Re: NSLs, gag-orders, code-changes, coerced backdoors - any tech response? (Re: Lavabit and End-point Security)
One of the many salutory if unsavory aspects of cypherpunks is that a fresh proposal is more likely to be disagreed with than supported, rabid-dog disagreement cloaking theft and plagiarism. Rotters will then go off to get something done with stolen material, most will remain to shrewly pretend to demolish whatever "cluelessness" shows up, to asymmetrically burgle and secretize openness loot like official spies. Lacking cluelessness to taunt into full disclosure the bandits will brag of prowess, refer auto-didactly to misunderstood, unread sources (some fictional hidden by errant URLs), throw out poisoned baited code, cackle at the writhing suckers who bite the freebie and foolishly insert as covert backdoor, but never admit having been hooked repeatedly, instead pay ahead the pain of gullibility, lesson learned from distinguished computer professors and OS-backdoored Middle East negotiators. Does this remind of Assange among several ignotables who went off-list to reshape the world as "life-changing" endeavor? And who may or may not be among current hyenas here lying in wait for fresh carrion like Bell, CJ, Manning, Swartz, BBrown, Anonymous, Lulzsec, Sabu, Appelbaum, Gonggrijp, Jonsdottir, Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, the list of vanity-incomsec-diseased ever lengthens. The dozen or so best and brightest will fail at their incomsec ventures, hoodwinked by better and brighter vultures preying on red meat wizards incompetent at asymmetrical financial math with dreams of lucrative public interest benefits fronted by sterling reputations. RSA, PGP, NSA venture-backdooring susceptible.
Why not introduce a "grill week", John? A shaking of the bones. A weekly virtual bowel-movement. One for the bandits, one for the hyenas, one for the rotters, one for the vultures, the leeches, and so on.... Tim would be so happy to contribute, wouldn't you Tim? /b -----Original Message----- From: cypherpunks [mailto:cypherpunks-bounces@cpunks.org] On Behalf Of John Young Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:17 PM To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: NSLs, gag-orders, code-changes, coerced backdoors - any tech response? (Re: Lavabit and End-point Security) One of the many salutory if unsavory aspects of cypherpunks is that a fresh proposal is more likely to be disagreed with than supported, rabid-dog disagreement cloaking theft and plagiarism. Rotters will then go off to get something done with stolen material, most will remain to shrewly pretend to demolish whatever "cluelessness" shows up, to asymmetrically burgle and secretize openness loot like official spies. Lacking cluelessness to taunt into full disclosure the bandits will brag of prowess, refer auto-didactly to misunderstood, unread sources (some fictional hidden by errant URLs), throw out poisoned baited code, cackle at the writhing suckers who bite the freebie and foolishly insert as covert backdoor, but never admit having been hooked repeatedly, instead pay ahead the pain of gullibility, lesson learned from distinguished computer professors and OS-backdoored Middle East negotiators. Does this remind of Assange among several ignotables who went off-list to reshape the world as "life-changing" endeavor? And who may or may not be among current hyenas here lying in wait for fresh carrion like Bell, CJ, Manning, Swartz, BBrown, Anonymous, Lulzsec, Sabu, Appelbaum, Gonggrijp, Jonsdottir, Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, the list of vanity-incomsec-diseased ever lengthens. The dozen or so best and brightest will fail at their incomsec ventures, hoodwinked by better and brighter vultures preying on red meat wizards incompetent at asymmetrical financial math with dreams of lucrative public interest benefits fronted by sterling reputations. RSA, PGP, NSA venture-backdooring susceptible.
I skimmed the book on "the protocol". Since our favorite abbreviations litter the place (HTTP, RFC, etc.) and they regard only the network protocols I can only assume the man wants to make a statement about how code, too, has human flaws. And about how the networking protocols are took our freedom to do as we please locally and have no federation. Truly I do agree, networking sucks at this moment. Claiming it to be distributed is simply experiencing reality wrong. Part of it is technology that is capable of supporting distributed solutions, in practice implemented by single organizations. At best you can claim "The Internet" is a decentralized, not distributed, organization. Controlling the protocol itself is a huge problem. Bitcoin solves it rather roughly. Torrents do a *lot* better imho. Solutions can be stable protocols with protocols on top of it. That requires "perfect" protocols though. That's kinda hard.
participants (3)
-
John Young -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
taxakis