On 01/20/2014 09:17 AM, John Young wrote:
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.
I'm talking about something slightly different here. With most of the information on Cryptome, it looks like someone came across some information and decided to exfiltrate it. They probably weren't deliberately looking for it or had joined the agency for the specific purpose of having access to and leaking such information. In this case, I'm talking about actual infiltration: going in with the explicit purpose of betraying the secrecy of the organization and getting valuable data out of it.
Claims of needing journalism and slow drips to hold public attention are merely monetizing justifications. Biblical fundamentalism.
I too wish the leaks would come at a faster pace. But I don't think Snowden posting the leaks to, say, an FTP server somewhere would have got any response. There are too many leaks with too much technical jargon. Joe Average would have given up after the first four pages. What the Guardian and other media outlets are doing is making the information more accessible to people. I wish they'd do it more quickly, yes, but I do think there is some value in what they're doing.
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.
I'll admit here that I am not someone who believes that there should be no secrets. I do believe keeping certain things secret, at least for a little while, has value. But those things should respect civil and human rights and adhere to the principles of the Constitution. In too many cases, Snowden and Ellsberg being prime examples, official secrecy was used for no other reason than to cover up wrongdoing. The "national security" bullshit was just that - bullshit because they could. That's why I think we need more deliberate infiltrators. People who are well versed in the Constitution with a strong bend for civil and human rights. People who don't buy into the bullshit but also see value in some of the work being done. Someone who can filter through that and find what needs to be exposed while still protecting what shouldn't be.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:57:17PM +0100, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
On 01/20/2014 09:17 AM, John Young wrote:
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.
I'm talking about something slightly different here. With most of the information on Cryptome, it looks like someone came across some information and decided to exfiltrate it. They probably weren't deliberately looking for it or had joined the agency for the specific purpose of having access to and leaking such information.
In this case, I'm talking about actual infiltration: going in with the explicit purpose of betraying the secrecy of the organization and getting valuable data out of it.
Claims of needing journalism and slow drips to hold public attention are merely monetizing justifications. Biblical fundamentalism.
I too wish the leaks would come at a faster pace. But I don't think Snowden posting the leaks to, say, an FTP server somewhere would have got any response. There are too many leaks with too much technical jargon. Joe Average would have given up after the first four pages. What the Guardian and other media outlets are doing is making the information more accessible to people. I wish they'd do it more quickly, yes, but I do think there is some value in what they're doing.
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.
I'll admit here that I am not someone who believes that there should be no secrets. I do believe keeping certain things secret, at least for a little while, has value. But those things should respect civil and human rights and adhere to the principles of the Constitution. In too many cases, Snowden and Ellsberg being prime examples, official secrecy was used for no other reason than to cover up wrongdoing. The "national security" bullshit was just that - bullshit because they could.
That's why I think we need more deliberate infiltrators. People who are well versed in the Constitution with a strong bend for civil and human rights. People who don't buy into the bullshit but also see value in some of the work being done. Someone who can filter through that and find what needs to be exposed while still protecting what shouldn't be.
Let me posit that we need humans that act more like ethical beings, that have insights that go beyond the logic, rules, and reason that seem to, well, govern the keeping of secrets. I see a disturbing trend towards people who appear to be more human rule-and-emotional-reactivity execution units than empowered beings with free and unpredictable thought and discernment. The great thing that Snowden did was get more of the general public engaged and involved, and for the various types of infiltrators to have any lasting effect, there must be cypherpoliticians, architecting secure legal codes and blocking legislative trojans. Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game, but I think what we really need is some of that theory applied to Election politics, with some down-in-the dirt wrestling with campaign finance. We need cypherpunks pointing out the futility of more reactive campaign finance regulations that plug the holes we saw last year. We need speech, and code as speech, and a debate about does the First Amendment cover the right to speak in code, and does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia? Get the public engaged and involved again, and run for office, or go work for a campaign an do some analytics, and tell us the state-of-the art in modern election engineering.
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 23:29:46 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
Let me posit that we need humans that act more like ethical beings, that have insights that go beyond the logic, rules, and reason that seem to, well, govern the keeping of secrets. I see a disturbing trend towards people who appear to be more human rule-and-emotional-reactivity execution units than empowered beings with free and unpredictable thought and discernment.
The great thing that Snowden did was get more of the general public engaged and involved, and for the various types of infiltrators to have any lasting effect, there must be cypherpoliticians, architecting secure legal codes and blocking legislative trojans.
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game, but I think what we really need is some of that theory applied to Election politics, with some down-in-the dirt wrestling with campaign finance.
Oooooh. Oooh. "I just had a brainwave", to quote Chief Inspector Hubbard. How about use the very same mechanism as assassination market, but for voting? Betting on who will win the next election, generally or in a each district, etc? Creating cash incentives not for politicians (well, also, they could bet themselves after all!), but activists, or other people that might help get somebody elected? Pooling resources, but not in a candidate's pocket.
We need cypherpunks pointing out the futility of more reactive campaign finance regulations that plug the holes we saw last year. We need speech, and code as speech, and a debate about does the First Amendment cover the right to speak in code, and does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54 The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
Get the public engaged and involved again, and run for office, or go work for a campaign an do some analytics, and tell us the state-of-the art in modern election engineering.
+1 This modus operandi (get involved, get inside, change the game) worked great with blocking software patents in Europe years ago, worked similarly well with blocking ACTA in Europe. Had there been no "our people" in the bowels of the European Parliament, for example, it would be much harder or nigh impossible. -- Pozdr rysiek
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:32:53PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 23:29:46 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
Let me posit that we need humans that act more like ethical beings, that have insights that go beyond the logic, rules, and reason that seem to, well, govern the keeping of secrets. I see a disturbing trend towards people who appear to be more human rule-and-emotional-reactivity execution units than empowered beings with free and unpredictable thought and discernment.
The great thing that Snowden did was get more of the general public engaged and involved, and for the various types of infiltrators to have any lasting effect, there must be cypherpoliticians, architecting secure legal codes and blocking legislative trojans.
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game, but I think what we really need is some of that theory applied to Election politics, with some down-in-the dirt wrestling with campaign finance.
Oooooh. Oooh. "I just had a brainwave", to quote Chief Inspector Hubbard.
How about use the very same mechanism as assassination market, but for voting? Betting on who will win the next election, generally or in a each district, etc? Creating cash incentives not for politicians (well, also, they could bet themselves after all!), but activists, or other people that might help get somebody elected? Pooling resources, but not in a candidate's pocket.
This is a perfect example of "It's hard to understand something your salary (or campaign finances) depend on not understanding", cause I never saw this until you pointed it out. Fortunately I still have a few braincells that fired. This is brilliant... Get more money in politics, but in a way the politicians can never touch it. Oh sure, some will, but they will quickly be strung up by the 'clean campaigns' lynch mob.
We need cypherpunks pointing out the futility of more reactive campaign finance regulations that plug the holes we saw last year. We need speech, and code as speech, and a debate about does the First Amendment cover the right to speak in code, and does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54
The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
Except I get to play the "Farmers need open-source drones to keep those anti-GMO terr'ists out" police state card, and watch the competing interests tie themselves up in knots while activists download the code I use to "Protect America's Food" I think I need to have a conversation with my local sheriff and FAA folks on if 'Stand your Airspace' applies, or if they want to have fun with target practice if I start seeing undocumented drones. I also need a little advance warning to let the rednecks know when drone season starts, and distribute IFF scopes so they don't shoot down the ones with 1watt orange warning LEDs that are videotaping the amusement. It might be better to have the IFF scope send off a warning laser pulse first and all drones running released standards-compliant firmware drop out of the sky and the shooter gets a 'win', and save the kinetics for the drones that don't drop on request. Points for marked drones, cash for 'illegals', but only if you can find the flash memory chips. The NSA should probably figure out how to work with the FBI to make sure they are the highest bidder, in public, on the darknets, and most importantly, at the local gun/drone shop. Drone Registration should consist of posting your make, model, firmware image, and radio 'handle' on a public website. Geez, someone needs to make a game, cartoon, and video game out of this. The above concept is released to anyone under public domain. Have at it reality TV, you can call it "Drone Dynasty". Just give me a chance to test the software. I just want to send out the drones to check if my crop came up, or if I need to hook up the cultivator. The rest of this stuff is just a means to get an industry started to defend my ability to hack the code on my drones.
http://www.gameofdrones.biz/ they do their testing with 12 gauges at close range :) gh On 1/21/14 12:17 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:32:53PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 23:29:46 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
Let me posit that we need humans that act more like ethical beings, that have insights that go beyond the logic, rules, and reason that seem to, well, govern the keeping of secrets. I see a disturbing trend towards people who appear to be more human rule-and-emotional-reactivity execution units than empowered beings with free and unpredictable thought and discernment.
The great thing that Snowden did was get more of the general public engaged and involved, and for the various types of infiltrators to have any lasting effect, there must be cypherpoliticians, architecting secure legal codes and blocking legislative trojans.
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game, but I think what we really need is some of that theory applied to Election politics, with some down-in-the dirt wrestling with campaign finance.
Oooooh. Oooh. "I just had a brainwave", to quote Chief Inspector Hubbard.
How about use the very same mechanism as assassination market, but for voting? Betting on who will win the next election, generally or in a each district, etc? Creating cash incentives not for politicians (well, also, they could bet themselves after all!), but activists, or other people that might help get somebody elected? Pooling resources, but not in a candidate's pocket.
This is a perfect example of "It's hard to understand something your salary (or campaign finances) depend on not understanding", cause I never saw this until you pointed it out. Fortunately I still have a few braincells that fired.
This is brilliant... Get more money in politics, but in a way the politicians can never touch it. Oh sure, some will, but they will quickly be strung up by the 'clean campaigns' lynch mob.
We need cypherpunks pointing out the futility of more reactive campaign finance regulations that plug the holes we saw last year. We need speech, and code as speech, and a debate about does the First Amendment cover the right to speak in code, and does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54
The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
Except I get to play the "Farmers need open-source drones to keep those anti-GMO terr'ists out" police state card, and watch the competing interests tie themselves up in knots while activists download the code I use to "Protect America's Food"
I think I need to have a conversation with my local sheriff and FAA folks on if 'Stand your Airspace' applies, or if they want to have fun with target practice if I start seeing undocumented drones.
I also need a little advance warning to let the rednecks know when drone season starts, and distribute IFF scopes so they don't shoot down the ones with 1watt orange warning LEDs that are videotaping the amusement.
It might be better to have the IFF scope send off a warning laser pulse first and all drones running released standards-compliant firmware drop out of the sky and the shooter gets a 'win', and save the kinetics for the drones that don't drop on request. Points for marked drones, cash for 'illegals', but only if you can find the flash memory chips. The NSA should probably figure out how to work with the FBI to make sure they are the highest bidder, in public, on the darknets, and most importantly, at the local gun/drone shop.
Drone Registration should consist of posting your make, model, firmware image, and radio 'handle' on a public website.
Geez, someone needs to make a game, cartoon, and video game out of this. The above concept is released to anyone under public domain. Have at it reality TV, you can call it "Drone Dynasty". Just give me a chance to test the software.
I just want to send out the drones to check if my crop came up, or if I need to hook up the cultivator. The rest of this stuff is just a means to get an industry started to defend my ability to hack the code on my drones.
-- Tentacle #99 ecc public key curve p25519(pcp 0.15) 1l0$WoM5C8z=yeZG7?$]f^Uu8.g>4rf#t^6mfW9(rr910 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.’ https://github.com/TLINDEN/pcp.git to get pcp(curve25519 cli) https://github.com/stef/pbp.git (curve 25519 python based cli)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:44 PM, gwen hastings <gwen@cypherpunks.to> wrote:
http://www.gameofdrones.biz/ they do their testing with 12 gauges at
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game,
keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54
The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
No idea what kind of flight characteristics RC gear has, but someday someone's going to try loading them with munitions and taking out targets with them from far away. Even with RF jamming and hailfire on close approach they could counter with inertial autopilot, vertical guided payload drops from altitude, and redundancy. Maybe $1-5k per drone. Will it crop up as a rebirth of Mafia/Ghetto gangland violence? Corporate warfare? A political tool for anyone from nations to individuals? Nations seem to publicize who they bagged in theatre with drones today, but what if people just start dropping off? No longer are you going to find bits of $M cruise missle labeled USA but a bunch of Chinese toy parts (possibly flown at you while on holiday in Germany by a Korean funded by a Texan who didnt't like your oil contract in Canada). It's unbannable dual use leaving crazy movielike future bounded only by human nature. Next is radar based automatic rooftop shotgun mounts for the home, better buy stock in Mossberg.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:25:52PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:44 PM, gwen hastings <gwen@cypherpunks.to> wrote:
http://www.gameofdrones.biz/ they do their testing with 12 gauges at
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game,
keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54
The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
No idea what kind of flight characteristics RC gear has, but someday someone's going to try loading them with munitions and taking out targets with them from far away. Even with RF jamming and hailfire on close approach they could counter with inertial autopilot, vertical guided payload drops from altitude, and redundancy. Maybe $1-5k per drone. Will it crop up as a rebirth of Mafia/Ghetto gangland violence? Corporate warfare? A political tool for anyone from nations to individuals? Nations seem to publicize who they bagged in theatre with drones today, but what if people just start dropping off? No longer are you going to find bits of $M cruise missle labeled USA but a bunch of Chinese toy parts (possibly flown at you while on holiday in Germany by a Korean funded by a Texan who didnt't like your oil contract in Canada). It's unbannable dual use leaving crazy movielike future bounded only by human nature. Next is radar based automatic rooftop shotgun mounts for the home, better buy stock in Mossberg.
I expect suicide bombers will still be more effective, although now the bombers can fly 150 drones in formation to a target they can't physically get to and do some damage before they get droned themselves. Don't think TOR will help when the UN defense forces drop tungesten from orbit. Trying to hide is only going to get you AND the network you are hiding behind killed. That will be a faustian bargain for exit node operators.. censor/block/ limit known remote flight control traffic, or get bombed from orbit. Oh, and latency. Line-of-sight and theft of commercial aircraft is still going to be able to cause more damage. What I expect will be *far* more interesting will be the escalation in the seed-bombing wars.. http://www.guerrillagardening.org/ggseedbombs.html The geese already started it.. http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p213503-the-oregon-gmo-wheat-mystery:...
... It's unbannable dual use leaving crazy movielike future bounded only by human nature. Next is radar based automatic rooftop shotgun mounts for the home, better buy stock in Mossberg.
While you are considering this, facial recognition is feasible at 500 meters, iris recognition is feasible at 50 meters, and heartbeat recognition is feasible at 5 meters -- all in packages small enough to be part of use-once drones. As to dual use, when companies from Amazon to Dominos are delivering boxes by air, for which you confirm receipt at the door with your smartphone,... As to rooftops, http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Councilmember-Proposes-Crowdso... --dan
Dnia wtorek, 21 stycznia 2014 14:17:07 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:32:53PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 23:29:46 Troy Benjegerdes pisze:
Let me posit that we need humans that act more like ethical beings, that have insights that go beyond the logic, rules, and reason that seem to, well, govern the keeping of secrets. I see a disturbing trend towards people who appear to be more human rule-and-emotional-reactivity execution units than empowered beings with free and unpredictable thought and discernment.
The great thing that Snowden did was get more of the general public engaged and involved, and for the various types of infiltrators to have any lasting effect, there must be cypherpoliticians, architecting secure legal codes and blocking legislative trojans.
Assassination Politics is an interesting armchair quarterback game, but I think what we really need is some of that theory applied to Election politics, with some down-in-the dirt wrestling with campaign finance.
Oooooh. Oooh. "I just had a brainwave", to quote Chief Inspector Hubbard.
How about use the very same mechanism as assassination market, but for voting? Betting on who will win the next election, generally or in a each district, etc? Creating cash incentives not for politicians (well, also, they could bet themselves after all!), but activists, or other people that might help get somebody elected? Pooling resources, but not in a candidate's pocket. This is a perfect example of "It's hard to understand something your salary (or campaign finances) depend on not understanding", cause I never saw this until you pointed it out. Fortunately I still have a few braincells that fired.
This is brilliant... Get more money in politics, but in a way the politicians can never touch it. Oh sure, some will, but they will quickly be strung up by the 'clean campaigns' lynch mob.
Well, ideas are cheap, so if anybody feels compelled to implement that, go for it, it's Public Domain now. ;)
We need cypherpunks pointing out the futility of more reactive campaign finance regulations that plug the holes we saw last year. We need speech, and code as speech, and a debate about does the First Amendment cover the right to speak in code, and does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear a well-regulated open-source drone Militia?
Well, funny thing that. I wrote on it: http://rys.io/en/54
The tl;dr is -- even though traditional RC planes are better-fitted to be used as "terrorist tools" (faster, more load, etc), it's *copters that will get banned first, as they empower people to "watch the watchers".
Except I get to play the "Farmers need open-source drones to keep those anti-GMO terr'ists out" police state card, and watch the competing interests tie themselves up in knots while activists download the code I use to "Protect America's Food"
"The Police will handle that for you, Dear Farmer. Now hand over the drone that you no longer need. You're not a terr'ist, are ya?.." -- Pozdr rysiek
participants (6)
-
Anonymous Remailer (austria) -
dan＠geer.org -
grarpamp -
gwen hastings -
rysiek -
Troy Benjegerdes