On 09/11/2020 09:51, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2020-11-09 01:46, Robert Hettinga wrote:

...

...the President.

He’s gotten outta weirder shit than this.

Well he did have a good start - his dad Fred effectively gave him about 3 billion when he was alive through low interest loans, and left him another billion. 4 billion in Manhattan property at 1990 prices = about 20 billion today; yet he's either broke or nearly broke now.. It might be time to pay the piper now.

...

*munches popcorn…*

:)

Trump has been preparing for

s/for/an unprecedented and extraordinary fraud for

some time, and preparing for civil war for over a year.

Except I suppose it's not that extraordinary, Trump is well over 50% fraud anyway. Fraudulently claiming election fraud is a criminal offense. And it doesn't seem to be working. What odds he suicides before February? Peter Fairbrother

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 9, 2020 12:33 PM, Karl wrote:

... I believe we need to set a norm of everyone using pseudonymous identities, and accessing networks via difficult-to-identify means.

The reason is that there are a wide variety of community groups right now, looking for ways to break up and add stress to other community groups. If random people can't associate your name with things as easily, you, your community, and your work, are safer.

What are your thoughts?

this is a great approach! the problem is: you need to begin this isolation *before* you need it. the typical scenario is using only modest protections, getting involved in activism, and then discovering your protections inadequate. once your activism and identity are compromised, it is *very* hard to undo the damage. you must *start over* with a new digital identity, adhering to operational security always. maybe move town, maybe move countries. even Barton Gellman had a hard time with this - always keeping his laptop with him like a digital albatross; always protecting passphrase input with blankets and towels; always separating untrustworthy files on isolated machines. and on and on and on and ... good luck! best regards,

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:19 PM coderman wrote:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 9, 2020 12:33 PM, Karl wrote:

...

... I believe we need to set a norm of everyone using pseudonymous identities, and accessing networks via difficult-to-identify means.

The reason is that there are a wide variety of community groups right now, looking for ways to break up and add stress to other community groups. If random people can't associate your name with things as easily, you, your community, and your work, are safer.

What are your thoughts?

this is a great approach! the problem is: you need to begin this isolation *before* you need it.

For people to do that, we need an environment of spreading it, no? Also re-iterating that new people, without the resources of government surveillance, are recruited to find people of different persuasions and effect their lives.

the typical scenario is using only modest protections, getting involved in activism, and then discovering your protections inadequate.

I saw a zine in virginia a couple years ago, about new activists getting targeted. The targeters would focus on the areas without experienced activism; higher return. (i am not connected with activism these years)

once your activism and identity are compromised, it is *very* hard to undo the damage. you must *start over* with a new digital identity, adhering to operational security always. maybe move town, maybe move countries.

I used to find this easy to do on the internet, but never did it in face-to-face interactions. You have to tell people with confidence you have a different name. There are two concerns: if you are targeted, your communities could become targeted if you're not anonymous. This prevents their work. Meanwhile, if you become a critical worker among a targeted community, you could become targeted. This ruins your life forever.

even Barton Gellman had a hard time with this - always keeping his laptop with him like a digital albatross; always protecting passphrase input with blankets and towels; always separating untrustworthy files on isolated machines. and on and on and on and ...

good luck!

How do you feel about spreading the message of not using your legal name? I took the opportunity to express this, because nobody else is.

best regards,

I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county,

because there wasn't any fraud. Trump is just a loser. He lost his first election and he lost this one as well. so one is trump ordering his armies to 'fight for justice'?

On Monday, November 9, 2020, 10:52:01 AM PST, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county,

 >   because there wasn't any fraud.  How do you know this?   Maybe you can say, "we don't know if there has been fraud".  But that's not the same thing.