Anonymity Networks and Developer Determination
This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope). https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37 Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity tools is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders, whose power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take diverse action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the research. The way to make things change would be for people like us to agree to work together on forging one right thing in a development community, and use tools of both interpersonal mediation and software development to bring the result to happen by force of collective determination. It might help if everyone kept themselves more anonymous, collaborated in private as well as in public, and supported people who ran into personal issues so as to resist disruption and keep the work moving forward. On Fri, Sep 4, 2020, 5:49 PM David Stainton <notifications@github.com> wrote:
It's too late for this discussion. IPFS has failed to embrace the concept of free Tor integration from volunteer developers.
That having been said, anonymity is a synonym for traffic analysis resistance; that is to say, even encrypted traffic can be analyzed for the metadata it leaks. Tor is the very weakest of the existing designs for anonymous communication networks however it is the most widely used whereas the other designs from academia have not had much field testing; such as: mix networks, dcnets, verified shuffles and other things can be used to form anonymous communication networks such as private information retrieval, oblivious ram, multi party computation etc.
Tor is trivially broken by any sufficient global adversary by means of timing correlation whereas mixnets are not. There are many other ways to break Tor.
Anonymity aka traffic analysis resistance is not yet a popular security feature because these designs are in some respects ahead of their time... just like not every software project embraces deterministic builds. Just because your white middle class platitude doesn't allow you to understand why people in high risk situations might need these things doesn't mean they are not needed. In fact, in dealing with such folks I find the easiest way to impart the importance to them is to describe military scenarios, e.g. if you were in the military, overseas, you might actually be interested in traffic analysis resistance.
Think about a future brighter than Tor! Think about mixnets, hybrid networks, dcnets and so on. Monoculture is death. Why is Tor the only successful anonymity network? And to a lesser degree I2p? Although the I2p observation is less valid because it's design is so similar to Tor in that it can easily be broken by timing correlation from a sufficiently global adversary.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687407153>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACEIIKJAJVQXDV267SEBU3SEFOGDANCNFSM4BOOQVOA> .
On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 01:07:08PM -0400, Karl wrote:
This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope).
https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37
Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity tools is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders, whose power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take diverse action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the research.
The way to make things change would be for people like us to agree to work together on forging one right thing in a development community, and use tools of both interpersonal mediation and software development to bring the result to happen by force of collective determination. It might help if
As Marxos correctly points out, the important ground is usually broken by a single individual - who must have sufficient time and resources, as well as ability. Once the cathedral has served its purpose, the bazaar can take over. In both Linus' hits, he created first alone, by himself, in his "personal cathedral" we can say (Linux and Git). As you know a collection of the basic ideas has been made. I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the regulation, but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you don't get a rehearing'?").
everyone kept themselves more anonymous, collaborated in private as well as in public, and supported people who ran into personal issues so as to resist disruption and keep the work moving forward.
These are good points, it's just that they assume that "a free for all communicty project" works - and in some cases (simpler things) it can work, and in other cases (maintenance of something already created) it can also work, but in certain cases (somewhat complex from a design perspective), the bazaar tends to not work so well, or not work at all - Marxos is correct about this. Also, "more privacy during development" is probably not particularly relevant in this instance, except that whoever finds the space to do the initial 'heavy lifting' might find "being less public" to be less distracting to his work than the alternative.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020, 5:49 PM David Stainton <notifications@github.com> wrote:
It's too late for this discussion. IPFS has failed to embrace the concept of free Tor integration from volunteer developers.
That having been said, anonymity is a synonym for traffic analysis resistance; that is to say, even encrypted traffic can be analyzed for the metadata it leaks. Tor is the very weakest of the existing designs for anonymous communication networks however it is the most widely used whereas the other designs from academia have not had much field testing; such as: mix networks, dcnets, verified shuffles and other things can be used to form anonymous communication networks such as private information retrieval, oblivious ram, multi party computation etc.
Tor is trivially broken by any sufficient global adversary by means of timing correlation whereas mixnets are not. There are many other ways to break Tor.
Anonymity aka traffic analysis resistance is not yet a popular security feature because these designs are in some respects ahead of their time... just like not every software project embraces deterministic builds. Just because your white middle class platitude doesn't allow you to understand why people in high risk situations might need these things doesn't mean they are not needed. In fact, in dealing with such folks I find the easiest way to impart the importance to them is to describe military scenarios, e.g. if you were in the military, overseas, you might actually be interested in traffic analysis resistance.
Think about a future brighter than Tor! Think about mixnets, hybrid networks, dcnets and so on. Monoculture is death. Why is Tor the only successful anonymity network? And to a lesser degree I2p? Although the I2p observation is less valid because it's design is so similar to Tor in that it can easily be broken by timing correlation from a sufficiently global adversary.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687407153>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACEIIKJAJVQXDV267SEBU3SEFOGDANCNFSM4BOOQVOA> .
You say a few different things here. I was thinking more privacy could help the "bazaar" work better by keeping people safer from the trolls etc. Zenaan, you sometimes post news articles that can to me seem to criticize e.g. professors in sometimes dangerous ways. When such things happen about software developers it can interfere with their work or even end it permanently. I used to follow a great project called "boomerang", one of the first public decompilers, but right before it became really usable the developer was hired by an information security company and development basically stopped. This probably protected their profits incredibly as the tool was free and such tools cost thousands of dollars commercially. It's lots of fun to start building something with others but it opens you up to more influence from outside the circle. I mentioned earlier working on a group-mad worldofwarcraft server; all I had to do was draft out an outline of the code, show people how to do different parts, and keep hanging out and relating, and it basically built itself with everyone working on something that interested them (one guy didn't code much at all but was excited to learn enough to comment and document everyone else's code which was incredibly helpful)... until a new developer hacked our cvs server and the owner was visited in his home by blizzard lawyers etc etc. There were actually a lot of "teams" working on each their own servers, each one with many people working together for fun. A different project I worked on had everyone interested in one giant team with over a hundred people in it all working for fun with no pay, every day any time of day you could see people online working, but we weren't experienced enough to make a collective design that would ever get finished; everyone wanted their bit included, and the work went for years never releasing. With experience you can talk about such issues and avoid them. The end thing is that I don't have a "cathedral" anymore, so the ways I can contribute are limited. But y'know usually I talk about how important that is, and I left it out. Maybe the Tor situation's history is indicating that the cathedral solution only worked for Tor and i2p and no other similar projects (which I hear about a lot but do not know where to find). I have a couple replies in line below. On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 6:13 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope).
https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37
Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity tools is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders, whose power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take diverse action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the research.
The way to make things change would be for people like us to agree to work together on forging one right thing in a development community, and use tools of both interpersonal mediation and software development to bring
On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 01:07:08PM -0400, Karl wrote: the
result to happen by force of collective determination. It might help if
As Marxos correctly points out, the important ground is usually broken by a single individual - who must have sufficient time and resources, as well as ability.
Once the cathedral has served its purpose, the bazaar can take over.
In both Linus' hits, he created first alone, by himself, in his "personal cathedral" we can say (Linux and Git).
As you know a collection of the basic ideas has been made.
I assume you mean iqnets .. honestly it's hard for me to handle my psychosis well enough to link that with the issue thread at this time, but yes.
I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the regulation, but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you don't get a rehearing'?").
It's nice to hear what you're up to but I'm not sure what this is relating to; why do you mention it? Are you a lawyer/small org worker/activist? Do you need support? I usually try to find ways to link regulations and human hearts (which are very mushy and vulnerable if respected) such that the human, caring, right things, that get suffering validated both big and small, grows larger. Not saying I'm actually any good at that. It seems sad that someone self-represented; I hear that's usually a way to be at a disadvantage. Take it reasonably easy and do what seems right to you that is within your capacity.
everyone kept themselves more anonymous, collaborated in private as well as
in public, and supported people who ran into personal issues so as to resist disruption and keep the work moving forward.
These are good points, it's just that they assume that "a free for all communicty project" works - and in some cases (simpler things) it can work, and in other cases (maintenance of something already created) it can also work, but in certain cases (somewhat complex from a design perspective), the bazaar tends to not work so well, or not work at all - Marxos is correct about this.
Also, "more privacy during development" is probably not particularly relevant in this instance, except that whoever finds the space to do the initial 'heavy lifting' might find "being less public" to be less distracting to his work than the alternative.
See top-reply. I'm not sure who Marxos is. I'm guessing it's someone from the issue thread I haven't noticed yet. I have trouble navigating the internet and may or may not make it back to the issue thread. Be well, peeps.
wrote:
It's too late for this discussion. IPFS has failed to embrace the concept of free Tor integration from volunteer developers.
That having been said, anonymity is a synonym for traffic analysis resistance; that is to say, even encrypted traffic can be analyzed for
metadata it leaks. Tor is the very weakest of the existing designs for anonymous communication networks however it is the most widely used whereas the other designs from academia have not had much field testing; such as: mix networks, dcnets, verified shuffles and other things can be used to form anonymous communication networks such as private information retrieval, oblivious ram, multi party computation etc.
Tor is trivially broken by any sufficient global adversary by means of timing correlation whereas mixnets are not. There are many other ways to break Tor.
Anonymity aka traffic analysis resistance is not yet a popular security feature because these designs are in some respects ahead of their time... just like not every software project embraces deterministic builds. Just because your white middle class platitude doesn't allow you to understand why people in high risk situations might need these things doesn't mean they are not needed. In fact, in dealing with such folks I find the easiest way to impart the importance to them is to describe military scenarios, e.g. if you were in the military, overseas, you might actually be interested in traffic analysis resistance.
Think about a future brighter than Tor! Think about mixnets, hybrid networks, dcnets and so on. Monoculture is death. Why is Tor the only successful anonymity network? And to a lesser degree I2p? Although the I2p observation is less valid because it's design is so similar to Tor in
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020, 5:49 PM David Stainton <notifications@github.com> the that
it can easily be broken by timing correlation from a sufficiently global adversary.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687407153>, or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACEIIKJAJVQXDV267SEBU3SEF...
.
Speaking of "due process" and the presumption of innocence turned upside down - to the literal presumption of guilt put upon individuals and entire nations - the degradation of the West, the Western judicial system, the turning upside down of fundamental principles of justice, truth and righteousness, is all on full display by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the USA, Britain, and also ("of course") NATO, in this Novichok redux with Navalny. (If Navalny got -actually- poisoned with Novichok, that tells us Navalny was an expendable puppet literally sacrificed for the interests of the West by his Western handlers; it is more likely it is simply another full hoax, and that he was not poisoned and has in some way hoaxed this "poisoning".) The "most generous" view of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this instance, is that she is either blackmailed, or in some other way compromised - pointing the "presumption of guilt" blame finger on Russia to create this media spectacle, is in no way in Germany's interests, and the (alleged or actual) poisoning of Navalny is in no way in Russia's or Putin's interests. Similarly for the other foreign ministers who "weighed in" to accuse Russia and "demand answers" blah blah blah. Compromise of some sort is within those who conduct themselves in such evil ways (public accusations, presumtpion of guilt, demands for "immediate action" blah blah blah). And similarly for the head of NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, must, logically, likewise be either blackmailed or otherwise compromised. You don't sell your Soul for no reason... How is it that one can make such assertions (that Merkel, Stoltenberg, etc have sold their Souls) in such confidence? The evidence is before us: when a Western diplomat denies to a foreign government or denies to foreign officials, their right to be presumed innocent, and denies them their right to due process (to be presented the "evidence" against them, to assess and refute that evidence), then it is clear that we are witnessing evil, despotism, an inversion of justice and the opposite of righteousness. "The West" is supposedly built on principles of justice and fairness: due process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty, the right to be not slandered publicly, and more. The reality, for whatever reasons, is that Western diplomats (who these days are mostly anything BUT diplomatic, let alone righteous), sacrifice righteousness, sacrifice justice, and presume guilt without presentment of evidence, and they do all this on the alter (from the most generous possible interpretation) of political expediency. This sacrifice of righteousness and sacrifice of justice (supposed "Western" principles), is evil. We are witnessing evil in action. So, we witness evil actions, we witness evil words, and we suffer evil consequences. We are witnessing these precise actual evils, in the current hoax of Navalny's hoaxed (or possible actual but no less indicting of the West) poisoning with "Novichok". And because we witness each of these inversions of truth, righteousness and justice, and we witness these evils, and these evils are done by Western diplomats, we can see that "our" Western diplomats have become evil in their conduct. And so "our" diplomats, our "leaders", are in fact a blight upon the West, a blight upon us, a curse which we must remove. It is sad for the West that "our" "leaders" conduct themselves in such evil ways, speak such evil words, and treat our Russian brothers with such evil. The inversion of justice, the inversion of righteousness, the inversion of truth - all these things are evil, they are abhorrent to the plain thinking man who seeks righteousness, truth and justice. The most generous possible justification of this Western evil, is "mere political expediency". Political expediency is the most generous interpretation we can make of these evils. In every case, this evil conduct by our Western "leaders", is abhorrent. This evil behaviour, implies hidden forces and implies compromises unseen - possibly blackmails, possibly enticements (money, power), possibly merely base greed and opportunism, possibly combinations of these evils. By God Russia has the right to protect her interests in the face of Western evil! In the face of the many evils of the West, we pray and pray again that Russia does indeed protect her interests! May the Russian people be released from their Western constitutional chains. May the Russian people be spared further Western evil. The interests of the West, of us all, includes most fundamentally, the upholding of righteousness, the upholding of truth, and the upholding of justice. We must rid our nations and ourselves of the evils within. We must drain the swamp.
I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the regulation, but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you don't get a rehearing'?").
For reference, this is a good take, and prompted the below (apologies for the separate email, forgot to add it in): Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-not-russia-should-answer-ques... May righteousness one day prevail in the Western nations. On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:13:03AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Speaking of "due process" and the presumption of innocence turned upside down - to the literal presumption of guilt put upon individuals and entire nations - the degradation of the West, the Western judicial system, the turning upside down of fundamental principles of justice, truth and righteousness, is all on full display by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the USA, Britain, and also ("of course") NATO, in this Novichok redux with Navalny.
(If Navalny got -actually- poisoned with Novichok, that tells us Navalny was an expendable puppet literally sacrificed for the interests of the West by his Western handlers; it is more likely it is simply another full hoax, and that he was not poisoned and has in some way hoaxed this "poisoning".)
The "most generous" view of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this instance, is that she is either blackmailed, or in some other way compromised - pointing the "presumption of guilt" blame finger on Russia to create this media spectacle, is in no way in Germany's interests, and the (alleged or actual) poisoning of Navalny is in no way in Russia's or Putin's interests.
Similarly for the other foreign ministers who "weighed in" to accuse Russia and "demand answers" blah blah blah. Compromise of some sort is within those who conduct themselves in such evil ways (public accusations, presumtpion of guilt, demands for "immediate action" blah blah blah).
And similarly for the head of NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, must, logically, likewise be either blackmailed or otherwise compromised. You don't sell your Soul for no reason...
How is it that one can make such assertions (that Merkel, Stoltenberg, etc have sold their Souls) in such confidence?
The evidence is before us: when a Western diplomat denies to a foreign government or denies to foreign officials, their right to be presumed innocent, and denies them their right to due process (to be presented the "evidence" against them, to assess and refute that evidence), then it is clear that we are witnessing evil, despotism, an inversion of justice and the opposite of righteousness.
"The West" is supposedly built on principles of justice and fairness: due process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty, the right to be not slandered publicly, and more.
The reality, for whatever reasons, is that Western diplomats (who these days are mostly anything BUT diplomatic, let alone righteous), sacrifice righteousness, sacrifice justice, and presume guilt without presentment of evidence, and they do all this on the alter (from the most generous possible interpretation) of political expediency.
This sacrifice of righteousness and sacrifice of justice (supposed "Western" principles), is evil. We are witnessing evil in action.
So, we witness evil actions, we witness evil words, and we suffer evil consequences.
We are witnessing these precise actual evils, in the current hoax of Navalny's hoaxed (or possible actual but no less indicting of the West) poisoning with "Novichok".
And because we witness each of these inversions of truth, righteousness and justice, and we witness these evils, and these evils are done by Western diplomats, we can see that "our" Western diplomats have become evil in their conduct. And so "our" diplomats, our "leaders", are in fact a blight upon the West, a blight upon us, a curse which we must remove.
It is sad for the West that "our" "leaders" conduct themselves in such evil ways, speak such evil words, and treat our Russian brothers with such evil.
The inversion of justice, the inversion of righteousness, the inversion of truth - all these things are evil, they are abhorrent to the plain thinking man who seeks righteousness, truth and justice.
The most generous possible justification of this Western evil, is "mere political expediency".
Political expediency is the most generous interpretation we can make of these evils.
In every case, this evil conduct by our Western "leaders", is abhorrent.
This evil behaviour, implies hidden forces and implies compromises unseen - possibly blackmails, possibly enticements (money, power), possibly merely base greed and opportunism, possibly combinations of these evils.
By God Russia has the right to protect her interests in the face of Western evil!
In the face of the many evils of the West, we pray and pray again that Russia does indeed protect her interests!
May the Russian people be released from their Western constitutional chains.
May the Russian people be spared further Western evil.
The interests of the West, of us all, includes most fundamentally, the upholding of righteousness, the upholding of truth, and the upholding of justice.
We must rid our nations and ourselves of the evils within.
We must drain the swamp.
I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the regulation, but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you don't get a rehearing'?").
The West, first by just asking/accusing and this time via OPCW "offer that you can refuse"ing, continues to try to press Russia to give up all her information and investigation records about the Navalny bullshit. Why would they continue to do this? If you want to weave a hoaxasaurus story around the facts, you cannot do that properly without the facts, because your story WILL come undone, just as Germany's part in the Navalny hoax has already changed their story from "novichok after effects in his body fluids" ('body fluids' keeps their door open should the Russians have failed to collect one or another "bodily fluid" for testing, e.g.), to their 2nd story about "Novichok on a water bottle" - a water bottle that materialised into the second story, whilst not existing in the first story). And if you really want to slam home your hoax, you want to attack more than one "failure" by (in this case) the Russians to test every avenue of possible testing. You see, if the Russians did in fact fail to test EVERY avenue of possible "novichok" testing in Navalny - which is almost a certainty since would you test (e.g. via tissue sample) EVERY organ in Navalny for (specifically) novichok poisoning if you were a Russian doctor? (Just think how many there are - from lungs, to kidneys, liver, heart, eyes, muscles, joints, hair, tongue etc etc etc)? And so of course if Russia acts like idiots and gives up the information they DO have (e.g. may be their tested urine and liver functioning somehow), THEN the west will weave their bullshit around those possible tests that Russia FAILED to do but (constructed in hindsight) the West magically "oh yes, we did THOSE tests come to think of it, it's a wonder we did not release that info publicly before now". Some would say that the above should not be said - giving ideas to possible future nefarious people. But we're dealing with highly compromised Western officials all over the place, as we see with the MH-17 completely unjust and flawed and anything but fair "hearing", the Skripal hoax, endless Russia demonization, and now this Novichok 2 point 0, and it is important that anyone who DOUBTS the nasty nefarious arsehole-ness of Western "leaders" and "officials", can see a clear and straightforward path to how the West is trying desperately to create Novichok hoax 2.0. It is presumably a fair assumption the Russians won't fall for such bullshit, and already they have called for Germany to release the paperwork on why they are making their bullshit Novichok hoax 2.0 claim in the first place, which of course Germany is refusing to do since compromised. If Russia DID fall into trusting the West on this event, they would absolutely pay the price with the West in short order releasing the tests the West "did do" <ahem, cough cough/> and which the Russians "ought" to have done, and would thereby sow the seeds of plausible doubt into the minds of millions of gullible MSM followers. Plausibe doubt, plausible deniability, negative averments by any other name, also 'evil' by another name. Stay calm, stay alert, never shift ground. The west in its INjustice and EVIL, shall eventually pay the price, and deservedly so. OPCW Offers to Send Experts to Russia to Support Investigation Into Navalny's Poisoning https://sputniknews.com/world/202010051080673336-opcw-offers-to-send-experts... Again: warning (hopefully obvious) to Russia: do NOT allow OPCW "experts" into Russia to "support" or in any other way "investigate" the Navalny "poisoning" - the West's foregone conclusion has been laid out very clearly, and the West is simply seeking to find post facto "holes" in the Russian medico's processes to ram in some plausible doubt. Just do not go there! And also again, the West in projecting guilt and nefariousness, has demonstrated evil, unjust principles, a will to destroy righteousness, and to build massive hoaxes against Russia to indict Russia in "the public mind". Let the West fall on its own sword and DO NOT trust the West for the foreseeable future! If Russia falls into this trap, the consequences are on Russia's heads! If Russia allows the OPCW into Russia to investigate Navalny, well they better have a bloody well thought ought plan to handle the negative averments that WILL come Russia's way as a result! You have been warned! On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:16:26AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
For reference, this is a good take, and prompted the below (apologies for the separate email, forgot to add it in):
Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-not-russia-should-answer-ques...
May righteousness one day prevail in the Western nations.
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:13:03AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Speaking of "due process" and the presumption of innocence turned upside down - to the literal presumption of guilt put upon individuals and entire nations - the degradation of the West, the Western judicial system, the turning upside down of fundamental principles of justice, truth and righteousness, is all on full display by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the USA, Britain, and also ("of course") NATO, in this Novichok redux with Navalny.
(If Navalny got -actually- poisoned with Novichok, that tells us Navalny was an expendable puppet literally sacrificed for the interests of the West by his Western handlers; it is more likely it is simply another full hoax, and that he was not poisoned and has in some way hoaxed this "poisoning".)
The "most generous" view of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this instance, is that she is either blackmailed, or in some other way compromised - pointing the "presumption of guilt" blame finger on Russia to create this media spectacle, is in no way in Germany's interests, and the (alleged or actual) poisoning of Navalny is in no way in Russia's or Putin's interests.
Similarly for the other foreign ministers who "weighed in" to accuse Russia and "demand answers" blah blah blah. Compromise of some sort is within those who conduct themselves in such evil ways (public accusations, presumtpion of guilt, demands for "immediate action" blah blah blah).
And similarly for the head of NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, must, logically, likewise be either blackmailed or otherwise compromised. You don't sell your Soul for no reason...
How is it that one can make such assertions (that Merkel, Stoltenberg, etc have sold their Souls) in such confidence?
The evidence is before us: when a Western diplomat denies to a foreign government or denies to foreign officials, their right to be presumed innocent, and denies them their right to due process (to be presented the "evidence" against them, to assess and refute that evidence), then it is clear that we are witnessing evil, despotism, an inversion of justice and the opposite of righteousness.
"The West" is supposedly built on principles of justice and fairness: due process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty, the right to be not slandered publicly, and more.
The reality, for whatever reasons, is that Western diplomats (who these days are mostly anything BUT diplomatic, let alone righteous), sacrifice righteousness, sacrifice justice, and presume guilt without presentment of evidence, and they do all this on the alter (from the most generous possible interpretation) of political expediency.
This sacrifice of righteousness and sacrifice of justice (supposed "Western" principles), is evil. We are witnessing evil in action.
So, we witness evil actions, we witness evil words, and we suffer evil consequences.
We are witnessing these precise actual evils, in the current hoax of Navalny's hoaxed (or possible actual but no less indicting of the West) poisoning with "Novichok".
And because we witness each of these inversions of truth, righteousness and justice, and we witness these evils, and these evils are done by Western diplomats, we can see that "our" Western diplomats have become evil in their conduct. And so "our" diplomats, our "leaders", are in fact a blight upon the West, a blight upon us, a curse which we must remove.
It is sad for the West that "our" "leaders" conduct themselves in such evil ways, speak such evil words, and treat our Russian brothers with such evil.
The inversion of justice, the inversion of righteousness, the inversion of truth - all these things are evil, they are abhorrent to the plain thinking man who seeks righteousness, truth and justice.
The most generous possible justification of this Western evil, is "mere political expediency".
Political expediency is the most generous interpretation we can make of these evils.
In every case, this evil conduct by our Western "leaders", is abhorrent.
This evil behaviour, implies hidden forces and implies compromises unseen - possibly blackmails, possibly enticements (money, power), possibly merely base greed and opportunism, possibly combinations of these evils.
By God Russia has the right to protect her interests in the face of Western evil!
In the face of the many evils of the West, we pray and pray again that Russia does indeed protect her interests!
May the Russian people be released from their Western constitutional chains.
May the Russian people be spared further Western evil.
The interests of the West, of us all, includes most fundamentally, the upholding of righteousness, the upholding of truth, and the upholding of justice.
We must rid our nations and ourselves of the evils within.
We must drain the swamp.
I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the regulation, but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you don't get a rehearing'?").
No shortage of examples of Western "transparency": Russia slams ‘disgraceful’ ban on founding OPCW chief speaking at UN Security Council on Syria, PUBLISHES his speech unilateraly https://www.rt.com/russia/502709-former-opcw-director-douma-ban/ On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:56:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The West, first by just asking/accusing and this time via OPCW "offer that you can refuse"ing, continues to try to press Russia to give up all her information and investigation records about the Navalny bullshit.
Why would they continue to do this?
If you want to weave a hoaxasaurus story around the facts, you cannot do that properly without the facts, because your story WILL come undone, just as Germany's part in the Navalny hoax has already changed their story from "novichok after effects in his body fluids" ('body fluids' keeps their door open should the Russians have failed to collect one or another "bodily fluid" for testing, e.g.), to their 2nd story about "Novichok on a water bottle" - a water bottle that materialised into the second story, whilst not existing in the first story).
And if you really want to slam home your hoax, you want to attack more than one "failure" by (in this case) the Russians to test every avenue of possible testing.
You see, if the Russians did in fact fail to test EVERY avenue of possible "novichok" testing in Navalny - which is almost a certainty since would you test (e.g. via tissue sample) EVERY organ in Navalny for (specifically) novichok poisoning if you were a Russian doctor? (Just think how many there are - from lungs, to kidneys, liver, heart, eyes, muscles, joints, hair, tongue etc etc etc)?
And so of course if Russia acts like idiots and gives up the information they DO have (e.g. may be their tested urine and liver functioning somehow), THEN the west will weave their bullshit around those possible tests that Russia FAILED to do but (constructed in hindsight) the West magically "oh yes, we did THOSE tests come to think of it, it's a wonder we did not release that info publicly before now".
Some would say that the above should not be said - giving ideas to possible future nefarious people.
But we're dealing with highly compromised Western officials all over the place, as we see with the MH-17 completely unjust and flawed and anything but fair "hearing", the Skripal hoax, endless Russia demonization, and now this Novichok 2 point 0, and it is important that anyone who DOUBTS the nasty nefarious arsehole-ness of Western "leaders" and "officials", can see a clear and straightforward path to how the West is trying desperately to create Novichok hoax 2.0.
It is presumably a fair assumption the Russians won't fall for such bullshit, and already they have called for Germany to release the paperwork on why they are making their bullshit Novichok hoax 2.0 claim in the first place, which of course Germany is refusing to do since compromised.
If Russia DID fall into trusting the West on this event, they would absolutely pay the price with the West in short order releasing the tests the West "did do" <ahem, cough cough/> and which the Russians "ought" to have done, and would thereby sow the seeds of plausible doubt into the minds of millions of gullible MSM followers.
Plausibe doubt, plausible deniability, negative averments by any other name, also 'evil' by another name.
Stay calm, stay alert, never shift ground. The west in its INjustice and EVIL, shall eventually pay the price, and deservedly so.
OPCW Offers to Send Experts to Russia to Support Investigation Into Navalny's Poisoning https://sputniknews.com/world/202010051080673336-opcw-offers-to-send-experts...
Again: warning (hopefully obvious) to Russia: do NOT allow OPCW "experts" into Russia to "support" or in any other way "investigate" the Navalny "poisoning" - the West's foregone conclusion has been laid out very clearly, and the West is simply seeking to find post facto "holes" in the Russian medico's processes to ram in some plausible doubt. Just do not go there!
And also again, the West in projecting guilt and nefariousness, has demonstrated evil, unjust principles, a will to destroy righteousness, and to build massive hoaxes against Russia to indict Russia in "the public mind".
Let the West fall on its own sword and DO NOT trust the West for the foreseeable future!
If Russia falls into this trap, the consequences are on Russia's heads!
If Russia allows the OPCW into Russia to investigate Navalny, well they better have a bloody well thought ought plan to handle the negative averments that WILL come Russia's way as a result!
You have been warned!
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:16:26AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
For reference, this is a good take, and prompted the below (apologies for the separate email, forgot to add it in):
Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-not-russia-should-answer-ques...
May righteousness one day prevail in the Western nations.
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:13:03AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Speaking of "due process" and the presumption of innocence turned upside down - to the literal presumption of guilt put upon individuals and entire nations - the degradation of the West, the Western judicial system, the turning upside down of fundamental principles of justice, truth and righteousness, is all on full display by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the USA, Britain, and also ("of course") NATO, in this Novichok redux with Navalny.
(If Navalny got -actually- poisoned with Novichok, that tells us Navalny was an expendable puppet literally sacrificed for the interests of the West by his Western handlers; it is more likely it is simply another full hoax, and that he was not poisoned and has in some way hoaxed this "poisoning".)
The "most generous" view of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this instance, is that she is either blackmailed, or in some other way compromised - pointing the "presumption of guilt" blame finger on Russia to create this media spectacle, is in no way in Germany's interests, and the (alleged or actual) poisoning of Navalny is in no way in Russia's or Putin's interests.
Similarly for the other foreign ministers who "weighed in" to accuse Russia and "demand answers" blah blah blah. Compromise of some sort is within those who conduct themselves in such evil ways (public accusations, presumtpion of guilt, demands for "immediate action" blah blah blah).
And similarly for the head of NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, must, logically, likewise be either blackmailed or otherwise compromised. You don't sell your Soul for no reason...
How is it that one can make such assertions (that Merkel, Stoltenberg, etc have sold their Souls) in such confidence?
The evidence is before us: when a Western diplomat denies to a foreign government or denies to foreign officials, their right to be presumed innocent, and denies them their right to due process (to be presented the "evidence" against them, to assess and refute that evidence), then it is clear that we are witnessing evil, despotism, an inversion of justice and the opposite of righteousness.
"The West" is supposedly built on principles of justice and fairness: due process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty, the right to be not slandered publicly, and more.
The reality, for whatever reasons, is that Western diplomats (who these days are mostly anything BUT diplomatic, let alone righteous), sacrifice righteousness, sacrifice justice, and presume guilt without presentment of evidence, and they do all this on the alter (from the most generous possible interpretation) of political expediency.
This sacrifice of righteousness and sacrifice of justice (supposed "Western" principles), is evil. We are witnessing evil in action.
So, we witness evil actions, we witness evil words, and we suffer evil consequences.
We are witnessing these precise actual evils, in the current hoax of Navalny's hoaxed (or possible actual but no less indicting of the West) poisoning with "Novichok".
And because we witness each of these inversions of truth, righteousness and justice, and we witness these evils, and these evils are done by Western diplomats, we can see that "our" Western diplomats have become evil in their conduct. And so "our" diplomats, our "leaders", are in fact a blight upon the West, a blight upon us, a curse which we must remove.
It is sad for the West that "our" "leaders" conduct themselves in such evil ways, speak such evil words, and treat our Russian brothers with such evil.
The inversion of justice, the inversion of righteousness, the inversion of truth - all these things are evil, they are abhorrent to the plain thinking man who seeks righteousness, truth and justice.
The most generous possible justification of this Western evil, is "mere political expediency".
Political expediency is the most generous interpretation we can make of these evils.
In every case, this evil conduct by our Western "leaders", is abhorrent.
This evil behaviour, implies hidden forces and implies compromises unseen - possibly blackmails, possibly enticements (money, power), possibly merely base greed and opportunism, possibly combinations of these evils.
By God Russia has the right to protect her interests in the face of Western evil!
In the face of the many evils of the West, we pray and pray again that Russia does indeed protect her interests!
May the Russian people be released from their Western constitutional chains.
May the Russian people be spared further Western evil.
The interests of the West, of us all, includes most fundamentally, the upholding of righteousness, the upholding of truth, and the upholding of justice.
We must rid our nations and ourselves of the evils within.
We must drain the swamp.
I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the regulation, but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you don't get a rehearing'?").
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:07 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope).
https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37
Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity tools is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders, whose power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take diverse action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the research.
... see also: """ Dear [@seanlynch](https://github.com/seanlynch) you are belligerent. I am in fact not saying that Tor or I2p aren't worth using. Come off your platitude for a few minutes and think about people who may be in a more high risk situation than yourself. For those people Tor isn't good enough because their adversary may well be the NSA and the FBI and GCHQ and so on. I am welcome to put forth my efforts into mix networks but not because you say so speaking from a place of belligerence. I am a fan of Tor and I do not go around telling people they can't have any protection. Your delusional caricature of myself is offensive and alarming. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.""" - https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687661383 :P~ TL;DR: for the IPFS Tor support issue: IPFS wants a security audit before merging Tor support. Tor support was volunteer effort - no paid security review possible. Thus - IPFS does not support Tor :/ best regards,
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 6:36 PM coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:07 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope).
https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37
Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity tools is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders, whose power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take diverse action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the research.
... see also: """ Dear @seanlynch <https://github.com/seanlynch> you are belligerent. I am in fact not saying that Tor or I2p aren't worth using. Come off your platitude for a few minutes and think about people who may be in a more high risk situation than yourself. For those people Tor isn't good enough because their adversary may well be the NSA and the FBI and GCHQ and so on. I am welcome to put forth my efforts into mix networks but not because you say so speaking from a place of belligerence. I am a fan of Tor and I do not go around telling people they can't have any protection. Your delusional caricature of myself is offensive and alarming. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.""" - https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687661383
:P~
TL;DR: for the IPFS Tor support issue:
IPFS wants a security audit before merging Tor support. Tor support was volunteer effort - no paid security review possible. Thus - IPFS does not support Tor :/
The above relation was shared by someone who appears to be a new ipfs developer, over two years after the Tor integration work started, after it was _completed_ and _used_ in other forks. A lead ipfs developer named whyrusleeping had collaborated with the Tor development and supported it throughout that thread. whyrusleeping's name is all over the source code everywhere; the turn-down due to security-auditing concern was expressed by a guy who's name I do not recognise, and whyrusleeping made no further comments. Possibly they had a dev meeting without Tor representation and haven't revisited the issue. (It's also possible some random guy just made a comment that ended the discussion, too, from my perspective, since I haven't looked them up.) It looks like all parties are taxed and upset at this point. Obviously we need both Tor and new tech to be usable and supportable. I wish I knew how to contribute. (I have problems forming certain kinds of new memories that started before I learned golang, so I was pretty frustrated with my ability to contribute when I first commented on that issue years ago. I just don't understand go sourcecode. It's so weird. I could do it with a lot of slow effort and tutorials, or maybe a quick reference that translated to another language and libraryset)
best regards,
Thank you for your modeling of anonymity. We all need to do this, to protect each other and our important work, and spread behaviors that do that.
participants (3)
-
coderman -
Karl -
Zenaan Harkness