http://theweek.com/article/index/262945/the-nsa-has-a-shocking-new-excuse-fo... "One thing that makes reporting on the NSA so difficult is that you have to deconstruct their statements like Derrida to figure out what they're actually saying. (This is why all responsible people read Marcy Wheeler.) "Luckily, here's an NSA issue anyone can sink their teeth into. It demonstrates the squirmy NSA legal technique, and how by its own logic the agency ought to be broken up or closed altogether. "The background is that the NSA is being sued around the block by all manner of people over the Snowden revelations. Pertaining to a suit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a previous court order had instructed the NSA to preserve data that it had collected under Section 702 of the Amendments Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "That order has since been reversed, because the NSA has claimed (in addition to the usual business about how stopping this program will grievously harm American citizens) that it physically cannot store all the information it collects under Section 702. As Andrea Peterson atThe Washington Post reported, the NSA's deputy director, Richard Ledgett, wrote a rather astonishing court filing, in which he said that "a requirement to preserve all data acquired under Section 702 presents significant operational problems, only one of which is that the NSA may have to shut down all systems and databases that contain Section 702 information." (Emphasis added.) Ironically, Ledgett claims that previous privacy restrictions that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court placed on the program necessitate deleting the data the EFF wants preserved. You can practically see Ledgett sticking his finger in the eye of the EFF's legal director. "In any case, as Peterson notes, this puts the EFF in a strange position, since it is now arguing to preserve evidence for legal purposes it would ultimately want destroyed as a policy. "But aside from the legal arcana, this is an excellent example of the Kafkaesque logic that predominates when it it comes to our intelligence agencies. The NSA is almost saying, "We've got your privacy protections in here, honest, but unfortunately it just so happens that these protections mean we have to destroy all this evidence related to your lawsuit." Whatever the situation, it just so happens that the intelligence apparatus is regretfully excused from accountability. Marcy Wheeler is constantly uncovering various iterations of this stuff. "I'm skeptical that the data preservation the EFF is asking for is impossible. But the really troubling possibility is that the NSA is actually right. It's anybody's guess precisely how much data the NSAis shifting around, but it's reportedly in the exabytes overall. So yes, it might be impossible for the agency to store more than a few weeks or so of the data it's collecting. "The NSA's legal squirming is bad enough. But an agency writing itself a blank check to allegedly destroy evidence based on the sheer size and complexity of the possibly illegal program in questionis another thing entirely. There shouldn't be an "unless your dragnet surveillance program is reallybig" exception to the Fourth Amendment.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:56 AM, jim bell <jamesdbell9@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://theweek.com/article/index/262945/the-nsa-has-a-shocking-new-excuse-fo... "One thing that makes reporting on the NSA so difficult is that you have to deconstruct their statements like Derrida to figure out what they're actually saying. ... "The NSA's legal squirming is bad enough. But an agency writing itself a blank check to allegedly destroy evidence based on the sheer size and complexity of the possibly illegal program in questionis another thing entirely. There shouldn't be an "unless your dragnet surveillance program is reallybig" exception to the Fourth Amendment.
A lot of the issue is why *your* records, metadata, and maybe even full take, are on government disks if *you* have not been the subject of a specific warrant against you under the Fourth. That's not supposed to happen (ie: it's illegal, regardless of whatever postprocessing, access, expiry and oversight rules there may be) and that bothers people, a lot... the slippery slope, grandness, secrecy, and handwavy assuredness of it all. People want genuine discovery on these programs so they can make the call. The govt likes to wave examples of specific cases, but seem to be debunked by media security analysts as not particularly constituting the claimed 'immediate and grave danger[s] to the national security" [docket 244 page 6], such that ordinary quality investigations and specific warrants might suffice. People want to see the cases and define immediate and grave for themselves. People don't seem to mind vacuuming up overseas background noise as spy-vs-spy gamesmanship, but question how that may now be resulting in various things like drone killings without public trials. People wonder what they did, and where it could lead if unchecked. Then the stingrays, parallel construction, Lavabits and much more. A difficult balance to be sure. And the media columns only have space for glossing both sides. The docs behind the above referenced news article are available if you want to read what the news is talking about... https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel https://ia600508.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscour...
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:00 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:56 AM, jim bell <jamesdbell9@yahoo.com> wrote:
... "The NSA's legal squirming is bad enough. But an agency writing itself a blank check to allegedly destroy evidence based on the sheer size and complexity of the possibly illegal program in questionis another thing entirely. There shouldn't be an "unless your dragnet surveillance program is reallybig" exception to the Fourth Amendment.
A lot of the issue is why *your* records, metadata, and maybe even full take, are on government disks if *you* have not been the subject of a specific warrant against you under the Fourth. That's not supposed to happen (ie: it's illegal, regardless of whatever postprocessing, access, expiry and oversight rules there may be) and that bothers people, a lot....
feature; not bug! configure plausible deniability to zeroise incriminating information. utilize exceptionally compartmented collections to destroy credible opponents. walk away successful without a trace to be seen... these fucks are playing a dirty game... how best to curtail?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:12 AM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
these fucks are playing a dirty game... how best to curtail?
Technically? Raise costs, decrease easily accessible signal... everyone encrypt, p2p, and even obfuscate route, everything. You can't really expect the masses to do this on their own, so much as you might hate it, you're going to have to write addon gui's and docs and make it cool. In business? Stop collecting, mining and voluntarily sharing... as an abhorrance against humanity. Rise from your own depravity. You can still make an honest dollar without it. These days respecting privacy sells, at least a little more than it did previously. Politically? I've been told that voting, letter writing, calling, visiting, funding, running for office [1], and all manner of other civic and civil participation works, across all areas public and private. I've also been told that hard drives really disklike the presence of sledgehammers in their midst, especially when brought in by angry mobs wielding pitchforks. I've no idea there, choose your own adventure. [1] Cypherpunk is not incompatible with lawbook, taxbook, execbook. It's total greenfield.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:16 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Politically?
I've been told that voting, letter writing, calling, visiting, funding, running for office [1], and all manner of other civic and civil participation works, across all areas public and private.
If thats what youve been told, then you need to stop listening to people who don´t know the ABC of political theory
I've also been told that hard drives really disklike the presence of sledgehammers in their midst, especially when brought in by angry mobs wielding pitchforks.
I've no idea there, choose your own adventure.
[1] Cypherpunk is not incompatible with lawbook, taxbook, execbook. It's total greenfield.
Dnia niedziela, 15 czerwca 2014 16:47:01 Juan pisze:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:16 -0400
grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Politically?
I've been told that voting, letter writing, calling, visiting, funding, running for office [1], and all manner of other civic and civil participation works, across all areas public and private.
If thats what youve been told, then you need to stop listening to people who don´t know the ABC of political theory
From the perspective of a person deeply involved in the anti-ACTA process in the EU[1][2], and having come to conclusions that are compatible with what grarpamp "has been told", I would like to thank you for enlightening us so insightfully and verbosely. The power of your arguments combined with the clarity of your delivery are truly magnificent. No, please, no need for any more concrete information, I think we can all agree that at this point it would be hard to not be convinced to what you so skilfully put forward. [1] http://rys.io/en/59 [2] http://rys.io/en/70 -- Pozdr rysiek
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:22:01 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 15 czerwca 2014 16:47:01 Juan pisze:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:16 -0400
grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Politically?
I've been told that voting, letter writing, calling, visiting, funding, running for office [1], and all manner of other civic and civil participation works, across all areas public and private.
If thats what youve been told, then you need to stop listening to people who don´t know the ABC of political theory
From the perspective of a person deeply involved in the anti-ACTA process in the EU[1][2], and having come to conclusions that are compatible with what grarpamp "has been told", I would like to thank you for enlightening us so insightfully and verbosely. The power of your arguments combined with the clarity of your delivery are truly magnificent.
Too bad I simply stated a fact. Your sarcasm is out of place and the joke is on you. I suggest that you, too, get to the core of political theory...and practice
No, please, no need for any more concrete information, I think we can all agree that at this point it would be hard to not be convinced to what you so skilfully put forward.
bla bla bla - sign some useless petition to your masters, play the politicians´ game. Fancy that you are an oh so great activist.
Dnia niedziela, 15 czerwca 2014 18:51:36 Juan pisze:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:22:01 +0200
rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 15 czerwca 2014 16:47:01 Juan pisze:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:16 -0400
grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Politically?
I've been told that voting, letter writing, calling, visiting, funding, running for office [1], and all manner of other civic and civil participation works, across all areas public and private.
If thats what youve been told, then you need to stop listening to people who don´t know the ABC of political
theory
From the perspective of a person deeply involved in the anti-ACTA process in the EU[1][2], and having come to conclusions that are compatible with what grarpamp "has been told", I would like to thank you for enlightening us so insightfully and verbosely. The power of your arguments combined with the clarity of your delivery are truly magnificent.
Too bad I simply stated a fact.
Well, actually, you haven't really stated anything. You just said "grarpamp, you're wrong", without saying anything about in what manner he supposedly is wrong, and why you think he is wrong.
Your sarcasm is out of place and the joke is on you.
I suggest that you, too, get to the core of political theory...and practice
See, the problem is not that we disagree, the problem is that so far you haven't really said anything. grarpamp stipulated that "X" works, or so he has heard, you said "nope" and neither of you offered any support. I can find some support for grarpamp's stipulation in my own practice and history, and while I appreciate your smirk cynicism, saying "read political theory" is simply not enough of an argument. Not to mention, neither I nor grarpamp said anything on what is the exact mechanism of how civil participation works. For instance, I would be the first to admit that it's not a silver bullet and I'm far from the naïve, idealistic view of "politicians really listen to what we write"; rather, usually, it's a game of interests, and sometimes -- like during the ACTA crisis in EU -- public involvement can be just the straw that's needed to change something.
No, please, no need for any more concrete information, I think we can all agree that at this point it would be hard to not be convinced to what you so skilfully put forward.
bla bla bla - sign some useless petition to your masters, play the politicians´ game. Fancy that you are an oh so great activist.
And your solution instead is what exactly? "Nah, sit on yer arse, nothing's gonna change"? That sounds familiar: http://rys.io/en/112 I am really curious as to what exactly is your reason to even write such e- mails? If you know of a better solution, why not share? If there is no solution you can see, at all, why not get on with your life of bliss and not- giving-a-fsck? Surely, if civil participation can't do shit, your e-mail to this list can do even less! -- Pozdr rysiek
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 6:37 PM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
these fucks are playing a dirty game... how best to curtail?
And your solution instead is what exactly? "Nah, sit on yer arse, nothing's gonna change"? That sounds familiar:
Speaking of arse, I've head this works too... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE
Dnia niedziela, 15 czerwca 2014 21:33:16 grarpamp pisze:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 6:37 PM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
these fucks are playing a dirty game... how best to curtail?
And your solution instead is what exactly? "Nah, sit on yer arse, nothing's
gonna change"? That sounds familiar: Speaking of arse, I've head this works too...
I prefer this version though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wRkzCW5qI -- Pozdr rysiek
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:37:23 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Too bad I simply stated a fact.
Well, actually, you haven't really stated anything. You just said "grarpamp, you're wrong",
And that, indeed, is a statement. Grarpamp said he was told pigs fly. I replied ¨what you´ve been told is wrong¨. <---statement.
without saying anything about in what manner he supposedly is wrong, and why you think he is wrong.
You are right. I didn´t provide any further comment. Just like grarpamp did =). Now, as far as I can tell, grarpamp´s statement is meant as irony. He isn´t just saying that writting letters to politicians ´works´ - he´s saying it in a particular way which underscores the message. By saying ¨Oh, I was told this works¨, he actually means ¨this definitely works and only idiots would doubt it¨
Your sarcasm is out of place and the joke is on you.
I suggest that you, too, get to the core of political theory...and practice
See, the problem is not that we disagree, the problem is that so far you haven't really said anything. grarpamp stipulated that "X" works, or so he has heard, you said "nope" and neither of you offered any support.
Again, he just basically stated a falsehood, and ´supported´ it by hearsay, If we assume he wasn´t being ironic. Either way, irony or not, he made an unsupported and mostly wrong assertion. I replied with an unsupported but correct assertion.
I can find some support for grarpamp's stipulation in my own practice and history, and while I appreciate your smirk cynicism, saying "read political theory" is simply not enough of an argument.
Except I didn´t mean it as an argument.
Not to mention, neither I nor grarpamp said anything on what is the exact mechanism of how civil participation works. For instance, I would be the first to admit that it's not a silver bullet and I'm far from the naïve, idealistic view of "politicians really listen to what we write"; rather, usually, it's a game of interests, and sometimes -- like during the ACTA crisis in EU -- public involvement can be just the straw that's needed to change something.
Ah, OK,. I can agree with that. But your position strikes me as rather different from what grarpamp said. Whereas you´re saying that some kind of public involvement *can* work, and you are correctly noting the nature of the political system (corrupt by design), grarpamp did nothing of the sort.
No, please, no need for any more concrete information, I think we can all agree that at this point it would be hard to not be convinced to what you so skilfully put forward.
bla bla bla - sign some useless petition to your masters, play the politicians´ game. Fancy that you are an oh so great activist.
And your solution instead is what exactly? "Nah, sit on yer arse, nothing's gonna change"? That sounds familiar:
I didn´t say ¨nothing´ gonna chage¨. But I´ll say it now : nothing is going to change IF you use the ´democratic tools´ given to us serfs by the ´democratic masters´. If public involvement means rioting and killing state personnel, then we are talking. If public involvment means taking money from the pentagon to create an ´anonimity network´ to spy on ¨the west´s enemies¨ , then public involvement is a bad joke. Counterproductive. Or exactly what the powers that be want.
I am really curious as to what exactly is your reason to even write such e- mails?
Well, at the very least, to correct people like grarpamps, and any other people who either support the american government in particular, or support the fuckingly stupid and criminal idea of ¨good government¨ and ¨good politicians¨ in general. I would have thought that preaching anarchy in this list would be be preaching to the choir, but I am not so sure that´s the case now.
If you know of a better solution, why not share? If there is no solution you can see, at all, why not get on with your life of bliss and not- giving-a-fsck? Surely, if civil participation can't do shit, your e-mail to this list can do even less!
Except I didn´t say that civil participation can´t do shit. I objected to the particular kind of civil participation that grarpamp suggested. Did he, for instance write ¨I was told civil DISOBEDIENCE works¨? and then I shot down his assertion? Nope...
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:37:23 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote: And that, indeed, is a statement. Grarpamp said he was told pigs fly. I replied ¨what you´ve been told is wrong¨.
I have indeed been told pigs can fly. I laugh and say they need bigger ears. Yet I'm sure the three of us could get together someday, smoke some peyote, and discover the real state of affairs regarding these pigs. Until then... to flight!
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:49:25 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:37:23 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote: And that, indeed, is a statement. Grarpamp said he was told pigs fly. I replied ¨what you´ve been told is wrong¨.
I have indeed been told pigs can fly. I laugh and say they need bigger ears. Yet I'm sure the three of us could get together someday, smoke some peyote, and discover the real state of affairs regarding these pigs. Until then... to flight!
Cheers ^-^
Started running a Tor relay node yesterday and found myself on the DAN TOR DNS Blacklist. Just wondered if anyone else running a node had any issues with email while running a relay node on the same server? I figured this crowd was probably experienced in running Tor nodes, so hope you don’t mind me asking. Thank you, Scott Blaydes
Hi I'm one from "Frenn vun der Enn" a Torservers.net partner organisation. If you run a Tor exit on your own server (which you use for other stuff) it won't take long to get yourself blacklisted. We recommend to put the node on another server or to change your exit node to a relay or bridge. Greetings On 2014-06-17 18:21, Scott Blaydes wrote:
Started running a Tor relay node yesterday and found myself on the DAN
TOR DNS Blacklist. Just wondered if anyone else running a node had any issues with email while running a relay node on the same server?
I figured this crowd was probably experienced in running Tor nodes, so
hope you don’t mind me asking.
Thank you, Scott Blaydes
On Jun 17, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Tyler Durden <virii@c3l.lu> wrote:
Hi
I'm one from "Frenn vun der Enn" a Torservers.net partner organisation. If you run a Tor exit on your own server (which you use for other stuff) it won't take long to get yourself blacklisted. We recommend to put the node on another server or to change your exit node to a relay or bridge.
I am running a relay only node, so the issues with an exit node shouldn’t get me. It looks like this list pulled the server via the Nickname field in the Tor config. Do you have problems on the relay only nodes?
Greetings
On 2014-06-17 18:21, Scott Blaydes wrote:
> Started running a Tor relay node yesterday and found myself on the DAN TOR DNS Blacklist. Just wondered if anyone else running a node had any issues with email while running a relay node on the same server?
>
> I figured this crowd was probably experienced in running Tor nodes, so hope you don’t mind me asking.
>
> Thank you,
> Scott Blaydes
Dnia wtorek, 17 czerwca 2014 12:01:28 Scott Blaydes pisze:
Hi
I'm one from "Frenn vun der Enn" a Torservers.net partner organisation. If you run a Tor exit on your own server (which you use for other stuff) it won't take long to get yourself blacklisted. We recommend to put the node on another server or to change your exit node to a relay or bridge. I am running a relay only node, so the issues with an exit node shouldn’t get me. It looks like this list pulled the server via the Nickname field in
On Jun 17, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Tyler Durden <virii@c3l.lu> wrote: the Tor config.
Do you have problems on the relay only nodes?
I had problems with it some time ago -- lab I worked in was banned from editing Wikipedia by not logged-in users because of it. Lately, one of large hosting providers shut down our server because we had a TOR hidden service running there (NOT a relay/bridge/exit node). There is a lot of hate towards TOR. :/ -- Pozdr rysiek
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Scott Blaydes <scott@sbce.org> wrote:
while running a relay node on the same server?
Yes, a relay IP can expect all manner of blockage, or none at all, even for non-exit relays [which is dumb, but true]. It depends on what the far end is doing. Best practice is to run the relay on its own IP. https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
participants (7)
-
coderman -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Juan -
rysiek -
Scott Blaydes -
Tyler Durden