Fw: Re: Assange Superseding Indictment
list may know of a copy, somewhere? :P not arguing against the life destroying pressure. but no sympathy for smug fuck you after the fact... ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, June 29, 2020 7:51 AM, Digitalfolklore <digitalfolklore@protonmail.ch> wrote:
Sabu posted a pic...made a bet with Jester...he also posted a blockchain address...
see if thats around...Sabus twitter was cloned...take the S out of anonymous...add Sabu and you';ll have the clone.
Also important to remember Biella Coleman met with Sabu more than once. I 'll leave that for you to work out.
It is important to remember when your family are heroin dealers and you're the only family member not in jail...you will do anything to save the children...Sabu was in the wrong poke at the wrong time. He should have been more careful...ever notice that lovely iMac in pics? There were other suspect accounts...wikileaks called out AnonIRC
Sabu was known in the local area as a home panel beater...he made videos on YT showing how to fix bent fenders....he 'was' well known in the area. VH
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 26 June 2020 7:52 AM, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:50 PM, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote: ...
it should be noted in 2011 at DEF CON Sabu the rat fuck was helping FBI NatSec "hack the hackers" using DirtBoxes with custom exploit chains.
to be clear: Sabu didn't help write the hacks, only told them where to point. Sabu more script kiddie than exploit dev...
best regards,
Assange is probably the most interesting subject in terms of Cypherpunk movement. The paradox of Assange. While Cypherpunks are advocating privacy for the "ordinary people" (e.g. the John Does), Assange denied the right to Governments to have as well privacy. This may look as a joke that governments should have as well privacy and not been open (and 'opened') but when you think about it, there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in einenAbgrundblickst, blickt derAbgrundauch in dich hinein' , in other terms if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you. That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too comfortable.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, June 29, 2020 7:51 AM, Digitalfolklore <digitalfolklore@protonmail.ch> wrote:
Sabu posted a pic...made a bet with Jester...he also posted a blockchain address...
see if thats around...Sabus twitter was cloned...take the S out of anonymous...add Sabu and you';ll have the clone.
Also important to remember Biella Coleman met with Sabu more than once. I 'll leave that for you to work out.
It is important to remember when your family are heroin dealers and you're the only family member not in jail...you will do anything to save the children...Sabu was in the wrong poke at the wrong time. He should have been more careful...ever notice that lovely iMac in pics? There were other suspect accounts...wikileaks called out AnonIRC
Sabu was known in the local area as a home panel beater...he made videos on YT showing how to fix bent fenders....he 'was' well known in the area. VH
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 26 June 2020 7:52 AM, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:50 PM, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote: ...
it should be noted in 2011 at DEF CON Sabu the rat fuck was helping FBI NatSec "hack the hackers" using DirtBoxes with custom exploit chains.
to be clear: Sabu didn't help write the hacks, only told them where to point. Sabu more script kiddie than exploit dev...
best regards,
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +0000 таракан <cryptoanalyzers@protonmail.com> wrote:
Assange is probably the most interesting subject in terms of Cypherpunk movement.
The paradox of Assange. While Cypherpunks are advocating privacy for the "ordinary people" (e.g. the John Does), Assange denied the right to Governments to have as well privacy. This may look as a joke that governments should have as well privacy
certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government criminals for instance.
and not been open (and 'opened') but when you think about it, there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein' , in other terms if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too comfortable.
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +0000 таракан <cryptoanalyzers@protonmail.com> wrote:
Assange is probably the most interesting subject in terms of Cypherpunk movement.
The paradox of Assange. While Cypherpunks are advocating privacy for the "ordinary people" (e.g. the John Does), Assange denied the right to Governments to have as well privacy. This may look as a joke that governments should have as well privacy
certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government criminals for instance.
Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
and not been open (and 'opened') but when you think about it, there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein' , in other terms if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too comfortable.
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;) As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally inevitable without public oversight.
As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over others.
It's a dangerous view... so unless you're totally inoffensive, you have no right to privacy ? Actual system think also about the same ...
So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally inevitable without public oversight.
Governments are not necessary at all if we consider a population where *each individual* can self-govern itself. So far you can't get x people, make them live together without conflicts, hate, jealousy, conspiracy etc... it's human nature. Here the point I think would be more to protect oneself to be spied by governments rather than to spy on governments. To be able to live - simply to live in freedom - without tracking, constraints, control, monitoring (not only from Gov but also from other people acting as if they were the Government) is a terrible challenge nowadays. No need to go and try to hack the secrets of corporations.(which BTW have not so big secrets ...) Possibly a new form of resistance will be to try to simply ... live in a world shaped by global video-monitoring, paranoia, fear, controls, distrust, etc... Live without having to wear masks to get food or money. Live without having to make selfie of your ass to get a phone number. Life without the fear to get video-monitored by the iPhones of people in secret. Life without having to show your ID at anytime to anyone dressed in something looking as a uniform with insignia. Yet it is claimed that a society without control would result in a large criminal world where several mafias would rule and you would fear to get wounded or killed at any corner of the street. But 'Mafia' is also and before all a 'society' of control. Their controls are far more cruel than anyone can imagine. All this isn't new, the "game changer" is technology which provide evil governments the way to make the planet as a giant 'supermax'. Once again, this is probably where Cypherpunks, or others who still may have to come, may have a role to play as well... because this is all about technology (and the science behind)... one can fight against technology of controls (gps/sim/ai/pki/...) only by using an equivalent - if not superior - technology in order to defat these technologies of control.
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:54:00AM +0000, таракан wrote:
As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over others.
It's a dangerous view... so unless you're totally inoffensive, you have no right to privacy ?
Actual system think also about the same ...
So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally inevitable without public oversight.
Governments are not necessary at all if we consider a population where *each individual* can self-govern itself. So far you can't get x people, make them live together without conflicts, hate, jealousy, conspiracy etc... it's human nature.
Here the point I think would be more to protect oneself to be spied by governments rather than to spy on governments.
To be able to live - simply to live in freedom - without tracking, constraints, control, monitoring (not only from Gov but also from other people acting as if they were the Government) is a terrible challenge nowadays. No need to go and try to hack the secrets of corporations.(which BTW have not so big secrets ...)
Possibly a new form of resistance will be to try to simply ... live in a world shaped by global video-monitoring, paranoia, fear, controls, distrust, etc...
Live without having to wear masks to get food or money. Live without having to make selfie of your ass to get a phone number. Life without the fear to get video-monitored by the iPhones of people in secret. Life without having to show your ID at anytime to anyone dressed in something looking as a uniform with insignia.
Yet it is claimed that a society without control would result in a large criminal world where several mafias would rule and you would fear to get wounded or killed at any corner of the street.
But 'Mafia' is also and before all a 'society' of control. Their controls are far more cruel than anyone can imagine.
All this isn't new, the "game changer" is technology which provide evil governments the way to make the planet as a giant 'supermax'.
Once again, this is probably where Cypherpunks, or others who still may have to come, may have a role to play as well... because this is all about technology (and the science behind)... one can fight against technology of controls (gps/sim/ai/pki/...) only by using an equivalent - if not superior - technology in order to defat these technologies of control.
Defeating the authority/ power/ control of another, even the very concept, gives some implicit, even explicit, recognition and engagement of that other, involvement in bringing closer to my heart it's evil. Try as I might, the paradox dominates me, smashing the fabric of thought itself no the rocks of apparent certainty... It is not fighting and defeating we must seek - in fact the opposite since defeating includes "may be being defeated", so this is tacit (or worse) consent to the war, is it not personal involvement, recognition , and wringing every ounce of life out of this war, so "real" there is no other life ... then .. no life ? ?? This thinking we have is entrained over millenia - we must instead ditch "drone" thinking. Push against wall makes wall heavy, ignore wall it does not have so much existence in my consciousness. Application of this principle is the riddle in a rhyme in a conundrum of uncertainty but hope for an alternative to this war.. If "to fight" begats war, we must not fight, at least not for "to fight the good fight" alone in that there we die .. fruitless. But what then? Plug holes in bucket? create loopholes for a few? Wherefore what for ought we do? Tis evidently not so easy to know what to do? Is it a secret? Perhaps yes -and- no. Can our entrained, enschooled, ensheepled think, be a primary barrier to our living in freedom? Is "MY mind" the ultimate virus? Is it "I"? What clouds my mind so, that I struggle so, to think outside the box, the war, the ever present evil in "others" "out there", ever never blame within? Johnathan briefly shook in fear as he contemplated the unending unfathomables, sinking once more into his trancelike apoplexy as he again held the table for it's feigned succour of external support - yet a physical, so temporary illusion of solidity which immediately began slipping again from his awareness and reality. ...
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:05:50 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +0000
certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government criminals for instance.
Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
I can rephrase and avoid moral terms : if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't then object when they are treated in the same way.
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...
As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally inevitable without public oversight.
Agreed. No privacy for government agents seems fair to me. If they don't like it, they can get a honest job.
On 07/01/2020 02:19 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:05:50 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +0000
certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government criminals for instance.
Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
I can rephrase and avoid moral terms :
if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't then object when they are treated in the same way.
Exactly :)
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...
Sure, if "pay" includes death ;)
As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally inevitable without public oversight.
Agreed. No privacy for government agents seems fair to me. If they don't like it, they can get a honest job.
Right :) But "government" is also ambiguous. I mean, I live on an old farm with several hundred others, with sociocratic governance.
if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't then object when they are treated in the same way.
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...
There's a territory where such things can be debated everyday in real conditions, it's the D.N.R (DPR in English). In that territory, no such words as yours are used for nothing because they mean exactly what they mean. Yes, vengeance - vendetta - against such Gov agents (funded and trained by the CIA), as you described, is there every day and shared among most - if not all - of the population. Frankly speaking, there's nothing romantic - as you could have expected - and just plain and endless Gore and Horror ( at least in the 'conflict' zones ) in such a way that it ended becoming almost comical. I've never been in the USA (fortunately) but I am sure that the police and security forces there are extremely dangerous, over-weaponized, unpredictable and frankly speaking they seem to have 'a licence to kill' whoever they like (or more precisely whoever they dislike). I wouldn't want to go there because what happens if you are forced to fight such police ? Whatever, there are no fights without an army - it's just called a massacre.
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 23:38:35 +0000 таракан <cryptoanalyzers@protonmail.com> wrote:
if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't then object when they are treated in the same way.
take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be.
I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...
There's a territory where such things can be debated everyday in real conditions, it's the D.N.R (DPR in English). In that territory, no such words as yours are used for nothing because they mean exactly what they mean. Yes, vengeance - vendetta - against such Gov agents (funded and trained by the CIA), as you described, is there every day and shared among most - if not all - of the population.
Frankly speaking, there's nothing romantic - as you could have expected - and just plain and endless Gore and Horror ( at least in the 'conflict' zones ) in such a way that it ended becoming almost comical.
yeah, I wasn't thinking of it in romantic terms. Rather I was commenting on the justice side of things.
I've never been in the USA (fortunately) but I am sure that the police and security forces there are extremely dangerous, over-weaponized, unpredictable and frankly speaking they seem to have 'a licence to kill' whoever they like (or more precisely whoever they dislike). I wouldn't want to go there because what happens if you are forced to fight such police ?
yeah, that sounds like a fair description of the US police state. However I'd point out that cops and soldiers are despicable cowards. They do what they do only because they know they are better organized than their victims. It takes many cops to attack a single victim.
Whatever, there are no fights without an army - it's just called a massacre.
Well, what's needed is some critical mass of people with some degree of coordination, not necessarily an army.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 12:52 AM, таракан <cryptoanalyzers@protonmail.com> wrote: ...
there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in einenAbgrundblickst, blickt derAbgrundauch in dich hinein' , in other terms if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too comfortable.
this is the moral hazard of hacking: spend time violating technical boundaries, it becomes too easy to apply this tactic in all areas of life. given the overlapping set of cypherpunks and hackers, i see a similar siren song at play: gird yourself for battle against governments, and find yourself isolated in your all encompassing protections; alienating the very font of our own humanity... as you say, easy to cast stones from a safe distance. our turn in the crucible might be next! best regards,
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:18:22PM +0000, coderman wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 12:52 AM, таракан <cryptoanalyzers@protonmail.com> wrote: ...
there is that sentence from Nietzsche that says 'Wenn dulange in einenAbgrundblickst, blickt derAbgrundauch in dich hinein' , in other terms if you fight monsters, do not become one yourself and if you look deep into the abyss, the abyss also looks deep into you.
That say making lessons to the one who is rotting in jail is a bit too comfortable.
this is the moral hazard of hacking: spend time violating technical boundaries, it becomes too easy to apply this tactic in all areas of life.
given the overlapping set of cypherpunks and hackers, i see a similar siren song at play: gird yourself for battle against governments, and find yourself isolated in your all encompassing protections; alienating the very font of our own humanity...
as you say, easy to cast stones from a safe distance. our turn in the crucible might be next!
For someone in contact with JA's legal team, perhaps the legal application of "unclean hands" might be useful: When the prosecution comes to the table with unclean hands, where does the law lie? The prosecution/USA gov (and steps in the system itself): - attempted, quite apparently, to entrap Assange first into Sweden - at multiple times, in and out of court, JA has been denied his own paperwork - the UK Judge who was shown publicly to be with a conflict of interest, yet continued to preside over the case on multiple appearances - the evident coercion put upon Manning, of an extra year's jail after she was pardoned - all that cross jurisdictional "USA is the policeman of the world" bullshit Perhaps others can think of more. I am concerned that JA's defence lawyer is now WAY too close to home, and that she may no longer see the obvious for whatever reasons. Even for those who so crave the "rule of law", to be "hung on the tree of the law" (Galations) rather than to hang by his own conscience and God alone, well, the law, as drudgery as it is, to be at all meaningful to anyone with half a conscience, must be founded in basic principles of justice at the very least, such as fairness and no abuse of process, the principle of "unclean hands". e.g. so OK, the US Gov insists on "holding JA to account according to various strict and cross-jurisdictional applications of law" (and rather shockingly, public murmerings on this list that JA must contiue to do pennance, continue to atone for his evils and wrongs, to do more time in maxi), but IN THAT SAME principle, the prosecution must (if justice is to be seen to be done), allow Julian due process, documents, the time he needs for legal attack against the prosecution etc - in short, the prosecution, to not be seen to be biased, must simultaneously prosecute itself, for all its misdeeds and unclean hands. There is only one possible principle upon JA's neck which can be said to be moral or karmic: not "national security", not "muh state secrets", and not (it seems) any of the charges being brought against him (but note that I don't know the list of charges, and the US prosecution seems to be ambushing in various ways with new charges over time).
participants (5)
-
coderman -
Mirimir -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness -
таракан