Hi,

In which you implicitly agree he was ruling class and did not expect his actions to be punished. ... He was still arrogant and badly behaved.

You are talking about NSA? :-) Regards, M.

On 2014-01-07 02:28, Griffin Boyce wrote:

It's a bit of a hollow insult to call an individual working for the public good arrogant

Our rulers always tell us that they are working for the public good, working for people far away that they do not know or see, when they casually and face to face disrupt the lives of people that they do know and do see. Sometimes it is even true. But it does not matter, and should not matter. Needed killing. Good that he killed himself.

Seriously; obviously a troll; that much was clear many posts ago. Move along, don't feed. Don't worry, they have shelters for unfed trolls. On 06/01/14 22:09, shelley@misanthropia.info wrote:

 On Jan 6, 2014 1:58 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

>>Needed killing. Good that he killed himself.

You're either a shit-disturbing troll or an awful human being; possibly both.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

A simple google search would tell you that... ie https://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+a+donald%22+cypherpunks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#channel=fflb&q=%22james+a+donald%22+cypherpunk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official regards GH On 1/6/14 2:09 PM, shelley@misanthropia.info wrote:

 On Jan 6, 2014 1:58 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

>>Needed killing. Good that he killed himself.

You're either a shit-disturbing troll or an awful human being; possibly both.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

-- Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’

I'd love to read through your back-catalogue to get up to speed on why you hate Aaron so much, but I'm more of a "signal" kind of guy On 06/01/14 15:53, James A. Donald wrote:

On 2014-01-06 22:33, Cathal Garvey wrote:

...

In Aaron's case, he saw copyright and privatisation of publicly funded research as anathema, which of course it is. And being at that point of some power and influence for his tier of political clout, he felt he could use his academic ties to cover for his "Open Access Manifesto". In fact, he probably could have done, if MIT stood with him and referred to his work as research; I imagine he was surprised that they didn't.

In which you implicitly agree he was ruling class and did not expect his actions to be punished.

So, the ruling class ejects those who take ruling class ideals too seriously. Also, bears shit in the woods.

He was still arrogant and badly behaved.

On 2014-01-07 03:18, John Young wrote:

Swartz was ratted by a sysadmin, investigated by several sysadmins, some who formerly helped him and were pressured to betray him, indicted with the essential help of sysadmins. University and JSTOR administrators could not have discovered him , aided the investigation, cooperated with the prosecutor, without sysadmins. The cops and prosecutor could not have caught, investigated, coerced witnesses, indicted and killed Swarz without sysadmins. Some of those sysadmins are under lifetime vows of secrecy for cooperating against Swartz.

They were not "ratting" on him A sysadmin tries to keep his systems working. Aaron Swartz was disruptively trespassing on their systems - he was arrogantly and obnoxiously aggressing against them. And that, in fact, was what he was charged with, not with releasing JSTOR IP property, but with screwing up other people's computers. If he had been furtive about collecting the data, the way Snowden was, there never would have been any problem. The problem was that Aaron Swartz was an arrogant asshole who thought he was ruling class and above the law, and that those he aggressed against were menials beneath the law - the Henry Louis Gates phenomenon. One of the things our ruling class filters against is conspicuous and obnoxious arrogance. They don't want us noticing them. Aaron Swartz failed the conspicuous arrogance filter before being granted tenure, so suddenly found himself no longer ruling class.

Dont worry about James hyperbole, he's just channeling Tim May who was one of the three or four list co-founders, wrote the cyphernomicon [1], and had a habit of using that phrase 'needed killing' now and then, as I recall as phrase to express his distaste for someone's actions. Its an expression, not something literal... but James' black & white, non-PC, absolutist personality precludes him saying that :) You just have to read it with a USENET flame war mentality and parse for what he's actually saying. Apart from the refusal to bow to PC, James is actually a pretty smart guy from what I recall. He implemented some simplifed UX, ECC crypto email stuff called 'crypto kong' [2] way back in 1997. Cypherpunks write code & all that, gives James some brownie points. About Aaron's case and suicide, it seems to me that Aaron miscalculated, and the hacking was pretty escalated, engaged in multiple escalating counter-measures when it was obvious the sysadmins were on to him as an intruder, he didnt back off but took it to the next level including physical intrusion & hiding equipment. But MIT (and to a lesser extent JSTOR) let him down badly as did some of his academic friends and its tragic that he was a victim of some extremely over reaching imbalanced law the CFAA [3], aggressively prosecuted by self-agrandizing politically motivated, and almost legally immune deeply flawed US federal prosecution and plea bargain system, which also saw Weev [4] put in jail over the most ridiculous and egregious abuse of law (noticing a defect in AT&T web site and giving the information to the media). Yes Weev enjoys trolling, but thats an art-form and since when has unpopular speech been illegal, freedom of speech means unpopular speech too. Aaron's earlier hacktivism was pretty spectacularly successful in demonstrating the stupidity of charging for access to publicly funded legal information, in a way that ultimatey they could find no legal fault with, though the feds were not doubt pretty pissed that they couldnt get him for anything. But even the legal dox hacktivism stunt was very high risk, the US legal system is hard to rely on, even when you are doing legal but politically unpopular to things to a subset of the higher echelons of office holder. It seems to me that particularly in the US the political/legal system tends to hold grudges and fail spectacularly at balance and impartiality and legal independence from political influence. Its better than Russia still, but its falling in world rankings of rule of law and political indendence for sure. There are probably some independent rankings on this aspect of the government/jurisdiction comparison. Adam [1] http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.html [2] http://echeque.com/Kong/ [3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act‎ [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:15:07AM +0100, Cari Machet wrote:

shut the fuck up

who is arrogant (and simplistic)? u

On 1/6/14, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

...

On 2014-01-07 03:18, John Young wrote:

...

Swartz was ratted by a sysadmin, investigated by several sysadmins, some who formerly helped him and were pressured to betray him, indicted with the essential help of sysadmins. University and JSTOR administrators could not have discovered him , aided the investigation, cooperated with the prosecutor, without sysadmins. The cops and prosecutor could not have caught, investigated, coerced witnesses, indicted and killed Swarz without sysadmins. Some of those sysadmins are under lifetime vows of secrecy for cooperating against Swartz.

They were not "ratting" on him

A sysadmin tries to keep his systems working. Aaron Swartz was disruptively trespassing on their systems - he was arrogantly and obnoxiously aggressing against them.

And that, in fact, was what he was charged with, not with releasing JSTOR IP property, but with screwing up other people's computers.

If he had been furtive about collecting the data, the way Snowden was, there never would have been any problem.

The problem was that Aaron Swartz was an arrogant asshole who thought he was ruling class and above the law, and that those he aggressed against were menials beneath the law - the Henry Louis Gates phenomenon.

One of the things our ruling class filters against is conspicuous and obnoxious arrogance. They don't want us noticing them. Aaron Swartz failed the conspicuous arrogance filter before being granted tenure, so suddenly found himself no longer ruling class.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

'racist'

On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

'racist'

The word ‘racist’ is racist. As a Marxist loan-word to English, it means whatever the Marxist using it means. Just like “bless your heart” in the mouth of my dear departed Aunt Cora Lee Jones, formerly of Odessa Texas used to mean “I would’t piss up your ass if your guts were on fire.” Howdy all y’all. It’s been a while... Cheers, RAH Tim was right. Some people *do* need killin’. In fact, I would presume he meant *me*, more than once or twice...

Subject says it all.. has he passed is he still alive??(or did they ship him off to gitmo or a "black" site etc...) encyphering minds and all that crap GH ps tentacle #99 :) -- Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

...

Dont worry about James hyperbole, he's just channeling Tim May who was one of the three or four list co-founders, wrote the cyphernomicon [1], and had a habit of using that phrase 'needed killing' now and then, as I recall as phrase to express his distaste for someone's actions. Its an expression, not something literal... but James' black & white, non-PC, absolutist personality precludes him saying that :) You just have to read it with a USENET flame war mentality and parse for what he's actually saying.

Apart from the refusal to bow to PC, James is actually a pretty smart guy from what I recall. He implemented some simplifed UX, ECC crypto email stuff called 'crypto kong' [2] way back in 1997.

Cypherpunks write code & all that, gives James some brownie points.

History is littered with people who did remarkable things only to abuse the trust people placed in them to do horrible things. Writing some cool ECC crypto code does not preclude you from criticism when you show yourself to be someone who fantasizes about killing people. (Just look at all the creative ways he killed off people in the last thread! There was way too much imagination involved to be channeling anyone.) On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks - yes I know who may is and I understand the libertarian head space - as a fucking American citizen of native American descent I often find it at best 'racist' - I disagree with The laziness it's thought patterns propagate ... More later on ur packed analysis

James already proved himself a racist earlier in the discussion when he mentioned that he could only find "a number of black felons who should have been killed off long ago" while googling a person's name. "Black" was, of course, completely irrelevant, but he nevertheless found it important to add. If you're puzzled as to why he acts this way, his website might shine a little light on the issue: http://jim.com/. Clearly, the best solution is to ignore him. But let's not try to excuse what could best be described as the musings of a bitter old man because he wrote some code a decade ago.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:55 AM, gwen hastings <gwen@cypherpunks.to> wrote:

<Flame 0NN>

Hmmm cypherpunks write code patrick.. ??

James has actually contributed more(code) than simply hot air and criticism. And continues to contribute in ways you cant even begin to perceive simply by continuing to show up.....

Doesn't matter what age he is.. racist maybe.. doesn't matter(I am melungeon myself and tolerate purebloods and racists well..they ALL like to have sex and within a very few generation pure bloods WONT exist )

Well, my point was that it doesn't matter what you've contributed--it doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want and somehow not be deserving of a reaction. "Racism doesn't matter": I don't know how to respond to that.

ps what the fuck have you or Carl contributed youngster?

Then again, I'm not trying to rationalize why people deserve to die. In any case, I'm not interested in turning this into a pissing contest.

On 2014-01-08 02:12, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:

Well, my point was that it doesn't matter what you've contributed--it doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want and somehow not be deserving of a reaction.

When you use argumentum ad hominem instead of argument, indicates you have lost the argument, or are stupid, or both. Similarly "racist". Alinsky's tactics are the instrument of the overclass-underclass alliance, intended to be used by the overclass to manipulate the underclass. I doubt that there are too many underclass on this list. Alinsky's tactics are intended to be used by smart white males to manipulate people that Alinsky regarded as dumb sluts and niggers. They do not impress intelligent people. Intelligent people should be insulted by such tactics, and mostly, they are.

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:37:41AM -0500, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:

James already proved himself a racist earlier in the discussion when he mentioned that he could only find "a number of black felons who should have been killed off long ago" while googling a person's name. "Black" was, of course, completely irrelevant, but he nevertheless found it important to add.

Yeah but my point was James (and multiple others) were ever thus, and yet if you catch them focussed on something useful they are capable, even gifted some of them. A guy can say a bunch of things on political rambling, its not like you'd expect political uniformity or political correctness, or mellow, nuanced balanced views out of a bunch of crypto-anarchists: the political side of this list could always be like a USENET flame fest at its worst. Flame-retardent underwear and 'n' button at the ready. Read the bits that interest you, skip the rest. It just amuses me, there goes (some person prone to such rants) again, on some pet topic or highly non-PC, or offensive to sensitive ears diatribe, smirk, time to use the 'n' button (next email). If you dont like the noise, create some signal is another concept (and dont fan the noise). This kind of level of argument was however interspersed with some highly interesting technical innovations like remailers, ecash, anonymity networks, smart-contracts, pseudonymity theory and political implications thereof etc. Sometimes I think the younger generation missed out on USENET flame wars as a comparative baseline of signal/noise ratio and civilized discourse ;) Adam

...

...

Cypherpunks write code & all that, gives James some brownie points.

The NSA wrote some great code. SELinux, hardened DES against DC (yes, yes, low keystrength). Helped standardise lots of primitives that seem to work well, too. I guess they're upstanding, awesome folk, those NSA guys. Nothing to complain about, cut 'em some slack. What's some fascism, racism and naked suicide-trolling when you've written good code ages ago, eh? A dick is still a dick, past accomplishments notwithstanding, and "don't feed the trolls" is still the first law of the 'net. Moving on. On 07/01/14 15:37, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:

...

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

...

Dont worry about James hyperbole, he's just channeling Tim May who was one of the three or four list co-founders, wrote the cyphernomicon [1], and had a habit of using that phrase 'needed killing' now and then, as I recall as phrase to express his distaste for someone's actions. Its an expression, not something literal... but James' black & white, non-PC, absolutist personality precludes him saying that :) You just have to read it with a USENET flame war mentality and parse for what he's actually saying.

Apart from the refusal to bow to PC, James is actually a pretty smart guy from what I recall. He implemented some simplifed UX, ECC crypto email stuff called 'crypto kong' [2] way back in 1997.

Cypherpunks write code & all that, gives James some brownie points.

History is littered with people who did remarkable things only to abuse the trust people placed in them to do horrible things. Writing some cool ECC crypto code does not preclude you from criticism when you show yourself to be someone who fantasizes about killing people. (Just look at all the creative ways he killed off people in the last thread! There was way too much imagination involved to be channeling anyone.)

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 03:29:16 James A. Donald pisze:

If an ordinary person engages in physical intrusion to hack someone

to hack someone

hack

Sir, you keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means. -- Pozdr rysiek P.S. Yeah, yeah, why am I even feeding the troll.

Dnia wtorek, 7 stycznia 2014 19:04:56 Cari Machet pisze:

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 03:29:16 James A. Donald pisze:

...

If an ordinary person engages in physical intrusion to hack someone

to hack someone

hack

Sir, you keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means

hey poland - you dont think a person can b hacked? wow....

Nah, I was rather referring to Aaron Swartz' actions -- calling them "hacking" seems not fitting on so many levels... Also, I appreciate the fact that for some peculiar reason you choose to find me important enough to identify whole Poland with my person, nevertheless I assure you there are quite a few people in Poland; not sure how things look on your side of Teh Intertubes, but here we don't usually consider a single person to be solely responsible for nor identifiable with a whole country. I find it additionally interesting that you seem to assume nationality of an Internet contact based on TLD of their e-mail address. That's so cute. Had I written from rys.io domain, would you start off with "hey indian ocean territory", or "hey brit"? -- Pozdr rysiek

umn i just met u at #30c3 i know who u r so... aaahhh memories... names .... ppl... buses ... berlin... i was making a little joke and calling u poland sorry i happen to love poland generally so i like to talk about it i guess how do you conclude that aaron was not "hacking" PLEASE EXPLAIN ??????? On 1/7/14, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/7/14, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

...

Apart from the refusal to bow to PC, James is actually a pretty smart guy from what I recall. He implemented some simplifed UX, ECC crypto email stuff called 'crypto kong' [2] way back in 1997.

all hail to the chiefs but happy to praise all-all but look even mass murderers are kind sometimes i am sure ie just onaccounta' you is smart in one compartmentalized section of ur life dont mean ur emotionally smart

...

Cypherpunks write code & all that, gives James some brownie points.

agreed!!!!!

...

About Aaron's case and suicide, it seems to me that Aaron miscalculated, and the hacking was pretty escalated, engaged in multiple escalating counter-measures when it was obvious the sysadmins were on to him as an intruder, he didnt back off

i have not heard this before - i had the information that he was downloading way too much at a time and doing it over a very small period of time and that tipped them off my information is that he was very careful in other work of this kind why would he b so sloppy this time - i mean how do you know he knew they were on to him?

...

but took it to the next level including physical intrusion & hiding equipment. But MIT (and to a lesser extent JSTOR) let him down badly as did some of his academic friends and its tragic that he was a victim of some extremely over reaching imbalanced law the CFAA [3], aggressively prosecuted by self-agrandizing politically motivated, and almost legally immune deeply flawed US federal prosecution and plea bargain system,

yes but i think from my understanding it wasnt the amount of prison time or the money but the fact that he wld have to plead guilty to 13 felony counts - he would not get to serve in the government ... vote etc

...

which also saw Weev [4] put in jail over the most ridiculous and egregious abuse of law (noticing a defect in AT&T web site and giving the information to the media). Yes Weev enjoys trolling, but thats an art-form and since when has unpopular speech been illegal, freedom of speech means unpopular speech too.

AGREED - i am not sure ppl know enough about his case any ideas about how we can push it out there more?????

...

Aaron's earlier hacktivism was pretty spectacularly successful in demonstrating the stupidity of charging for access to publicly funded legal information, in a way that ultimatey they could find no legal fault with, though the feds were not doubt pretty pissed that they couldnt get him for anything. But even the legal dox hacktivism stunt was very high risk, the US legal system is hard to rely on, even when you are doing legal but politically unpopular to things to a subset of the higher echelons of office holder. It seems to me that particularly in the US the political/legal system tends to hold grudges and fail spectacularly at balance and impartiality and legal independence from political influence. Its better than Russia still, but its falling in world rankings of rule of law and political indendence for sure. There are probably some independent rankings on this aspect of the government/jurisdiction comparison.

i would love to see the rankings on that too i was just going over this very thing > there is no oversight absolutely NONE like in the bureau of prisons guess who decided the fate of lynne stewart > 1 man who is the director > it is a piss poor system that has no intellectual growth in its structure for a very long time > i find it curious that u compare US judicial system to russia thats funny

agreed the system is not reliably predictable EVER i think he spoke to agents without a lawyer present

i think all instances are multifaceted and criticism and debate about aaron is helpful i wasnt saying that i was saying the militance was off to me

i would be interested to hear more of what ppl think were the mis-steps in his work however large or small it may seem - as i am doing some work around 'reparations' and want the full picture as much as possible before i get hit in the face with it somewhere else...

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME

...

Adam

[1] http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.html [2] http://echeque.com/Kong/ [3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:15:07AM +0100, Cari Machet wrote:

...

shut the fuck up

who is arrogant (and simplistic)? u

On 1/6/14, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:

...

On 2014-01-07 03:18, John Young wrote:

...

Swartz was ratted by a sysadmin, investigated by several sysadmins, some who formerly helped him and were pressured to betray him, indicted with the essential help of sysadmins. University and JSTOR administrators could not have discovered him , aided the investigation, cooperated with the prosecutor, without sysadmins. The cops and prosecutor could not have caught, investigated, coerced witnesses, indicted and killed Swarz without sysadmins. Some of those sysadmins are under lifetime vows of secrecy for cooperating against Swartz.

They were not "ratting" on him

A sysadmin tries to keep his systems working. Aaron Swartz was disruptively trespassing on their systems - he was arrogantly and obnoxiously aggressing against them.

And that, in fact, was what he was charged with, not with releasing JSTOR IP property, but with screwing up other people's computers.

If he had been furtive about collecting the data, the way Snowden was, there never would have been any problem.

The problem was that Aaron Swartz was an arrogant asshole who thought he was ruling class and above the law, and that those he aggressed against were menials beneath the law - the Henry Louis Gates phenomenon.

One of the things our ruling class filters against is conspicuous and obnoxious arrogance. They don't want us noticing them. Aaron Swartz failed the conspicuous arrogance filter before being granted tenure, so suddenly found himself no longer ruling class.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 1/7/14, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 03:29:16 James A. Donald pisze:

...

If an ordinary person engages in physical intrusion to hack someone

...

to hack someone

...

hack

...

Sir, you keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means

hey poland - you dont think a person can b hacked? wow....

On 1/7/14, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

...

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 03:29:16 James A. Donald pisze:

...

If an ordinary person engages in physical intrusion to hack someone

...

to hack someone

...

hack

Sir, you keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

-- Pozdr rysiek

P.S. Yeah, yeah, why am I even feeding the troll.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

hmmn i see it as a hack and his other work was similar he was breaking the user agreement as worded by lawyer types > isnt that a hack? plus they were all scuuurrred he was going to leak the docs he downloaded so.... thats kind of a hack it was presumed becasue of past predictors of behavior that he would negotiate with JSTOR to change there ways which is umn super-neoliberal-capitalistic is stealing a hack? - i think in general that the term hacking has expanded - i think he was hacking the system >>> maybe we disagree on the words expansion ??? heres some wordy words mayb u wld like to read re aarons work with others https://public.resource.org/crime ++++++++++ hope it is very cold in poland and you are incredibly unhappy > berlin is nice On 1/7/14, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

Dnia wtorek, 7 stycznia 2014 19:36:44 Cari Machet pisze:

...

umn i just met u at #30c3 i know who u r so... aaahhh memories... names .... ppl... buses ... berlin... i was making a little joke and calling u poland sorry i happen to love poland generally so i like to talk about it i guess

AAAAHH! Now I got all the puzzles in my view. OHAI, CARI. :) /me facepalms hard/

...

how do you conclude that aaron was not "hacking" PLEASE EXPLAIN ???????

Well... There are two ways the word "hacking" is used most often. 1. breaking into computer systems and generally doing some computery-evil stuff 2. doing some amazing technical things

So, what Aaron did was in no way fitting the 2., right? He just put a laptop

in a closet and downloaded stuff.

Neither does it fit 1. -- he did not break any kind of security systems, cracked passwords, etc., he just put a laptop on a network that had access to these documents and downloaded the documents. That's all.

On a different level, it was indeed consistent with hacker ethos, esp. "information wants to be free". But that doesn't mean it was a "hack", in any meaning of the word.

Also, inb4 "hacker means X - no, it means Y" shitstorm

-- Pozdr rysiek

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 2014-01-08 05:09, Cari Machet wrote:

hmmn i see it as a hack and his other work was similar

he was breaking the user agreement as worded by lawyer types > isnt that a hack?

Everyone breaks the user agreement, because no one reads it. Not everyone physically brings equipment inside someone else's network.

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 05:54:33 James A. Donald pisze:

On 2014-01-08 05:09, Cari Machet wrote:

...

plus they were all scuuurrred he was going to leak the docs

No one gave a damn about Aaron Swartz leaking the docs. That was not what he was charged with, and not what pissed off the sysadmins. What pissed off the sysadmins was physical intrusion, and him bringing the network to its knees.

Wait, what? Where the hell did you get *that* bullshit. MIT network was just fine, the pissed people were at JSTOR, and they were pissed not because "the network was brought down to its knees", but because somebody was getting a lot of articles "without paying". MIT *never even made clear* whether or not Aaron was *authorized* to access MIT network: http://ur1.ca/gd3z7 And as *every* user of MIT network had access to JSTOR, it's also hard to claim that Aaron accessed JSTOR in an "unauthorized" manner. The only problem was the amount of articles Aaron was downloading, and the manner he was doing that (a laptop in a closet). Whether or not he was authorized to access them is unclear, however there is strong evidence suggesting he was indeed authorized to access MIT network, and hence, through it, JSTOR. So please, get your facts straight.

You are displaying the same attitude that he did, that it is just fine for members of the ruling class to walk all over mere menials.

Oh, oh, right, so as long as somebody disagrees with you, they are "displaying the attitude of the ruling class". Wow, you actually took the effort to move a bit from "YOU'RE STUPID!!1!" ad hominem, but just this tiny bit. Hence, no extra credit. :) -- Pozdr rysiek

On 2014-01-08 07:53, rysiek wrote:

Wait, what? Where the hell did you get *that* bullshit. MIT network was just fine, the pissed people were at JSTOR, and they were pissed not because "the network was brought down to its knees", but because somebody was getting a lot of articles "without paying".

http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html "It was now well into the fall semester and for several days all MIT students and faculty had been unable to access JSTOR, a resource used by hundreds of researchers and students per day at MIT during that time of year. " Aaron Swartz was not charged downloading articles without paying, but with disrupting a network on which his menial inferiors depended. Illustrating that our masters are incompetent and stupid, as well as arrogant. If I had been in the closet and screwed with the network wiring (which I would not have done since the network was wide open to competent attack from safely far away) I would have screwed with the network wiring in such a fashion as to produce no easily noticeable effects. If I had been doing what Schwarz was doing, I would have proxied through a bunch of zombies to disguise the IP, would have rate limited the download so as not to stick out and not produce an obnoxious and noticeable disruption, and would have done a pseudo random permutation on the order so that it was not obvious sequential, thus not obvious the intent was to download the entire database, so that it looked as if particular specific articles were being downloaded. And all that would have been overkill, for if no disruption of the network, no one who had the skills to detect it and do something about it would have cared.

"James A. Donald"

...

No one gave a damn about Aaron Swartz leaking the docs. That was not what he was charged with, and not what pissed off the sysadmins. What pissed off the sysadmins was physical intrusion, and him bringing the network to its knees.

On 2014-01-08 11:32, Juan Garofalo wrote:

That is bullshit.

That is the charges against Aaron Swartz. http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html

If you want to attack Swartz you can do it without laughably trying to defend the 'physical property' of the mit mafia. Your defense being doubly weird since you're supposedly a libertarian?

Libertarians are propertarians. Property rights are the boundaries between one man's plan and another man's plan. If the ruling elite casually violate property rights, then, as with Obamacare, the result is chaos, which must be resolved by one plan imposed on all to restore order in order to avoid collapse. Terror follows in due course. Should the terror ease, collapse follows. This has been explained by Mises and Hayek, and colorfully dramatized by Ayn Rand.

What exactly is it that you believe in, Juan? From: Juan Garofalo Juan Garofalo fucking americunt fascist

So you’re a nihilist? Why not shoot yourself now then if life has no point? From: Juan Garofalo Juan Garofalo If you recall, I asked you what I should believe in, but you never  replied. So, I don't believe in anything. =[ 

Anyone written a script yet that deletes any thread where Al and Juan start addressing one another? Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:32 PM -0800 Al Billings <albill@openbuddha.com> wrote:

...

So you're a nihilist? Why not shoot yourself now then if life has no point?

That's an interesting question Al. How do you feel about chocolate cake?

...

From: Juan Garofalo Juan Garofalo

If you recall, I asked you what I should believe in, but you never  replied. So, I don't believe in anything. =[ 

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

...

That is the charges against Aaron Swartz. http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html

That's a link to jstor. Irrelevant.

oops, sorry, I missed the title and the first paragraphs looked like institutional bullshit (well it was institutional bullshit) - I didn't see the part about 'evidence'

At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote:

fucking americunt fascist.

Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is relevant. --ue

to all the libratarians on the planet that 'believe' in ownership 'belief' and 'ownership' are idiotic arcane notions of anthropocentric type amygdala activity https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_Capitali... this means you james > with a caveat that obama is a disgusting reflection of the system and ppl were ill informed to think he wasnt > i offer this piece by naomi klein in dispute of your 'ideology' seen thru your crummy/flimmsy/pathetic analysis of aaron's work if you have seen it then you have no excuse for your mindset > if you have not seen it i dare you to debate its consciousness On 1/8/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae <europus@gmail.com> wrote:

...

At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote:

...

fucking americunt fascist.

Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is relevant.

As a transplanted nationalist, she was even more rabid than home grown nationalists. That's the first(and only) difference that comes to mind...

...

--ue

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

the notion that an idea of private property as all encompassing is banal > there are no absolutes but to parse it for you believing in something is about religion which is smoke and mirrors + the public sphere is waning if you havent noticed but its not so much an emergency but an emergence of the collective ... an opportunity > your choice to be mindful of the reality or not klein is an economist On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

...

to all the libratarians on the planet that 'believe' in ownership

In case you're addressing me... =P

(well, you seem to be talking to James, but replied to a post of mine, so I'm not sure)

...

'belief' and 'ownership' are idiotic arcane notions of anthropocentric type amygdala activity

https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_Capit alism

Is Klein some kind of radical anarcho communist? If not she probably subscribes to some notion of private property...

...

this means you james > with a caveat that obama is a disgusting reflection of the system and ppl were ill informed to think he wasnt > i offer this piece by naomi klein in dispute of your 'ideology' seen thru your crummy/flimmsy/pathetic analysis of aaron's work

if you have seen it then you have no excuse for your mindset > if you have not seen it i dare you to debate its consciousness

On 1/8/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae <europus@gmail.com> wrote:

...

At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote:

...

fucking americunt fascist.

Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is relevant.

As a transplanted nationalist, she was even more rabid than home grown nationalists. That's the first(and only) difference that comes to mind...

...

--ue

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's say I grow my own food. Do you think I'm the onwer of the food I grow? Or maybe some people, let's call them the 'government', have a 'right' to my food?

if u really want to know what i think then u need to know my thought processies are not like "white" ppl > ideas of ownership are foreign to me i am native american and most tribes though they lived in areas didnt consider ownership of them but a co-creative partnership - re: food > when my people hunted buffalo in the plains they didnt just indiscriminately kill buffalo they weeded the herd and were mindful to examine how they could be of help to the herd it was only intelligent to do so as it kept their source of food and clothing healthy and vibrant but also it was respectful of life so there are people that give food away for free right now today > why would they do that?

If I'm not the 'absolute' owner of my person and what I produce, who is it?

well i think ideas are in the air and we build on the shoulders of giants so production is owed down thru the ages and i think there isnt really a you basically > your first form i would say is life itself and you are made mostly of water and some minerals (dirt) and when you 'die' your body dissipates like a cloud - i dont think 'you' die i think you just transform so there is no 'you' to have ownership > would you say life owns life ? that would be odd > i think ownership is an illusion i also think you didnt make yourself so that would be a glitch in your argument > i mean i think you had a bit to say in the matter but we are very limited mathematical concoctions (gorgeously made and amazing but limited) we cant presently manufacture ourselves in order to "own" ourselves but even then we wouldnt be independent of life itself so ... > maybe in future we will manufacture ourselves but there is probably going to be a divisive factor in the manufacturing of life forms (divisive as in schism - not workin so good - should be interesting but already happening w/ monsanto actually so...) i think the idea of ownership was made by rulers (seen thru millenia but look at the magna carta which will be 800 in 2015) i want as little to do with rulers thought patterns and functioning as possible

...

but to parse it for you believing in something is about religion which is smoke and mirrors + the public sphere is waning if you havent noticed

Not sure what you mean by the public sphere, but what I understand by the public sphere isn't exactly waning.

...

but its not so much an emergency but an emergence of the collective ... an opportunity > your choice to be mindful of the reality or not

klein is an economist

yeah well, so were keynes and marx. Or at least there are people who think they were 'economists'...

...

On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

...

to all the libratarians on the planet that 'believe' in ownership

In case you're addressing me... =P

(well, you seem to be talking to James, but replied to a post of mine, so I'm not sure)

...

'belief' and 'ownership' are idiotic arcane notions of anthropocentric type amygdala activity

https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_Cap it alism

Is Klein some kind of radical anarcho communist? If not she probably subscribes to some notion of private property...

...

this means you james > with a caveat that obama is a disgusting reflection of the system and ppl were ill informed to think he wasnt > i offer this piece by naomi klein in dispute of your 'ideology' seen thru your crummy/flimmsy/pathetic analysis of aaron's work

if you have seen it then you have no excuse for your mindset > if you have not seen it i dare you to debate its consciousness

On 1/8/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae <europus@gmail.com> wrote:

...

At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote:

> fucking americunt fascist.

Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is relevant.

As a transplanted nationalist, she was even more rabid than home grown nationalists. That's the first(and only) difference that comes to mind...

...

--ue

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, but didn't they, using 'white' terminology, jointly owned the land they were living in? (and then whites came along and stole...)

this may explain a little more http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html yes "white terminology" holds white CONCEPTS as do words in my tribe the blackfoot and other tribes languages i am also cherokee for instance the word "floor" does not exist because things are noted as actions so it is "flooring" because things are not stagnant they are active > everything is animated there are no inanimate and animate objects all are animate you may hear people say the whites 'stole' the land but what they did was move the people ... kill them etc they did not live in concert etc

do you know the story of lewis and clark by the way it shows how the 'indians' lived > very different

Anyway, ownership of natural resources is a bit more complex (or harder to define) than ownership through labor, that's why I mentioned growing food (which involves personal labor)

i am not sure mayb make an argument as to why it is different

That's fine. My question would be : If a tribe(?) took care of certain buffalo herd, did they have the 'right' (or choose whatever word is appropiate here) to hunt it and use the products? Or would it be OK for a tribe living nearby to 'steal' the herd from them?

i know of these instances yes but the land was vast so ... they moved on ... no i dont think they saw it as particularly 'ok' and they made confederacies and agreements regarding these issues - they had community agreements which they worked together to come to also fyi they had chiefs yes but they had different councils that made decisions they still function in this way and what your role was was what you were naturally good at - they didnt try to make people into something they were not

Because they want to? It's their food and they do with it whatever they please =P

funny

Now, what if some people don't want to give their food away for free, and a different group of people takes it by force?

What if some people spends their labor producing something and other people come along and get the products, for free, against the will of the producers? That sonds like slavery to me, and I'd risk saying that it's been recognized as slavery since a long time ago, and in all parts of the world.

thats what we have now with neo liberal capitalism

...

...

If I'm not the 'absolute' owner of my person and what I produce, who is it?

well i think ideas are in the air and we build on the shoulders of giants

That is true regarding ideas and knowledge (though things need to be re-learnt at the individual level, of course...) - but I'm talking more about physical production than intelectual production.

i meant physical production too - i mean do you understand how many hundreds of years it took life to come up with the spoon > just a spoon that took a ton of time and energy and really i see myself as no different than a spoon

...

so production is owed down thru the ages and i think there isnt really a you basically > your first form i would say is life itself and you are made mostly of water and some minerals (dirt) and when you 'die' your body dissipates like a cloud - i dont think 'you' die i think you just transform

Well, maybe, but individual consciousness seems to exist. Regardless of you and budhists calling it an illusion =P

i never said that i think in terms of co-creativity

...

so there is no 'you' to have ownership > would you say life owns life ? that would be odd > i think ownership is an illusion i also think you didnt make yourself so that would be a glitch in your argument

Living things are kinda self-assembling...Though I didn't argue that I 'own myself' because I 'made myself'. I'm talking about external property.

no i was extending and making an argument > but how do you think you "own" yourself?

My argument is : I own this tomato plant because I took the trouble to cultivate it.

BUT what about the tomato plant it took more "trouble" than u i would say - in ur world does it have "ownership"

...

i mean i think you had a bit to say in the matter but we are very limited mathematical concoctions (gorgeously made and amazing but limited) we cant presently manufacture ourselves in order to "own" ourselves but even then we wouldnt be independent of life itself

No, we wouldn't.

Also, you correctly point out that 'we' didn't 'make' ourselves, but are you suggesting that we were 'made' by someone else/some kind of entity/moral agent/or?

F no and i dont think there was a big bang either or a beginning i think life is a spiral cone time and space are - i dont think time is linear see deleuze and guattari > but native americans think like that too

...

i think the idea of ownership was made by rulers (seen thru millenia but look at the magna carta which will be 800 in 2015) i want as little to do with rulers thought patterns and functioning as possible

I think property is an extension of personal freedom, and so it's actually anathema to rulers.

i think property is a coffin BUT i understand what you mean how it could be seen that way actually it really is a multidimensional issue but overall i see that history - and my own inner gut - shows that having community is a more fully effective way of living than individualism BUT also i think rulers will turn anything they can into something fucked up

magna carta is as far as I can tell a document dealing with two factions of the ruling class - the 'noblemen', also known as oligarchy and the monarchic party (actually a different faction of the oligarchy)

yes that was my point those are the people that are so interested in property rights > hey ya know the largest land owner in manhattan ?? catholic church... know the second largest property owner in manhattan ?? episcopal church ... what i think they have socially engineered is the protection of ruling class property rights and convinced the people it serves them - it does not !! otherwise everyone would have food and clean water and a place to live (its not that much to ask for) really it doesnt serve humanity or life force either to have such levels of separation between ppl because of who they were born to, where etc

...

...

...

but to parse it for you believing in something is about religion which is smoke and mirrors + the public sphere is waning if you havent noticed

Not sure what you mean by the public sphere, but what I understand by the public sphere isn't exactly waning.

...

but its not so much an emergency but an emergence of the collective ... an opportunity > your choice to be mindful of the reality or not

klein is an economist

yeah well, so were keynes and marx. Or at least there are people who think they were 'economists'...

...

On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

...

to all the libratarians on the planet that 'believe' in ownership

In case you're addressing me... =P

(well, you seem to be talking to James, but replied to a post of mine, so I'm not sure)

...

'belief' and 'ownership' are idiotic arcane notions of anthropocentric type amygdala activity

https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_C ap it alism

Is Klein some kind of radical anarcho communist? If not she probably subscribes to some notion of private property...

...

this means you james > with a caveat that obama is a disgusting reflection of the system and ppl were ill informed to think he wasnt > i offer this piece by naomi klein in dispute of your 'ideology' seen thru your crummy/flimmsy/pathetic analysis of aaron's work

if you have seen it then you have no excuse for your mindset > if you have not seen it i dare you to debate its consciousness

On 1/8/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae > <europus@gmail.com> wrote: > >> At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote: >> >>> fucking americunt fascist. >> >> >> Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is >> relevant. > > > As a transplanted nationalist, she was even more rabid than home > grown > nationalists. That's the first(and only) difference that comes to > mind... > > > >

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

i am not claiming natives to b beyond perfection > my point was they had a different relationship to "owning" and i reflect that mindset two of my great grandmothers were native one blackfoot one cherokee and you are not the first to be dismissive of my blood and wont be the last i find it sad the blackfoot hunted buffalo heres what happened with that (hint: white ppl ordered them killed in mass) http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/american-buffalo-spirit-of-a-nation/... the blackfoot moved entirely to canada where they are today trying to retain their history and memories thru retaining their language re ownership some say if the french would have confronted the issue in their revolution mankind would be a bit further down the road - it isnt an easy task by far but worth discussing re chief seattle - stories i heard while living in seattle were that natives could not even walk on the same sidewalk as a white person and their right to fish was taken from them (this is still an issue) > how does that ad up in your world of individual ownership rights? On 1/9/14, Robert Hettinga <hettinga@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

...

this may explain a little more

http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html

I’m laughing, now.

Very hard.

A bunch of crypto-marxist happy horseshit from a 1972 made-for-TV movie.

Cheers, RAH

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 2014-01-09 13:10, Cari Machet wrote:

if u really want to know what i think then u need to know my thought processies are not like "white" ppl

Are you one thirty second Indian, or one sixty fourth?

ideas of ownership are foreign to me i am native american and most tribes though they lived in areas didnt consider ownership of them but a co-creative partnership

Bunkum: The Chocktaw owned black slaves and grew cotton. The slaves, the fields, and the cotton belonged to individual Chocktaw, not to the tribe.

when my people hunted buffalo in the plains they didnt just indiscriminately kill buffalo they weeded the herd and were mindful to examine how they could be of help to the herd

How do you think the horse became extinct in the Americas, the mammoths, and all the rest? Whites report that Indians, when they got the chance, killed a very large number of buffalo and ate only the tongues. The South American Indians had better technology than the North American Indians, and killed almost everything larger than a dog. If the North American Indians had had metal, would have killed everthing larger than a rabbit. Colonel Calloway, at the urging of Daniel Boone, purchased the south side of the Kentucky River from the Indians. They spent the money in short order, and having spent the money, wanted the land back, starting a war against the whites, a war against Daniel Boone and Colonel Calloway, which turned out to be a really bad idea. This was the general pattern, repeated over and over, with land purchases leading to extraordinarily terrible Indian wars. By and large, Indian wars resulted from the short time preference of the Indians relative to the longer time preference of the whites. Indians would make bad deals, a lot of land for a little whiskey, then after the whites arrived and had created facts on the ground, the Indians would change their minds, even though it was by then far too late to change their minds. If the Indians had had reasonable time preference, they would have been able to hold out for a fair deal, and then stick to it. Once whites started to arrive, it was a really bad time for the Indians to turn around and break the deal, but nonetheless it was usually the Indians that broke the deal, usually by abducting children, sometimes by scalping children and burning them alive. Not only would they break the deal, but break it at the worst time for themselves, in the worst way for themselves, and in the most evil and horrible possible way.

https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_Capitali...

You'd doubtless enjoy Michael Rothschild's _Bionomics: Economy As Ecosystem_ --dan

On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:32 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

the vast majority of self-described libertarians I now are actually conservatives

Horrors. Mass hysteria. Cats and dogs living together… Cheers, RAH

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 7:21 AM -0800 gwen hastings <gwen@cypherpunks.to> wrote:

Hey All, Its really exciting.. we finally have a NET.LOON on the scale of Detweiler and Sternlight... Finally this list will start moving again :)

Thanx Juan for Showing up.. if you had NOT I would have had to Create/Invent you ...

You're welcome Gwen. I see that you're the typical good meaning American who is deeply concerned with having the god-given inalienable rights of mankind defended. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Yes, definitively, consent.

Illogical, disorganized mentally and emotionally .. spouts enough BS to Swamp the ist...

YEP its confirmed.. another NET.LOON

course this could be DETWEILER in drag...

GH

-- Tentacle #99

ecc public key curve p160 ;9C~b~)3)cp0d!?C1JIVI=tI(

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 06:05:00AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

the original meaning [of hacking] was simply bad stuff done by computer -

Not that its relevant to the Aaron discussion, but I think you got that etymology sequence wrong, the original meaning of hacker was more like doing clever but non-malicious things with computers, aka squeezing interesting things out of them that they were not intended or expected to do. And/or relatedly people were less uptight about computer access as most of them were in open collaborative university settings so using computers was less of a locked up possessive mind set. Those were the days before CFAA and Weev getting his door kicked in by a swat team for stumbling upon a broken network API. Hacker in the sense of cracker was a later and much hated co-option and perversion of the term. I expect that's what Rysiek was reacting to partly. Seems like the original hackers lost that etymology battle however long ago. Adam

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM, demonfighter6 . <demonfighter@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

...

Seems like the original hackers lost that etymology battle however long ago.

Yes, annoying though that may be to those of us who were called hackers before that became a bad thing. But we're outnumbered thousands-to-one, and we're just not going to win that language war.

use the term "independent security researcher", your legal counsel will thank you!

Hi there, /me has his monthly "let's reclaim the word 'hacker'" drive Dnia wtorek, 7 stycznia 2014 23:15:52 Adam Back pisze:

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:48:59PM -0800, coderman wrote:

...

...

Yes, annoying though that may be to those of us who were called hackers before that became a bad thing. But we're outnumbered thousands-to-one, and we're just not going to win that language war.

use the term "independent security researcher",

your legal counsel will thank you!

A cryptographically secure pseudonym would probably work even better. Weev didnt actually do anything wrong that I could see, by any sane interpretation of even something as egregious as CFAA and he's serving 41 months. A lawyer is a last resort, step #1 is not identifying yourself even for non-malicous research I suspect.

I draw different conclusion here -- people do not understand hackers (in the original, non-pejorative meaning of the term), and hence are afraid of anything "hacker-y". Weev went to jail not because he did something illegal, but because the jury was convinced he's an "evil hacker", and that they need to "send a signal". If we keep moving back, at some point we'll have nowhere to go. So instead, we should get people to understand and not be afraid. Show the value to the society (and there is a lot of value in hacking!), and always make clear distinction between hacking (which both Aaron and Weev had done quite a bit of, and I am not referring to their court cases and alleged transgressions) and committing crimes by means of a computer network or electronic device. As an added bonus, once we get to a point where everybody understands that crime is a crime, regardless of tools used in connection with it, we might finally get some *sane* laws around that topic -- instead of laws that make one get a smaller sentence if they steal stuff with a crowbar instead of downloading it via Teh Tubes. -- Pozdr rysiek

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 17:03:39 Adam Back pisze:

What you said is correct, that is what needs to happen (society and law needs to move out of the dark ages), and the only way for that to happen is brave canaries with squeaky clean reps, and sharp lawyers to blaze the path.

Indubitably.

My version was just to say be aware of the risks, that you would take by even putting your name to a hack, with any disclosure at all. If you dont want to be a canary.

Sure.

Possibly would be advisable to use a laywer for some anonmyity insulation to even sell a hack to one of the disclosure service pimping sites. (They probably are selling them to the NSA/Orwell 2.0 crew so taking their money is probably dirty money.)

Indeed.

Independent security researcher can be risky. Get a legal signed doc from the people you audit people say (yeah like they're gonna give you one for an unsolicited investigation).

Yeah, there's an old Soviet saying: "the more paper, the cleaner the arse."

Weev was an independent security researcher after all, in a team even. Goatse security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse_Security. They did find some interesting and news worthy hacking stuff, even won awards from Tech Crunch seemingly.

And that's what gets to me. For fucks' sake, people like Weev or Swartz discover holes left by somebody else, why are they the ones getting punished for it? If somebody made a faulty tool, they would pay, not the user exposing the problem. Maybe it's time to try to get some vendor liability/warranty going? I shudder when thinking about that, as that would pose a huge problem for Free Software, I guess, but I think it is worth exploring anyway. -- Pozdr rysiek

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 23:32:59 Cari Machet pisze:

On 1/8/14, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

...

Maybe it's time to try to get some vendor liability/warranty going?

FASCISM

Fascinating assertion. -- Pozdr rysiek

Dnia czwartek, 9 stycznia 2014 00:23:50 Cari Machet pisze:

ok mayb i was a little over zealous > i am native american prone to being close to life >

Why do you keep bringing your native-americanness in every otehr post is beyond me. I'm a native Pole, somebody here is probably a native German, what does it have to do with anything? Just drop it already.

so if i build a road and you have a car wreck on it shld i b liable if you kill someone with your car ????

It would also be beneficial to all parties involved if you read the e-mails you're (supposedly) answering to, and tried to choose analogies accordingly. But answering your question: if there is a demonstrable fault in the way the road was built -- for example, there is an *outward* slant at a turn on a highway/motorway -- then I would say "to some extent, yes". To what extent? That's for the jury to decide, but if the fault contributed to the tragedy, the builder of the road is (partially) responsible. By the way, I would greatly appreciate you making the effort to respect the by-laws of the (let's call that) Internet-natives of this list, and using English instead of the t33nz lulzspk tht u seem 2 b usng, kthx. If you want to encrypt your messages, use PGP instead of lulzspeak, it will work much better.

plus it opens the door for other opensource 'heretical' laws to be promulgated on the citizenry for its 'protection'

That's my problem with this idea, that's why I am floating it and asking for a discussion. Maybe there is a way to do it properly? -- Pozdr rysiek

OHAI, As somebody noted in some other thread here lately, "well, that escalated quickly". Dnia czwartek, 9 stycznia 2014 01:41:23 Cari Machet pisze:

1st off if someone is indigenous it is not the same as being native polish > mayb u r ignorant of indigenous information AND if an indigenous person wants to talk about it 2 times on a list i think that is interesting not something to censor i am not interested in censoring or being censored that is one reason i am interested in opensource and you would think that if someone is interested in opensource they would b able to see how that is applicable beyond that of software and the ramifications therein

1. I am "indigenous Polish", how does that make me worse or better than you? 2. I am not censoring anything, simply noting that you have already remarked on you being a "native American" and that I think we all got that. I have no idea why you find it necessary to underline that fact so much, but hey, be my guest. You have the full right to do so -- as I have the right to remark on how unnecessary and completely unrelated to anything discussed in this thread it actually is (I'm sure there are better places to discuss this particular topic).

otherwise i really dont need a daddy but thanks anyway - i find your comments incredibly rude and purposefully degrading and quite the contrary to your last sentence which calls for discussion > i dont think you are modeling any kind of way to be open to discussing at all

M'kay, thanks for sharing.

as for your argument re the road i think it would not hold up in court as the road builder would never be held responsible > so in the US the state certifies roads afterwords so the state agency in the US anyway would be liable so...

Okay, so the party responsible for the road. Fine by me -- in the case of software that would be the party that sub-licenses/sells it further. So not the guy who wrote the code for Microsoft, but Microsoft as the vendor (at least from the end-user perspective).

attacking someones form in an argument is really easy and doesnt show an expansive form from the attacker it just shows they lack a formidable argument and hence they loose credibliity and dont engage ethics which is really sad

On the other hand, requiring the other party to an argument to formulate their thoughts clearly and intelligibly helps the discussion and allows for better understanding, and better argumentation. I fail to see how asking you to write in a more clear manner, especially on a list many subscribers of which are not native English speakers, is an "attack on a form". Can we now please leave the linguistics and nationalities behind us and focus on what could be more aptly considered on-topic here? -- Pozdr rysiek

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:

... disclosure post-statute-of-limitations, but even this protection seems meager and risky.

for the permanent record: this is no admission of wrong doing, even long past. merely distance from perceived wrong doing that led to opportunities for counter surveillance. it is these technical surveillance aspects worth discussing...

How about a disclosure post-mortem, cant be sued, jailed or assets frozen then. Its maybe an interesting thought if there are some quite old or life-threated medical problems people who coincidentally are subject to gags or self-imposed silence for personal safety for things they strongly feel should be in the public knowledge.. Adam On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 08:04:44PM -0600, brian carroll wrote:

coderman wrote: Â

i am exploring a gambit for disclosure post-statute-of-limitations, but even this protection seems meager and risky.

(that is a beautiful idea)

Dnia wtorek, 7 stycznia 2014 16:30:35 demonfighter6 . pisze:

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

...

Seems like the original hackers lost that etymology battle however long

ago.

Yes, annoying though that may be to those of us who were called hackers before that became a bad thing. But we're outnumbered thousands-to-one, and we're just not going to win that language war.

Interestingly, in Poland we seem to be having some successes at getting our positive "hacker" term back. There had been several mainstream media bits (radio, papers) using the term correctly or even explaining the correct (i.e. positive) meaning. And I believe we need to fight for that term, as if we don't, we'll lose every otehr term just like that. Consider "hacktivism" -- a new term and already "stolen"/smeared. We need our language and we should fight for it.

... Unless the technically adept were to bring the systems crashing down and let the technically inept freeze and starve to death.

... But that would be a Naughty Thing, and not something I'd ever condone. And just ignore the sig I've been using for over a decade.

Mheh. Keep calm and neca eos omnes? ;) -- Pozdr rysiek

From: James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> Cc: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:10 PM Subject: Re: hacker != cracker (Re: Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon) On 2014-01-08 07:20, Adam Back wrote:

...

Hacker in the sense of cracker was a later and much hated co-option and perversion of the term.  I expect that's what Rysiek was reacting to partly.

The term hacker first appears 1975 - 1985, shortly after the start of the information epoch, the age of information starting by convention 1972 January first.

The term was originally an epithet, but not for criminal behavior: http://books.google.com/books?id=vpGNJfMmFswC&pg=PA32

At that time, 1980, a hacker was someone who programs for entertainment - badly.

See    http://tmrc.mit.edu/hackers-ref.html      Tech Model Railroad Club           Jim Bell ================quote follows=================== We at TMRC use the term "hacker" only in its original meaning, someone who applies ingenuity to create a clever result, called a "hack". The essence of a "hack" is that it is done quickly, and is usually inelegant. It accomplishes the desired goal without changing the design of the system it is embedded in. Despite often being at odds with the design of the larger system, a hack is generally quite clever and effective. This original benevolent meaning stands in stark contrast to the later and more commonly used meaning of a "hacker", typically as a person who breaks into computer networks in order to steal or vandalize. Here at TMRC, where the words "hack" and "hacker" originated and have been used proudly since the late 1950s, we resent the misapplication of the word to mean the committing of illegal acts. People who do those things are better described by expressions such as "thieves", "password crackers". or "computer vandals". They are certainly not true hackers, as they do not understand the hacker ethic. Also see the definition of "hacker" in the on-line version of the New Hacker's Dictionary. Reference info related to TMRC This section lists books and other major publications that reference TMRC. The Tech Model Railroad Club is featured as the first chapter of Hackers, by Steven Levy (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984). It is credited as one (possibly the primary) source of the Hacker Culture the book describes. Several entries in The New Hacker's Dictionary, (Second Edition, edited by Eric S. Raymond (MIT Press, 1993); ISBN 0-262-68079-3) are derived from Abridged Dictionary of the TMRC Language. There is also an online version of the book's content. The cover article in Railroad Model Craftsman, July 1986 was a preview of the club for the 1986 NMRA convention held in Boston. A converted copy of the text we submitted is available online. ________________________________ Tech Model Railroad Club of MIT Room N52-118 265 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 +1 617 253-3269 x3-3269 (on campus) Email: tmrc-web@mit.edu Generated Wed 08 Jan 2014 02:28:19 AM EST in 0.0 secs

On 08/01/14 07:05, James A. Donald wrote:

On 2014-01-08 04:51, rysiek wrote:

...

Neither does it fit 1. -- he did not break any kind of security systems, cracked passwords, etc., he just put a laptop on a network that had access to these documents and downloaded the documents. That's all.

You are perhaps saying it frequently requires no skill, other than fraud or burglary, to muck up someone else's network. Indeed it does not.

Nonetheless, mucking up someone else's network by such simple means is hacking in the first meaning of the word, hacking as an aggressive or criminal act.

Because hacking from a distance requires skill, particularly if a network has some halfway competent defenses, the word "hack" has also come to mean some impressively clever stuff done with computers, but the original meaning was simply bad stuff done by computer - and, in the early days of the internet, it was possible to do bad stuff by computer with very little skill.

And even today, it is possible to do bad stuff by computer with very little skill if one physically accesses a network that is not intended or expected to be accessed by outsiders. im not so sure hacking ever meant simply doing bad stuff with a computer. (if you take your lexicon from the main stream media perhaps but its simply not true.) making stuff do things it was not intended to do would be much closer to the original and correct definition of the term "hacking"

Dnia środa, 8 stycznia 2014 05:44:39 James A. Donald pisze:

On 2014-01-08 04:29, Cari Machet wrote:

...

he was very careful in other work of this kind why would he b so sloppy this time

Arrogance.

Just look at his face.

JUST LOOOK AT HIIIS FAAAAACE!! JUST LOOOOK AT IIIIIIT! Now there's a line of argumentation that is bound to be convincing!

Also, fan of David Foster Wallace. No one reads David Foster Wallace except for ruling class cred, or to understand the madness of the ruling class - usually, for ruling class cred.

Is this how I get my ruling class cred? This seems simple enough. Where can I obtain works by this David Foster Wallace you refer to? :) -- Pozdr rysiek

On 2014-01-08 06:02, Adam Back wrote:

I imagine its all out there on the wikis or interwebs, thats where I read it, so here I am just repeating what was written about extensively at the time. From memory there was some escalation. He was detected, blocked, reacted (mac tumble etc) blocked again,

The reason Aaron Swartz was repeatedly detected and repeatedly blocked was because of the crudity of his attack:(sequential downloads at maximum speed, disrupting JSTOR with excessive load) Had he rate limited his downloads to avoid disrupting the network, and hidden the sequential nature of his downloads through a random permutation, he would have been fine. No one competent to detect him and block him would have cared enough to do so.

then proceed to enter presumably restricted areas, hide equipment to bypass limits the admins had placed only on wifi users

Aaron Swartz entered the closet where the networks were all wired up together, and wired his laptop to the network, in the process bringing JSTOR services to MIT a sudden grinding halt and adversely affecting JSTOR services to the rest of the world.

James, again thanks for alerting: <Snowden, on the other hand, did. There are striking similarities between Swartz's expectations and Snowden's. Swartz came to believe from multiple dissenting actions which received praise and admiration from journalists, mentors. co-conspirators, colleagues, friends and lovers that he was on the right track, a bright young man putting his skills to noble use. When the federal axe came down by instigation of "noble" institutions and ignoble publishers, armed with copyright weapons of mass disruption, these supporters went runnng, not at first, only after severe threats of punishment of economic, personal and career damage were applied. So far Snowden has had the exact same treatment, even a lover or two, salacious rumors imply, pillow talk revelations a fave of the TLAs in all nations and sysadmin covens. While Swartz did not have the global acclaim of Snowden, the parties involved are behaving in quite similar ways to Swartz's case, and it behooves pardon legal behooves, to watch his ass as time goes by and threats of sigmatization and prosecution are issued by spies, gov, courts and prosecutors, (threats still looming for Gonggrijp, Appelbaum, Jonsdottir, Barrett Brown and those ratted by Sabu, others unknown) especially for threats aimed at devoted supporters, one by one in secret, not all of whom are wholly devoted for the long run. So it was with Swartz and other sacrificial lambs so it will be for whoever falls for the bait and switch so formulaic in media world. There are also considerable similarities for Manning, Anonymous and a slew of whistleblowers, a fair number of them winding up in jail, Others were turned into informants, some of identified others still confidential. These propects have been amply covered here and it is to be expected that disavowals of support, "needs killing," will be uttered formulaicly as Ayn Rand fountainheaded. What is admirable, and deserves thanks, is that the stream of Swartzs and Snowdens seems to be increasing, fewer are running away when the axe is raised. Why in a couple of cases the axe was deployed verily where the plan was hatched to politicize Swartz's assassination. And how will Snowden be protected from political assassination? That is how will he be protected from media homicide?

As I am fond of remarking, Bill Ayers can bomb the Pentagon, but you cannot. Swartz thought he was Bill Ayers.