We cypherpunks live by the saying "cypherpunks code". But isn't it time for more than just coding? We're in a very real digital war for the freedom of the Internet, similar to what we faced in the 1990's but with even more at stake and a better funded, better equipped enemy. Isn't it time for infiltration? The cypherpunk community has some of the best tech people (not just programmers) out there. We could easily get jobs within government agencies and then help exfiltrate data out of them into the hands of the public of civil rights agencies like the ACLU in America. I understand how distasteful working in the belly of the beast might be but isn't it one of the most needed things cyperpunks can do right now?
On 01/20/14 15:19 +0100, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
We cypherpunks live by the saying "cypherpunks code". But isn't it time for more than just coding? We're in a very real digital war for the freedom of the Internet, similar to what we faced in the 1990's but with even more at stake and a better funded, better equipped enemy.
I'm not sure if you're referring to net neutrality (free market issue) or NSA cable taps. The later is fixable to some degree by coding, the former requires legislative access (money) to influence in the short term (in the US).
Isn't it time for infiltration? The cypherpunk community has some of the best tech people (not just programmers) out there. We could easily get jobs within government agencies and then help exfiltrate data out of them into the hands of the public of civil rights agencies like the ACLU in America.
The ACLU is unlikely to get into the Wikileaks business.
I understand how distasteful working in the belly of the beast might be but isn't it one of the most needed things cyperpunks can do right now?
It's time to win the public brain trust war. Leaks, in the last year, have done much to shift public opinion, and will likely continue to help tremendously. That will only get us so far (in the US). We (the larger tech community) need to cash in that momentum and turn that into political change, particularly at the legislative level. However, that path needs charismatic leaders, i.e. Lawrence Lessig, to actually run for office.
Dan White wrote:
The ACLU is unlikely to get into the Wikileaks business.
No org headed by a lawyer will break the law, on the contrary will enforce it stringently, above and below the table. Nor will a journalist working for a commercial outlet. The perks of privilege for both industries are just too beneficial. (WikiLeaks was taken over by lawyers and journalists precursing Snowden's takeover.) Oh, and they shop clients and sources through confabs in chambers and consultation with officials, and, really nasty, by access to classified and secret information. Does that sound like dual-use comsec, yes, that is what it is.
I understand how distasteful working in the belly of the beast might be but isn't it one of the most needed things cyperpunks can do right now?
It's time to win the public brain trust war. Leaks, in the last year, have done much to shift public opinion, and will likely continue to help tremendously. That will only get us so far (in the US). We (the larger tech community) need to cash in that momentum and turn that into political change, particularly at the legislative level. However, that path needs charismatic leaders, i.e. Lawrence Lessig, to actually run for office.
Far too many lawyers are in government. Push some techs. Go crazy, push a bunch of cryptographer. Not those under control of in thrall to lawyers. Any of those charismatics untethered? Coda: IANAL is never to be flashed as a sign of cowardice, brain-washing, intimidation, ignorance. It's other side of the king's coin of Godwin's Law.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Dan White wrote:
change, particularly at the legislative level. However, that path needs
charismatic leaders, i.e. Lawrence Lessig, to actually run for office.
leaders??? aarrrghhh lawrence has substance besides being able to orate? > show me there are many solutions many many problems > a major one is the neo-liberal capitalist state is alive and well in you and i > hacking that is not easy the wikileaks capitalistic blob embound by fierce ego w/out ethics is but one example of the blindness levels of intellect that are socially engineered to be very low - in the US particularly - suck life out so making a big data drop - as ellsberg learned - on a public with no brain tells the powers they have succeeded in their disgusting social engineering ever tried speaking to a wall? the solutions are constant and findable ... everyday moving toward them ... in estonia they passed a law where 1st graders have to learn code ... now to implement the law.... -- 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 01/20/14 17:19 +0100, Cari Machet wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Dan White wrote:
change, particularly at the legislative level. However, that path needs charismatic leaders, i.e. Lawrence Lessig, to actually run for office.
leaders??? aarrrghhh
Charisma is needed to implement true change within our *existing* government. Anarchy is an equally valid alternative path to true freedom, but not one that am a proponent of.
lawrence has substance besides being able to orate? > show me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig I picked him as an example, since he's fairly well known, and has been thrown around as a potential congressional candidate, or an employee of the executive branch. He's someone with potential to change the legal landscape in a significant way. Unfortunately he chose the route to change the process rather than implement direct change (by becoming elected), which has been a failure to date.
there are many solutions many many problems > a major one is the neo-liberal capitalist state is alive and well in you and i > hacking that is not easy
No, it's certainly not. This is where having good leadership helps. Much in the way that coding is action in our community, becoming elected (implementing law) is action in the political world, and nothing can be done to change our government than to elect ~like minded individuals.
the wikileaks capitalistic blob embound by fierce ego w/out ethics is but one example of the blindness
levels of intellect that are socially engineered to be very low - in the US particularly - suck life out so making a big data drop - as ellsberg learned - on a public with no brain tells the powers they have succeeded in their disgusting social engineering
I have a much higher opinion of the American public. The problem isn't that we have too much influence over our government, but not enough. The ultimate fix is to somehow replace our legislative branch with true democracy.
ever tried speaking to a wall?
the solutions are constant and findable ... everyday moving toward them ... in estonia they passed a law where 1st graders have to learn code ... now to implement the law....
-- Dan White
This how Cryptome got its first contributions from this cave. And still does along with a long list of others. WikiLeaks and Snowden the best yelled about, but far from disclosing the most information which is done quietly and without "batshit" hyperbole and vulgar braggardy. Excessive publicity is verily an indication that something is not right. Claims of needing journalism and slow drips to hold public attention are merely monetizing justifications. Biblical fundamentalism. And may be much worse, as in the Snowden case, a rationale for not releasing information except to a few selected abusers, journalistic, technical and political "freedom of informaton." In the bogosity of "doing no harm to national security" just like secretkeepers who use that exact lingo. Not to say that the holy trinity of abusive comsec, protected media and secretkeeping are avoidable as globalism's deitific market riggers. At 09:19 AM 1/20/2014, you wrote:
We cypherpunks live by the saying "cypherpunks code". But isn't it time for more than just coding? We're in a very real digital war for the freedom of the Internet, similar to what we faced in the 1990's but with even more at stake and a better funded, better equipped enemy.
Isn't it time for infiltration? The cypherpunk community has some of the best tech people (not just programmers) out there. We could easily get jobs within government agencies and then help exfiltrate data out of them into the hands of the public of civil rights agencies like the ACLU in America.
I understand how distasteful working in the belly of the beast might be but isn't it one of the most needed things cyperpunks can do right now?
From: Anonymous Remailer (austria) <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
We cypherpunks live by the saying "cypherpunks code". But isn't it time for more than just coding? We're in a very real digital war for the freedom of the Internet, similar to what we faced in the 1990's but with even more at stake and a better funded, better equipped enemy. Isn't it time for infiltration? The cypherpunk community has some of the best tech people (not just programmers) out there. We could easily get jobs within government agencies and then help exfiltrate data out of them into the hands of the public of civil rights agencies like the ACLU in America. I understand how distasteful working in the belly of the beast might be but isn't it one of the most needed things cyperpunks can do right now?
Obviously, this is a well-meaning idea. However, I wonder how 'efficient' such a tactic would be. It might take years for a person to get into a position to be able to obtain and leak information. And, the longer a 'mole' stays, the more he will become dependant on that government. And, let's not fall into the trap of assuming that everyone who works for a government agrees with the policies and practices of that government. If we guesstimate that 1% of (current) government employees would be sufficiently unhappy to do such leaks, the main thing that's necessary to do is to somehow add additional inducement: To reward them for exposing that government. If Snowden or Manning, or both, get a well-publicized $5 million reward, that would invigorate a lot of similar people to do similar things. What's desirable would be a kind of anonymous reward system to allow ordinary people to reward the leakers. I haven't read enough about the origins of Wikileaks to know whether such a system was ever contemplated. Jim Bell
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
Obviously, this is a well-meaning idea. However, I wonder how 'efficient' such a tactic would be. It might take years for a person to get into a position to be able to obtain and leak information. And, the longer a 'mole' stays, the more he will become dependant on that government. And, let's not fall into the trap of assuming that everyone who works for a government agrees with the policies and practices of that government. If we guesstimate that 1% of (current) government employees would be sufficiently unhappy to do such leaks,
right you ask the ones already in to act exactly and there have been 'a lot' lately relatively speaking... i think also a major problem in this is getting caught esp after the snowden thing they are (probably) hyper vigilant - though i am sure sloppy as hell still... as they are want to be also do note that whistleblowers often go to their managers and higher ups and complain about the government breech and no one listens so... it is a very long process
If Snowden or Manning, or both, get a well-publicized $5 million reward, that would invigorate a lot of similar people to do similar things. What's desirable would be a kind of anonymous reward system to allow ordinary people to reward the leakers.
thats an amazing idea
I haven't read enough about the origins of Wikileaks to know whether such a system was ever contemplated. Jim Bell
hahahhah thats a funny one
you understand he pledged a mere 100,000 to mannings defense [just his defense not him] then gave 15,000 -- 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 Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
somehow add additional inducement: To reward them for exposing that government. If Snowden or Manning, or both, get a well-publicized $5 million reward, that would invigorate a lot of similar people to do similar
And interesting idea to be sure. Though while you could easily enough verifiy the data/leaker and arrange payment semantics, there does not at this moment seem to exists a suitably anonymous pay system for even $100kUSD other than a briefcase in the woods, bitcoin appears to be balance trackable at that level and it's useless to the leaker if they can't deposit or draw on it.
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:05 PM Subject: Re: Infiltration / Exfiltration On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
somehow add additional inducement: To reward them for exposing that government. If Snowden or Manning, or both, get a well-publicized $5 million reward, that would invigorate a lot of similar people to do similar
And interesting idea to be sure. Though while you could easily enough verifiy the data/leaker and arrange payment semantics, there does not at this moment seem to exists a suitably anonymous pay system for even $100kUSD other than a briefcase in the woods, bitcoin appears to be balance trackable at that level and it's useless to the leaker if they can't deposit or draw on it.
One obvious problem with "money for leaks" is that, who decides what a given leak is worth? So, fixed prices are probably out. But, the actual leak can be posted, and the potential donors will decide what they will give. As I recall, one problem with the Wikileaks system was that its ability to collect donations (through credit cards) was impeded. Presumably, Zerocoin will shortly become available for truly anonymous donations. But, it occurs to me that even though the leaker should be able to collect the reward truly anonymously, perhaps it should be documentable the fact that he/she actually obtained that amount, for the encouragement of future, potential leakers. Could the donations/rewards go through the leak-organization in a pseudonymous (at least) fashion, and then be given to the anonymous leaker, in a way that is documented sufficiently so that people considering becoming leakers are aware of the actual rewards being given? Jim Bell
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
And interesting idea to be sure. Though while you could easily enough verifiy the data/leaker and arrange payment semantics, there does not at this moment seem to exists a suitably anonymous pay system for even $100kUSD other than a briefcase in the woods, bitcoin appears to be balance trackable at that level and it's useless to the leaker if they can't deposit or draw on it.
One obvious problem with "money for leaks" is that, who decides what a given leak is worth? So, fixed prices are probably out. But, the actual leak can be posted, and the potential donors will decide what they will give. As I recall, one problem with the Wikileaks system was that its ability to collect donations (through credit cards) was impeded. Presumably, Zerocoin will shortly become available for truly anonymous donations. But, it occurs to me that even though the leaker should be able to collect the reward truly anonymously, perhaps it should be documentable the fact that he/she actually obtained that amount, for the encouragement of future, potential leakers. Could the donations/rewards go through the leak-organization in a pseudonymous (at least) fashion, and then be given to the anonymous leaker, in a way that is documented sufficiently so that people considering becoming leakers are aware of the actual rewards being given?
I think because you as leak recipient could defraud the leaker of their efforts by unwrapping and placing your own identity stamp on the leak, the leaker would have to publish the leak themselves with their own ID stamp into say a new time-secure blockchain dedicated to leaking. Then the payment board would examine the chain for prior leaks of the same material and award payment to the first such leaker. If for some reason the leaker cannot leak to the chain, such as with inconceivably digitizable/transferable materiel, they must obviously establish the traditional trust mechanisms with their receiving/publishing partner who will enter leaker's leak and ID in such chain as proxy. Deciding what a leak is worth could be done in the usual AP fashion by donating to classes of leaks. Blockchain systems already have some N of M signature requirements to release funds. Zerocoin or some anon payment is still needed. And payment to leakers ID would show up for verification in that system.
participants (6)
-
Anonymous Remailer (austria) -
Cari Machet -
Dan White -
grarpamp -
Jim Bell -
John Young