a real problem. We already know that has created constant global guerrilla grinding of waste, destruction and death. It would be interesting if it spawns an actual war or WWIII... even if only to restore clear vision. WMD? Chem is as irrelavent as a cloudy day. Nuke policing is tricky yet seems to be working and still under state control. But it's the bio's / DNA and knowledge coming out of govt/corp/edu labs that pose the biggest risk to mass humanity. And nobody seems to have any idea how to grasp or manage that.

2 1

Pocan & Massie Introduce Legislation to Repeal PATRIOT Act
by grarpamp 26 Mar '15

26 Mar '15

http://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-massie-introduce-l… http://pocan.house.gov/sites/pocan.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/Surveil… https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1466/text http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/24/3638234/house-members-move-rep… http://www.freedomworks.org/content/house-introduces-bill-repeal-patriot-act http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/236641-legislate-agains… http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/03/25/1213221/new-bill-would-repeal-patrio… http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/306jsr/house_introduces_bill_to_r… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9261650 http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

3 2

ODNI/NRC report on "Bulk Collection of Signals Intelligence"
by Gregory Foster 24 Mar '15

24 Mar '15

The National Academies Press (2015) - "Bulk Collection of Signals Intelligence: Technical Options" http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19414/bulk-collection-of-signals-intelligence-te… > The Bulk Collection of Signals Intelligence: Technical Options study is a result of an activity called for in Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28), issued by President Obama in January 2014, to evaluate U.S. signals intelligence practices. The directive instructed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to produce a report within one year "assessing the feasibility of creating software that would allow the intelligence community more easily to conduct targeted information acquisition rather than bulk collection." ODNI asked the National Research Council (NRC) -- the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering -- to conduct a study, which began in June 2014, to assist in preparing a response to the President. Over the ensuing months, a committee of experts appointed by the Research Council produced the report. gf -- Gregory Foster || gfoster(a)entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/

1 0