Matej Kovacic said:

...

He was still arrogant and badly behaved. You are talking about NSA? :-)

+1 It's a bit of a hollow insult to call an individual working for the public good arrogant, when there's a morass of unethical asshats who are far more deserving of that descriptor. ~Griffin

 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?

...

...

Needed killing.

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

I don't like our ruling elite. I particularly and especially dislike members of our ruling elite, such as Aaron Swartz and Henry Louis Gates, who are obnoxiously arrogant about being members of the ruling elite.

On Jan 6, 2014, at 5:53 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

Needed killing

Fine tradition of that expression around here, or used to be, anyway… Cheers, RAH

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. Many sysadmins are under lifetime secrecy for cooperation against the public, and each other. NSA, CIA, FBI, NGOs, coms, edus, entrepreneurs could not do what they do without sysadmins. Same goes for most comsec experts, crypto experts, technical experts. Experts like those used to be here but most went over to specialized fora which avoid "politics" to simulate political involvement in order to rat on the public, and each others, to maximize their income sysadmining mercilessly, amorally, without ethics, without oversight, "out of control." James Donald like others here is in a bind. He knows the villainy of sysadmins and comsec experts, but needs the dirty money. So he pretends to be hard-hearted. Forgive him succumbing to the power of economics, for double-talking fork-tongued dual-hatted dual-use palaver. Also known as Thatcher-Reaganomics in which the accumulation and concentration wealth is fundamental religion far more potent than democracy, islamicism, al-qaeda, militarism, tea partyism, leakism. Some cybertech wizards, sysadmins and comseckers, caught a wave with cybersec. Trained themselves, got help from hackers and others, got training at cybersec schools and gov agencies, got hired for impressive pay, got awards for and against the public, gradually became encrusted with cybersec layerings which involve a witch's brew of deception, pretense, fear-mongering, half-assed comsec, apologias, exculpations, blame-gaming, snot-nosed arrogance, false modesty, lurking, put-downs, all the crafts of sneak-thieves and politicians who loved their skullduggery. Some are famous for the shit they spread. And rightly so, this is the way of empires, now digital, now totally digitally spying, now doing what empires do, calling their product what the little people need, executing the few little people like Swartz who not only call their bullshit what it is but take action to replace it with much healthier than bribegivers and bribetakers will ever cut loose. At 11:32 AM 1/6/2014, you wrote:

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.

shut the fuck up who is arrogant (and simplistic)? u On 1/6/14, James A. Donald 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.

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 Sent from my iPhone On 07.01.2014, at 12:50, Adam Back 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.

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 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 Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:18:49AM -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote:

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...

Sure has. Welcome back to the party RAH :) Bitcoin aka actual digital bearer certs & mostly irrevocable but not quite blind ecash deployed, Snowden triggered NSA self-sabotage to unwind the post-911 privacy pall, mountains of evidence that the most paranoid cypherpunk imaginations are fully real and worse, US security researchers and journalists taking overseas residence to escape harrassment or worse. Interesting time for enciphering cypherpunkly minds.

Tim was right. Some people *do* need killin’. In fact, I would presume he meant *me*, more than once or twice...

Heh, thats probably true given in your own propensity to engage in fun flame wars :) Adam

Yeah I think this might be a claim by Charlie Stross to having outed T C May's blog nom-de-plume, or not; its ambiguous. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-di... The article itself is a Charlie Stross bitcoin-hate diatribe. Amusingly bitcoin bounced back to $1000 since his doom and gloom of "$500 and falling" and I personally just bought more at the nice price of $390 and $500, having confidence in the long term value of the new digital scarcity commodity class, and its now approximately double that, put in yer pipe Strossy. (Its not like fiat doesnt have problems and having banksters eat a largely unearned big % portion of GDP doesnt exactly benefit society and isnt green either, they could be doing societally useful work instead). I happened to notice the T C May reference in the Stross replies to comments number 15: | Bitcoin to me looks more like the work of one of the scary-bright early | 1990s cypherpunks -- I've heard Nick Szabo mentioned as a possible "true | name" for "Satoshi Nakamoto". (I'm pretty sure it's not the work of he | who goes by the handle Mencius Moldbug these days -- he has his own | politically-disruptive software project on the go -- or Tim May or, or, | um, blanking on names.) not sure if that means he thinks Moldbug is May or the "or" means other person rather than other name. Take a gander at the prose style on Mencius Moldbug's political rants form your own opinion. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ Adam On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 07:39:51AM -0800, gwen hastings wrote:

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.’

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 ) And TC May loves to spoof the gullible and journalists(hmm equivalent?) gh - who was the person standing behind the photog at the wired cypherpunk cover photo shoot. ps what the fuck have you or Carl contributed youngster? On 1/7/14 7:37 AM, Patrick Mylund Nielsen wrote:

...

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Adam Back 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 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.

-- 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.’

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Again you just dont get it.. fucking contribute..something other than hot air criticizing others words other than that your reputation capital is entirely negative and you need to report to the NSA organ bank for processing fucking kids GH - -- 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.’ Tentacle #99 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSzClwAAoJEKiRFbpCqiTVnTIP/33Qy3bYCZjGS/y5Tzts9A59 p2/XlmUTddWPSX+bJF+tQToZtHzbiwDryMxWBspyX25A07SGw9MpZYNksRlcscA7 pvPu9ITkH2ZN7+lkbcWL1RMXh0l13Dgt5mhbQhpFXkoLl8lYIAvxRNLSYenL5CCx 9XqOwDWPgKOWbwQQRDcYHOx8uUgsoaua7+aCmSvt4S7Y82lk4hhtG+7nU2j0hSFQ 1HIzum13dXhqLuIWKGQnxqKLjgjLBtOREy/FSJc1Pq0/zpUdydo3WrYTXcjt8mJv 7xW1n98D5u+6MEbGp/ZalTQfMJtg/tppg0rxL8de+8lQ7mZw1vA+bpd+3knmdIF3 VF5fDiMWtVNN1THnNX8gJjxw/IjOowGqJn45UflKe0IKS7HGPBAWziZb1gF07Vyh jYc7VNL9k97WtPwNDNitXzNU9mgFDRkXPCyII716b0+mw/Ig5Sb6HTPl/EWupEe5 UA2ZhIbhjykuDMhSK7KicyCAKl/Nay1KH2YvZN2wZY65tWYT4i42rXuz8ZoPnDRl CpXs+vYsBDZsfgO64kvkg7aKfFbEUBFqR2TRU3abpTMmQIT57QaBURxSzM4Vq/l0 YuLg2Muf686D2qoDW7VHjJ3aQ9BYb1fvzPgpo0twLDILj1Bx3+P///0FPp9vb3CD p4p5qZVu+SnPITdFL4T3 =WkuB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I wrote:

Alinsky's tactics are intended to be used by smart white males to manipulate people that Alinsky regarded as dumb sluts and niggers

This claim requires more justification than I gave it. Obviously Alinsky would never use language that demeans women or black people. His language not only implies that women and blacks are equal to white males, but that they are more equal than black males. And yet, somehow, strangely, when he gives concrete and specific examples of the use of his tactics, it is a white male doing the manipulation, and women, blacks, and poor people being manipulated.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Adam Back wrote:

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).

Point taken.

On 2014-01-07 21:50, Adam Back wrote:

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.

If an ordinary person engages in physical intrusion to hack someone else's network, he is going to get in trouble. Why is anyone shocked that Swartz got in trouble? Why was Swartz shocked that he got in trouble? This was not civil disobedience, it was the arrogance of ruling class mentality. Swartz did not expect that his actions would have the consequences that they would have for an ordinary person. Snowden, on the other hand, did. As I am fond of remarking, Bill Ayers can bomb the Pentagon, but you cannot. Swartz thought he was Bill Ayers.

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 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.

On 1/7/14, Adam Back 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 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 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 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.

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

Dnia wtorek, 7 stycznia 2014 20:09:09 Cari Machet pisze:

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?

Nope. One can be breaking a user agreement by being 13 and having a Twitter account -- is that a hack?

plus they were all scuuurrred he was going to leak the docs he downloaded so.... thats kind of a hack

"He was going to" != "he did".

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

I'm sorry, I am unfamiliar with the word "umn".

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 ???

Ah, "hacking the system" is what we all do, what the whole NoisySquare thing was at 30C3, etc. Is that something evil? Is that something to be "killed" for?

heres some wordy words mayb u wld like to read re aarons work with others

https://public.resource.org/crime

Well, I couldn't have put it better myself: "Aaron didn’t break into JSTOR, he used a valid JSTOR guest account available on the MIT campus, which runs an open network. Had he downloaded 1 article every day for 4.8 million days, there would have been no problem. Had he downloaded 100 articles every day for 48,000 days, that would have been fine as well, nobody would have noticed. But he downloaded 4.8 million articles in 100 days. Somewhere between 100 articles a day and 48,000 articles a day, Aaron crossed an invisible line."

hope it is very cold in poland and you are incredibly unhappy > berlin is nice

Very warm here, increadibly warm I would say for this time of year. And no snow whatsoever. I mean, we're at +8°C during day, -1°C at night. Say "hi" to all your buddies from the States from me. ;) -- Pozdr rysiek

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. 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.

James A. Donald pisze:

...

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 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 "On Saturday, October 9, we again detected rapid downloading, this time at an even faster rate. The downloading overloaded several servers, disrupting access to JSTOR for users beyond MIT." What led to his arrest was that he physically entered the building, and physically entered the closet where their network was connected up, and physically messed with their network wiring to attach his laptop http://cryptome.org/2013/01/swartz/mit-closet-swartz.htm Burglary and physical damage. Which physical damage led to network dysfunction. Tracing the network failure, the sysadmins found his alterations to their network, and left the laptop where it was, placing a camera near the closet to detect the criminal's return to pick up the laptop. In due course, Aaron Schwarz shows up on video picking up his laptop. The sysadmins never displayed much interest in the fact that he had earlier illegally downloaded huge numbers of articles. They got pissed, and he got charged, for entering the building and messing with their wiring. If he had kept his downloads non disruptive by limiting the download rate, by being furtive as Edward Snowden was furtive, no one would have bothered - and proof of this is that they did not bother. He wanted to smack their faces with the fact that he was ruling class and they were mere minions, that the laws of the ruling class are for the little people, not for members of the ruling class.

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:54 AM +1000 "James A. Donald" wrote:

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.

That is bullshit.

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.

Apparently it can indeed be argued that he wanted to become part of the ruling class. Cathal Garvey said as much, if I read him correctly. 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? Then again, the vast majority of self-described libertarians I now are actually conservatives...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:14 PM +1000 "James A. Donald" wrote:

"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

That's a link to jstor. Irrelevant.

...

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.

Only when 'private property' is subordinated to FREEDOM. >

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,

You're just a right winger, not a libertarian. Right wingers are always babbling about how bad democrats are while commiting the same crimes.

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,

fucking conservative statists - and lapdogs of anglo-american fascism.

and colorfully dramatized by Ayn Rand.

fucking americunt fascist.

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:13 PM -0800 Al Billings wrote:

What exactly is it that you believe in, Juan?

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

From: Juan Garofalo Juan Garofalo

fucking americunt fascist

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:32 PM -0800 Al Billings 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. =[ 

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

There are those who believe something, and therefore will tolerate nothing; and on the other hand, those who tolerate everything, because they believe nothing. -- Robert Browning

On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:07 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:

fascism

Communist loan-word. ;-) Cheers, RAH

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae 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

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet 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 wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae 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.

--On Thursday, January 09, 2014 3:09 AM +0100 Cari Machet wrote:

the notion that an idea of private property as all encompassing is banal > there are no absolutes

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

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 wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet 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 wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae 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 Thursday, January 09, 2014 4:10 AM +0100 Cari Machet wrote:

On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo 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 -

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

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

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?

so there are people that give food away for free right now today > why would they do that?

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

...

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.

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

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

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? 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...)

the only thing that the monsanto mafia manufactures is patents =P

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. 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)

...

...

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 wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet 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 wrote:

...

--On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae 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...

On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Cari Machet 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

heres some latest news on property rights trumps all stuff #CFAA http://hackread.com/hacker-arrested-for-exposing-rape-case-faces-more-jail-t... On 1/9/14, Cari Machet wrote:

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 wrote:

...

On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Cari Machet 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.

-- 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 08:11, Cari Machet wrote:

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

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

Have you ever wondered why whenever you guys succeed in doing away with private property, you wind up having to murder a sizable proportion of the population? I don't suppose you have, but if anyone does wonder, see my explanation "Why socialism needs killing fields" http://jim.com/killingfields.html

From: James A. Donald To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 10:14 PM Subject: Re: Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon (Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany - Aaron Swartz) "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.

    It is interesting that Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, made a plot line out of "Rearden Metal", a mostly-copper alloy said to have been developed by Henry Reardon over a period of 10 years.  I was never a Randian ("Randroid"), realizing I was a libertarian before even having heard of Rand.  Occasionally I have met libertarians who don't like the idea of "intellectual property".  It is quite true that the large majority (80%?) of US patents should be labelled as 'patent noise': patents unworthy of being granted, mostly because they are obvious to persons skilled in the area of the invention.  But I think most people, including many libertarians, are of the opinion that  _worthy_ inventors should be rewarded somehow.  The current US plan (harmonized with European laws in early 1990's) of granting a 20-year monopoly seems okay by me.     Full disclosure:  I am an inventor, having invented the "semiconductor disk" in the summer of 1980 (Google "SemiDisk")    see the "non-patent references" in  http://www.google.com/patents/US5602987, (Google "Semidisk disk emulator")  and an infrared flashing device to turn red traffic lights to green traffic lights in 1990 (popularized by other manufacturers in the early 2000's), and most recently an isotope-modified optical fiber. See  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2013101261A1.html      I never attempted or intended to obtain a patent on the SemiDisk (I didn't think it was worthy of a patent:  It was 'obvious' to a person of ordinary skill in the area of computer-based electronics), nor my traffic-light changer.  In fact, in 1984 the Oregon Legislature made it illegal to possess or use a traffic light changer, and by early 2000's the Federal government made sales or use of such a device illegal.  See 18 U.S.C. 39.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39       Of course, my 'Assassination Politics' essay may ultimately be considered my most important 'invention', although I did not fully describe how it would be implemented.  (I knew in 1995 that the invention of some form of digital cash would be necessary, and Bitcoin partly fills that bill, especially anonymized with Zerocoin;  and the TOR network has made a major advance in implementing that idea. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination-...    )      And, while I was unaware of Tim May's 'anonymous assassination contracts' ('abhorrent markets') at the time I wrote the first part of the AP essay, I must give him credit for thinking of that concept.  (In 1995, my only knowledge of 'Tim May' was that he had been a famous Intel employee in Santa Clara California, at the time I was a highly NON-famous Intel employee in Aloha Oregon.  (Summer of 1980 to the first week of 1982).         Jim Bell

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 ... 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 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.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Adam Back 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. ... 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. -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209

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. Probably the biggest risk is the incompatibility of real-space bragging rights to the discovery for people who like to speak at conferences. Adam

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. 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. 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.) 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). 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. Adam On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:29:58PM +0100, rysiek wrote:

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

On 1/8/14, rysiek wrote:

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

FASCISM -- 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.

ok mayb i was a little over zealous > i am native american prone to being close to life > 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 ???? plus it opens the door for other opensource 'heretical' laws to be promulgated on the citizenry for its 'protection' On 1/9/14, rysiek wrote:

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

...

On 1/8/14, rysiek wrote:

...

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

FASCISM

Fascinating assertion.

-- 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.

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 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 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... 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 1/9/14, rysiek wrote:

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

-- 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 Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Adam Back wrote:

... 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).

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.

my comment was in reference to the prosecution of a guy for merely calling himself a hacker, e.g.: https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/XBhgQ72UP83 "" ... accused of: threatening national security by open-sourcing a network visualization and whitelisting tool.... "" ... and ""hacker" admission on defendants website" !!! also, http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131022/13260324972/govt-contractor-uses-c... http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/10/25/developers-computer-seized-becaus... the only reliable way to avoid retribution and arbitrary prosecution seems to be: stay off the radar! but this runs counter to the need, as you describe, for "brave canaries with squeaky clean reps". i am exploring a gambit for disclosure post-statute-of-limitations, but even this protection seems meager and risky.

coderman wrote:

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 czwartek, 9 stycznia 2014 12:03:57 Adam Back pisze:

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..

How can you ensure that: 1. the message/material will in fact get published? 2. the messenger (the person actually publishing the data) is not "shot" (jailed, etc.) 3. your family will not feel repercussions? You could try ensuring 1. and 2. with a digital dead man's switch; the problem, of course, lies with ensuring that such a scheme would in fact work, and that it would not kick in before you are really dead (as opposed to "gone off the grid for 6 months"). The 3rd point is the really tricky one, I guess -- if, of course, you have a family. -- Pozdr rysiek

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. In 1983, http://books.google.com/books?id=dGloQlpCO_4C&pg=PA532 a hacker is someone whose interest in programming has damaging consequences for his social life and social skills, but he is a very good programmer. Then we hear that the original hacker was the phone phreak captain crunch, implying that a hacker is someone who breaks into other people's systems to take control of other people's stuff, generally to give himself free stuff. "High noon on the electronic frontier", a 1996 book, talks about rehabilitating the term, and complains that "hacker" "carries the image of persons who are dangerous" (page 151) So, evidently, the term was in need of rehabilitation. In 1996, esr owns the term, and gives it a positive meaning. So, hackers were something bad, then something criminal, and then, in 1996, we had a hacker pride movement, with esr as the key figure. Hence, esr, for all his faults, is generally regarded as the prophet of the programming subculture. But, before he was prophet, needed his people to be in bondage so that he could lead them out of bondage.

On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:10 AM, James A. Donald wrote:

The term hacker first appears 1975 - 1985

I think Levy might beg to differ: http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Computer-Revolution-Anniversary-Edition/dp/144... Something about hacking the wires under the train layout at the MIT model railroad club in the 1950’s. They started to use electronic switching to move the trains around. Then they started picking locks to get at the phone junction boxes… Heh. Foo comes from about that time, too. Cheers, RHA

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. 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.

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 07:29:00PM +0100, Cari Machet wrote:

...

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?

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, then proceed to enter presumably restricted areas, hide equipment to bypass limits the admins had placed only on wifi users, and still download the heck out of it. It was a big risk and not very smart move. What do you think a competent sysadmin would do about on on going security investigation in that situation - try to find the equipment or say "on noes the hacker is too smart for us - we capitulate". So they found the equipment, called the local cops, and found Aaron when he came to collect the equipment. Its not as if he asked their permission, nor that they knew it was someone even authorized to be on campus or to use JSTOR. Once that happened it spiraled out of control, even though several influential faculty knew Aaron, and as I recall his father also worked there; and various people caved or chickened out of supporting him from what others said on this threa, and the guy was like depressed obviously about this situation. From robin hood white knight hacktivist to soon to be felon with soulless politicaly motivated fed prosecutor trying to make an example of him by twisting the max out of some already egregious laws. So yes I am against the state subsidized "copyright" censorship of some bit strings, patents and monstrosities like CFAA, so I support Aaron's political objective of his hactivism target there (and on the previous one) but Aaron did screw up a bit also. Maybe he got the wrong message from dodging a justice system bullet on the previous succesful hactivism with the legally liberated tax payer owned legal dox. Adam

At 02:31 AM 1/8/2014, James A. Donald wrote:

Aaron Swartz entered the closet where the networks were all wired up together, and wired his laptop to the network...

I haven't seen anyone here dispute that he entered the physical premises and physically connected to the network. While you've been at it though, you've attributed motive and imposed a revealing lexicon on a framework that does not readily support it. Thereby casting yourself in a bad light. Some examples: At 07:36 PM 1/5/2014, James A. Donald wrote:

...He thought himself ruling class and those whose network he disrupted the ruled.

At 09:10 PM 1/5/2014, James A. Donald wrote:

...rather than as one of the ruling class who rules over US subjects...

... At 07:29 PM 1/7/2014, James A. Donald wrote:

He wanted to smack their faces with the fact that he was ruling class and they were mere minions, that the laws of the ruling class are for the little people, not for members of the ruling class.

That's 3 "Aw Shit"s since the 5th and there are more hidden by the ellipsis, you'd better can it and start earning some more Attaboys. --ue

At 06:50 AM 1/7/2014, Adam Back wrote:

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

Is it no-longer true that one "Aw shit" cancels out 1,000 Attaboys? Put another way, stopped clocks might tell the correct time twice a day but that is irrelevant. The thing to know about stopped clocks is that they are stopped. --ue