Re: [Cryptography] Bruce Schneier has gotten seriously spooked
----- Forwarded message from Brian Gladman <brg@gladman.plus.com> ----- Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 09:33:28 +0100 From: Brian Gladman <brg@gladman.plus.com> To: Cryptography Mailing List <cryptography@metzdowd.com> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Bruce Schneier has gotten seriously spooked User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 On 07/09/2013 01:48, Chris Palmer wrote:
Q: "Could the NSA be intercepting downloads of open-source encryption software and silently replacing these with their own versions?"
Why would they perform the attack only for encryption software? They could compromise people's laptops by spiking any popular app.
Because NSA and GCHQ are much more interested in attacking communictions in transit rather than attacking endpoints. Endpoint attacks cost more to undertake, only give access to a limited amount of data and involve much greater risks that their attack will either be discovered or their means of attack will leave evidence of what they have done and how they have done it. The internal bueaucratic costs of gaining approval for (adverarial) endpoint attacks also makes it a more costly process than the use of network based interception. There is significant use of open source encryption software in end to end encryption solutions, in file archivers, in wifi and network routers, and in protecing the communications used to manage and control such components when at remote locations. The open source software is provided in source code form and is compiled from source in a huge number of applications and this means that the ability to covertly substitute broken source code could provide access to a huge amount of traffic without the risks involved in endpoint attacks. I stress that I am NOT suggesting that this has happened (or is happening), simply that it has attractions from an NSA/GCHQ viewpoint. Fortunately, I think it is a difficult attack to mount covertly (that is, without the acqiecience of the author(s) of the software in question). On the more general debate here, in my view, 'security for the masses' through the deployment of encryption is a 'pipe dream' that isn't going to happen. Functionality (and the complexity that comes with it) is the enemy of security and it is very clear that the public places a much higher value on functionality than it does on security (or privacy). Every time a new device comes onto the market, it starts with limited functionality and some hope of decent security but rapidly evolves to be a high functionality product in which the prospect of decent security declines rapidly to zero. Raspberry Pis look interesting _now_ but I would be willing to bet that they won't buck the trend of increasing funtionality and declining security simply because this is what the majority in even this limited user community will want. To buck this trend we need an effort like the Raspberry Pi effort but one driven by our community with a strong commitment to simplicty and deliberately limited functionality in both hardware and software. Brian Gladman _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5
What is striking about discussion on the two cryptography mail lists, both set up to minimize discussing political and social issues to avoid cypherpunks acceptance of them, is the tentative reconsideration of those issues due to Snowden's revelations, miniscule as they are. Notable among those raising the political threat are those who disdained the issue on cypherpunks and stomped off to set up alternatives ham-handedly moderated to cease and desist the "off-topic." A few now say, bray more like it, NSA has betrayed us through political manipulation of officials and the public, and that is an important point which often came up on cypherpunks and still does, with somewhat less complaining about it. For Snowden has shown the political has won out over the technical, and the technicals are fraught with what to do about it, and much fingerpointing is going on along with a few claims of having forewarned this betrayal would happen. No moderation yet has shut down this "off-topic." But much gumming and gnawing of the futility of technical means against the vulgar political. What has been shown in the discussion is that the technical wizards are not nearly as competent at the messy political as they are at technical sophistication. The resulting conversation is a mish-mash of fairly high level technical discourse interleaved with fairly clumsy political opinionating. So technical clubs are being swung to answer political jabs, that is petty squabblling and exchange of slurs has replaced rational discourse. Thus the convo has become politicized with as much stupidity and ignorance as sharp thinking and mutual respect. NSA and its bosses would be happy if this became the norm in cryptography as in the real world. And some opine that this outcome is being, and has been in the past, and will be in the future, orchestrated for just that result. That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics coated with unending challengences to implement illusory protection from political mayhem. So it has come to pass, there is no refuge from politics, and the once reviled tin-hats of conspiracy theories are replacing anomymous masks, especially by the best and brightest cryptographers who have been hoodwinked far more than dreamed of in earliest days of cypherpunks. Still, there are die-hard PR-driven comsec experts rolling out advice for what to do to protect the public -- meaning, cynically protecting their severely damaged reputation of "concern for the public interest (R)". Not yet willing to admit losing the comsec and privacy war so avidly promoted with HTTPS, SSL, PGP, PFS, OTR, Tor, on and on, they continue to hustle comsec customers with promises of here's what we have got to do, take it from us experienced veterans (read my remarks, hear my TV interviews, read my messages on cryptography, gorge on recyclings on Slashdot, Twitter, Reddit, Voice of America, EFF. Guardian, New York Times, ProPublica, ACLU, EPIC, on and on): Lo, special prosecute NSA, take it to the courts, a tired political gambit for media semaphoring, fund raising, conceding technical defeat and begging political rescue by what's that you say, account churning lawyers, political lobbyists and journalistic hacks. That is so obnoxious, murmurs the cryptography mail lists, so opportunistically off-topic, moderator do your censoring, let's get back to the good stuff. Despite the murmurrings there recurs calls for "cut the cowardly shit, let's fight." One guess who said that.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 6:12 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
... For Snowden has shown the political has won out over the technical, and the technicals are fraught with what to do about it,
the political is intertwined with the monetary, and the monetary is intertwined with the military/industrial/technological, and these further intertwined with the educational, and international non-profit stadardization-al, and ... the turtles go deeper. back again to the political. which is but one stop on the train of vulnerability, back upon itself, how do you fight this? a little bit at a time, here and there, across the boundaries. lest you lose your mind, considering the scope of it all. the clipper chip, after all, represents a failure in the political realm, which was then promptly remedied in the technical, judicial, and business realms.
... So it has come to pass, there is no refuge from politics,
indeed. worse yet, the politics of others directly impact the realities of us all. to fix our own political mess is not enough; all must be addressed...
Forwarding the following for our collective prayer: ----- Forwarded message ----- Could not, agree, more ! Identify yourselves, all defeatists, trolls, counter intelligence "professionals", cold water bots, and horsey nay sayers all polluting relevant, indeed dire discussion with distracts and "comedy" ! Better still, don't ! Read. Absorb. Imbibe. Then contemplate for at least three nights. Then, carefully, draft even the smallest, as long it be constructive. Then re-read that draft. Consider it be useful for those who might have but a small flame, that flame which might be gently fostered and fanned with others into a bright and future defining flame! And if your soul weeps for truth, for compassion as much as passion, warmth and empathy as much as strength and bold eclat, and with your humble words you have passed your own test, then post! Speak to this world which so desperately needs your care, your ability, your genuine contribution. anon On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 09:12:25AM -0400, John Young wrote:
What is striking about discussion on the two cryptography mail lists, both set up to minimize discussing political and social issues to avoid cypherpunks acceptance of them, is the tentative reconsideration of those issues due to Snowden's revelations, miniscule as they are.
Notable among those raising the political threat are those who disdained the issue on cypherpunks and stomped off to set up alternatives ham-handedly moderated to cease and desist the "off-topic."
A few now say, bray more like it, NSA has betrayed us through political manipulation of officials and the public, and that is an important point which often came up on cypherpunks and still does, with somewhat less complaining about it.
For Snowden has shown the political has won out over the technical, and the technicals are fraught with what to do about it, and much fingerpointing is going on along with a few claims of having forewarned this betrayal would happen. No moderation yet has shut down this "off-topic." But much gumming and gnawing of the futility of technical means against the vulgar political.
What has been shown in the discussion is that the technical wizards are not nearly as competent at the messy political as they are at technical sophistication. The resulting conversation is a mish-mash of fairly high level technical discourse interleaved with fairly clumsy political opinionating. So technical clubs are being swung to answer political jabs, that is petty squabblling and exchange of slurs has replaced rational discourse. Thus the convo has become politicized with as much stupidity and ignorance as sharp thinking and mutual respect.
NSA and its bosses would be happy if this became the norm in cryptography as in the real world. And some opine that this outcome is being, and has been in the past, and will be in the future, orchestrated for just that result.
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics coated with unending challengences to implement illusory protection from political mayhem. So it has come to pass, there is no refuge from politics, and the once reviled tin-hats of conspiracy theories are replacing anomymous masks, especially by the best and brightest cryptographers who have been hoodwinked far more than dreamed of in earliest days of cypherpunks.
Still, there are die-hard PR-driven comsec experts rolling out advice for what to do to protect the public -- meaning, cynically protecting their severely damaged reputation of "concern for the public interest (R)". Not yet willing to admit losing the comsec and privacy war so avidly promoted with HTTPS, SSL, PGP, PFS, OTR, Tor, on and on, they continue to hustle comsec customers with promises of here's what we have got to do, take it from us experienced veterans (read my remarks, hear my TV interviews, read my messages on cryptography, gorge on recyclings on Slashdot, Twitter, Reddit, Voice of America, EFF. Guardian, New York Times, ProPublica, ACLU, EPIC, on and on):
Lo, special prosecute NSA, take it to the courts, a tired political gambit for media semaphoring, fund raising, conceding technical defeat and begging political rescue by what's that you say, account churning lawyers, political lobbyists and journalistic hacks.
That is so obnoxious, murmurs the cryptography mail lists, so opportunistically off-topic, moderator do your censoring, let's get back to the good stuff. Despite the murmurrings there recurs calls for "cut the cowardly shit, let's fight." One guess who said that.
On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...
That's how ALL the problems start. Cloistering and it's whorehouse, Academia. Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his theoretical works he would have never cooperated. Don't be "Einstein". Rr
Forwarding the following for our collective prayer:
----- Forwarded message ----- Could not, agree, more !
Identify yourselves, all defeatists, trolls, counter intelligence "professionals", cold water bots, and horsey nay sayers all polluting relevant, indeed dire discussion with distracts and "comedy" !
Better still, don't !
Read. Absorb. Imbibe.
Then contemplate for at least three nights.
Then, carefully, draft even the smallest, as long it be constructive.
Then re-read that draft. Consider it be useful for those who might have but a small flame, that flame which might be gently fostered and fanned with others into a bright and future defining flame!
And if your soul weeps for truth, for compassion as much as passion, warmth and empathy as much as strength and bold eclat, and with your humble words you have passed your own test, then post!
Speak to this world which so desperately needs your care, your ability, your genuine contribution.
anon
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 09:12:25AM -0400, John Young wrote:
What is striking about discussion on the two cryptography mail lists, both set up to minimize discussing political and social issues to avoid cypherpunks acceptance of them, is the tentative reconsideration of those issues due to Snowden's revelations, miniscule as they are.
Notable among those raising the political threat are those who disdained the issue on cypherpunks and stomped off to set up alternatives ham-handedly moderated to cease and desist the "off-topic."
A few now say, bray more like it, NSA has betrayed us through political manipulation of officials and the public, and that is an important point which often came up on cypherpunks and still does, with somewhat less complaining about it.
For Snowden has shown the political has won out over the technical, and the technicals are fraught with what to do about it, and much fingerpointing is going on along with a few claims of having forewarned this betrayal would happen. No moderation yet has shut down this "off-topic." But much gumming and gnawing of the futility of technical means against the vulgar political.
What has been shown in the discussion is that the technical wizards are not nearly as competent at the messy political as they are at technical sophistication. The resulting conversation is a mish-mash of fairly high level technical discourse interleaved with fairly clumsy political opinionating. So technical clubs are being swung to answer political jabs, that is petty squabblling and exchange of slurs has replaced rational discourse. Thus the convo has become politicized with as much stupidity and ignorance as sharp thinking and mutual respect.
NSA and its bosses would be happy if this became the norm in cryptography as in the real world. And some opine that this outcome is being, and has been in the past, and will be in the future, orchestrated for just that result.
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics coated with unending challengences to implement illusory protection from political mayhem. So it has come to pass, there is no refuge from politics, and the once reviled tin-hats of conspiracy theories are replacing anomymous masks, especially by the best and brightest cryptographers who have been hoodwinked far more than dreamed of in earliest days of cypherpunks.
Still, there are die-hard PR-driven comsec experts rolling out advice for what to do to protect the public -- meaning, cynically protecting their severely damaged reputation of "concern for the public interest (R)". Not yet willing to admit losing the comsec and privacy war so avidly promoted with HTTPS, SSL, PGP, PFS, OTR, Tor, on and on, they continue to hustle comsec customers with promises of here's what we have got to do, take it from us experienced veterans (read my remarks, hear my TV interviews, read my messages on cryptography, gorge on recyclings on Slashdot, Twitter, Reddit, Voice of America, EFF. Guardian, New York Times, ProPublica, ACLU, EPIC, on and on):
Lo, special prosecute NSA, take it to the courts, a tired political gambit for media semaphoring, fund raising, conceding technical defeat and begging political rescue by what's that you say, account churning lawyers, political lobbyists and journalistic hacks.
That is so obnoxious, murmurs the cryptography mail lists, so opportunistically off-topic, moderator do your censoring, let's get back to the good stuff. Despite the murmurrings there recurs calls for "cut the cowardly shit, let's fight." One guess who said that.
unsubscribe
On 5 Sep 2016, at 18:13, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...
That's how ALL the problems start. Cloistering and it's whorehouse, Academia.
Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his theoretical works he would have never cooperated.
Don't be "Einstein".
Rr
Forwarding the following for our collective prayer:
----- Forwarded message ----- Could not, agree, more !
Identify yourselves, all defeatists, trolls, counter intelligence "professionals", cold water bots, and horsey nay sayers all polluting relevant, indeed dire discussion with distracts and "comedy" !
Better still, don't !
Read. Absorb. Imbibe.
Then contemplate for at least three nights.
Then, carefully, draft even the smallest, as long it be constructive.
Then re-read that draft. Consider it be useful for those who might have but a small flame, that flame which might be gently fostered and fanned with others into a bright and future defining flame!
And if your soul weeps for truth, for compassion as much as passion, warmth and empathy as much as strength and bold eclat, and with your humble words you have passed your own test, then post!
Speak to this world which so desperately needs your care, your ability, your genuine contribution.
anon
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 09:12:25AM -0400, John Young wrote:
What is striking about discussion on the two cryptography mail lists, both set up to minimize discussing political and social issues to avoid cypherpunks acceptance of them, is the tentative reconsideration of those issues due to Snowden's revelations, miniscule as they are.
Notable among those raising the political threat are those who disdained the issue on cypherpunks and stomped off to set up alternatives ham-handedly moderated to cease and desist the "off-topic."
A few now say, bray more like it, NSA has betrayed us through political manipulation of officials and the public, and that is an important point which often came up on cypherpunks and still does, with somewhat less complaining about it.
For Snowden has shown the political has won out over the technical, and the technicals are fraught with what to do about it, and much fingerpointing is going on along with a few claims of having forewarned this betrayal would happen. No moderation yet has shut down this "off-topic." But much gumming and gnawing of the futility of technical means against the vulgar political.
What has been shown in the discussion is that the technical wizards are not nearly as competent at the messy political as they are at technical sophistication. The resulting conversation is a mish-mash of fairly high level technical discourse interleaved with fairly clumsy political opinionating. So technical clubs are being swung to answer political jabs, that is petty squabblling and exchange of slurs has replaced rational discourse. Thus the convo has become politicized with as much stupidity and ignorance as sharp thinking and mutual respect.
NSA and its bosses would be happy if this became the norm in cryptography as in the real world. And some opine that this outcome is being, and has been in the past, and will be in the future, orchestrated for just that result.
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics coated with unending challengences to implement illusory protection from political mayhem. So it has come to pass, there is no refuge from politics, and the once reviled tin-hats of conspiracy theories are replacing anomymous masks, especially by the best and brightest cryptographers who have been hoodwinked far more than dreamed of in earliest days of cypherpunks.
Still, there are die-hard PR-driven comsec experts rolling out advice for what to do to protect the public -- meaning, cynically protecting their severely damaged reputation of "concern for the public interest (R)". Not yet willing to admit losing the comsec and privacy war so avidly promoted with HTTPS, SSL, PGP, PFS, OTR, Tor, on and on, they continue to hustle comsec customers with promises of here's what we have got to do, take it from us experienced veterans (read my remarks, hear my TV interviews, read my messages on cryptography, gorge on recyclings on Slashdot, Twitter, Reddit, Voice of America, EFF. Guardian, New York Times, ProPublica, ACLU, EPIC, on and on):
Lo, special prosecute NSA, take it to the courts, a tired political gambit for media semaphoring, fund raising, conceding technical defeat and begging political rescue by what's that you say, account churning lawyers, political lobbyists and journalistic hacks.
That is so obnoxious, murmurs the cryptography mail lists, so opportunistically off-topic, moderator do your censoring, let's get back to the good stuff. Despite the murmurrings there recurs calls for "cut the cowardly shit, let's fight." One guess who said that.
On 09/05/2016 08:39 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
unsubscribe
The bottom of the page Buhbye https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks
On 5 Sep 2016, at 18:13, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...
That's how ALL the problems start. Cloistering and it's whorehouse, Academia.
Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his theoretical works he would have never cooperated.
Don't be "Einstein".
Rr
Forwarding the following for our collective prayer:
----- Forwarded message ----- Could not, agree, more !
Identify yourselves, all defeatists, trolls, counter intelligence "professionals", cold water bots, and horsey nay sayers all polluting relevant, indeed dire discussion with distracts and "comedy" !
Better still, don't !
Read. Absorb. Imbibe.
Then contemplate for at least three nights.
Then, carefully, draft even the smallest, as long it be constructive.
Then re-read that draft. Consider it be useful for those who might have but a small flame, that flame which might be gently fostered and fanned with others into a bright and future defining flame!
And if your soul weeps for truth, for compassion as much as passion, warmth and empathy as much as strength and bold eclat, and with your humble words you have passed your own test, then post!
Speak to this world which so desperately needs your care, your ability, your genuine contribution.
anon
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 09:12:25AM -0400, John Young wrote:
What is striking about discussion on the two cryptography mail lists, both set up to minimize discussing political and social issues to avoid cypherpunks acceptance of them, is the tentative reconsideration of those issues due to Snowden's revelations, miniscule as they are.
Notable among those raising the political threat are those who disdained the issue on cypherpunks and stomped off to set up alternatives ham-handedly moderated to cease and desist the "off-topic."
A few now say, bray more like it, NSA has betrayed us through political manipulation of officials and the public, and that is an important point which often came up on cypherpunks and still does, with somewhat less complaining about it.
For Snowden has shown the political has won out over the technical, and the technicals are fraught with what to do about it, and much fingerpointing is going on along with a few claims of having forewarned this betrayal would happen. No moderation yet has shut down this "off-topic." But much gumming and gnawing of the futility of technical means against the vulgar political.
What has been shown in the discussion is that the technical wizards are not nearly as competent at the messy political as they are at technical sophistication. The resulting conversation is a mish-mash of fairly high level technical discourse interleaved with fairly clumsy political opinionating. So technical clubs are being swung to answer political jabs, that is petty squabblling and exchange of slurs has replaced rational discourse. Thus the convo has become politicized with as much stupidity and ignorance as sharp thinking and mutual respect.
NSA and its bosses would be happy if this became the norm in cryptography as in the real world. And some opine that this outcome is being, and has been in the past, and will be in the future, orchestrated for just that result.
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics coated with unending challengences to implement illusory protection from political mayhem. So it has come to pass, there is no refuge from politics, and the once reviled tin-hats of conspiracy theories are replacing anomymous masks, especially by the best and brightest cryptographers who have been hoodwinked far more than dreamed of in earliest days of cypherpunks.
Still, there are die-hard PR-driven comsec experts rolling out advice for what to do to protect the public -- meaning, cynically protecting their severely damaged reputation of "concern for the public interest (R)". Not yet willing to admit losing the comsec and privacy war so avidly promoted with HTTPS, SSL, PGP, PFS, OTR, Tor, on and on, they continue to hustle comsec customers with promises of here's what we have got to do, take it from us experienced veterans (read my remarks, hear my TV interviews, read my messages on cryptography, gorge on recyclings on Slashdot, Twitter, Reddit, Voice of America, EFF. Guardian, New York Times, ProPublica, ACLU, EPIC, on and on):
Lo, special prosecute NSA, take it to the courts, a tired political gambit for media semaphoring, fund raising, conceding technical defeat and begging political rescue by what's that you say, account churning lawyers, political lobbyists and journalistic hacks.
That is so obnoxious, murmurs the cryptography mail lists, so opportunistically off-topic, moderator do your censoring, let's get back to the good stuff. Despite the murmurrings there recurs calls for "cut the cowardly shit, let's fight." One guess who said that.
On 9/5/16 8:13 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...
My take on the Cypherpunks charter: Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to explore how this can be accomplished. In support of this, to understand implications of technology-enabled free speech and the technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech. What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise or constantly going on about insane nonsense. We've seen that train wreck before, Lance.
That's how ALL the problems start. Cloistering and it's whorehouse, Academia.
Nearly all problems come from ignorance. Celebrating ignorance is ignorant. Not seeing that problems almost universally are the result of ignorance and then complaining about those who work to rise above ignorance is ignorant. Sometimes well-studied people make mistakes or are ignorant outside of their narrow focus. Ignorant people constantly make profound mistakes and often breed more ignorance. There is nothing to celebrate there. If you are ignorant, you are being manipulated. You are essentially helpless, a pawn in somebody's plan. It's cute how those who are gradually becoming aware suddenly see how they are being controled and oppressed, but usually have a gaping understanding gap. Teenagers are sure that their parents are controlling and oppressing them. (And they often are, but often not in the way that a teenager thinks.) A college kid who first reads Rand is sure they completely understand how the world works in clear black and white. People reading conspiracy theories and bits of history think they completely understand the nefarious mechanics of the world. Plausible and possible become certainties, resistant to facts and first-hand knowledge and even common sense. Tiresome nonsense, endlessly repeated. OFF TOPIC.
Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his theoretical works he would have never cooperated.
Don't be "Einstein".
Don't be the ignorant people he was complaining about.
Rr
sdw
On 09/05/2016 11:39 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 8:13 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...
My take on the Cypherpunks charter:
Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to explore how this can be accomplished. In support of this, to understand implications of technology-enabled free speech and the technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise or constantly going on about insane nonsense. We've seen that train wreck before, Lance.
Me:
That's how ALL the problems start. Cloistering and it's whorehouse, Academia.
Stephen D. Williams
Nearly all problems come from ignorance. Celebrating ignorance is ignorant.
Peer Review is the main root of the ignorance I see in Academia. Modern education in the US and much of Europe is not much more than indoctrination, and peer-review enforces a situation where only vetted indoctrinators may address the inquiring and malleable minds of young people. Including inculcating such nonsense as 'patriotism' to a government and flag instead of their neighboring humans near and far. Sociopolitical beliefs inculcated in those minds that make them conform like sheeple without questioning why they're designing graphics chips for predator drones instead of some more humanistic pursuit for instance. Politics IS INTRINSICALLY a part of cyberpunk-ing. Or you could just ejumicate a bunch of people who do nothing more than plant bots for the US government on 'unfriendly nations' computers. Sorry that's not punk That's 'working for the man', and that's why ioerror was forced out. A fed infestation at torproject left the 'punk' "exposed" and alone (or without friends in a position to take immediate action to defend him) to be vilified. Cypberpunks discuss politics and I think Zenaan's [War] tagging posts, for instance, is a more than an adequate way of filtering if you have no interest. I mean, are you paying for your internet by the byte or what? Not seeing that problems almost universally are the result of
ignorance and then complaining about those who work to rise above ignorance is ignorant. Sometimes well-studied people make mistakes or are ignorant outside of their narrow focus. Ignorant people constantly make profound mistakes and often breed more ignorance. There is nothing to celebrate there.
If you are ignorant, you are being manipulated. You are essentially helpless, a pawn in somebody's plan. It's cute how those who are gradually becoming aware suddenly see how they are being controled and oppressed, but usually have a gaping understanding gap. Teenagers are sure that their parents are controlling and oppressing them. (And they often are, but often not in the way that a teenager thinks.) A college kid who first reads Rand is sure they completely understand how the world works in clear black and white. People reading conspiracy theories and bits of history think they completely understand the nefarious mechanics of the world. Plausible and possible become certainties, resistant to facts and first-hand knowledge and even common sense. Tiresome nonsense, endlessly repeated. OFF TOPIC.
Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his theoretical works he would have never cooperated.
Don't be "Einstein".
Don't be the ignorant people he was complaining about.
Einstein was talking about himself. He was IGNORANT of what they were doing with his math and work. That's what happens when you cloister yourself. Science DOES NOT EXIST in a political vacuum and neither should scientists, or coders. Unless of course you "Work for the man". They REQUIRE it. Rr
Rr
sdw
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 12:45:04PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/05/2016 11:39 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 8:13 AM, Razer wrote:
On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...
My take on the Cypherpunks charter:
Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes the freedom to have secure private speech, and to explore how this can be accomplished. In support of this, to understand implications of technology-enabled free speech and the technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise or constantly going on about insane nonsense. We've seen that train wreck before, Lance.
Cypberpunks discuss politics and I think Zenaan's [War] tagging posts, for instance, is a more than an adequate way of filtering if you have no interest.
I mean, are you paying for your internet by the byte or what?
:D Dunno about paying by the byte, but I hear XKeyscore can filter by the byte :D
Not seeing that problems almost universally are the result of
ignorance and then complaining about those who work to rise above ignorance is ignorant. Sometimes well-studied people make mistakes or are ignorant outside of their narrow focus. Ignorant people constantly make profound mistakes and often breed more ignorance. There is nothing to celebrate there.
If you are ignorant, you are being manipulated. You are essentially helpless, a pawn in somebody's plan. It's cute how those who are gradually becoming aware suddenly see how they are being controled and oppressed, but usually have a gaping understanding gap. Teenagers are sure that their parents are controlling and oppressing them. (And they often are, but often not in the way that a teenager thinks.) A college kid who first reads Rand is sure they completely understand how the world works in clear black and white. People reading conspiracy theories and bits of history think they completely understand the nefarious mechanics of the world. Plausible and possible become certainties, resistant to facts and first-hand knowledge and even common sense. Tiresome nonsense, endlessly repeated. OFF TOPIC.
Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his theoretical works he would have never cooperated.
Don't be "Einstein".
Don't be the ignorant people he was complaining about.
Einstein was talking about himself. He was IGNORANT of what they were doing with his math and work. That's what happens when you cloister yourself. Science DOES NOT EXIST in a political vacuum and neither should scientists, or coders.
Unless of course you "Work for the man". They REQUIRE it.
Hmmm ... funny you should respond to sdw with that :)
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise
Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998 I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature "Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments." Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about. For the record : collapse of governments
On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments
You are still failing to understand English. And resorting to ad hominem. Lose lose lose. sdw
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:05:35PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments
You are still failing to understand English. And resorting to ad hominem. Lose lose lose.
Hmm. Interesting. It sounds like you are alleging that Juan has failed to understand English. Let's unpack this shall we? "No!" I hear you say? OK, let's unpack it anyway... 1) Firstly, you wrote this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise
Now I might be slow, but I do note the words [0-5, 13-15], which if I decode this masterful encoding which massively reduces the amount of space required in an email to reference specific words in another's quote, is actually the following sequence of words:
What this does not include is plotting their demise
Oh, and the nounal object of your quote is "political systems", so to flesh it out:
What this does not include is plotting the demise of political systems
OK, got it. Since you tried to be subtle about it, with appeals to authority, cutting down some really vile straw men and establishing yourself as the "need"ed go to (when I say "go to" I mean "authority"), i.e. just sort of "slipping it in, hopefully sorta may be under the radar", we were, unfortunately, "need"ing to unpack your position. So, we got it, "Do NOT plot the DEMISE of Political Systems, of which I am closely associated." Because, you know, that would serious be offtopic for this list and a REAL violation of John Young and Tim May's foundations for what's on topic to be discussed on this list, and you gonna teach us all a real bad ass lesson if we violate those absolute, in stone, unviolable, rules. Got it. Anarchy bad. USA goverment good. SDW authority. Simple really. Escapes me why I never thunked of these simple truths before ... ? ? ??? Silly me.. 2) Now, secondly, Juan said this:
Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments
And note that little bit about "crypto anarchy: collapse of governments". Hmm, ok, Juan's response is quite simple really. It says what it means, provides a factual basis, and means what it says. The very definition of integrity. Thanks Juan, we need a bit of clarity occasionally. Really appreciated. Top stuff! 3) Now, finally, you said this:
You are still failing to understand English.
Except that this was factual, which it's not, this is a slur, a few words designed to bypass any real debate and degrade the character of your target. I'm pretty sure this technique has a proper name ... something like adding to homo sapiens names or something ... can't quite remember it...
And resorting to ad hominem.
AHHHH!!! YES!!! That's what it is called. THANK you Stephen, I'd forgottten just for a moment - you just used an "ad hominem". Well well well. I wonder what we're supposed to say now. I'll check above for further guidance. ... .. . ... Found it! The end of your email Stephen: Lose lose lose.
On 9/6/16 4:06 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:05:35PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments You are still failing to understand English. And resorting to ad hominem. Lose lose lose. Hmm. Interesting. It sounds like you are alleging that Juan has failed to understand English.
Exactly. He is saying that this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise is wrong because this:
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments." Means something like: "We advocate and work toward all conceptions of Crypto Anarchy including all of these: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments." And I am pointing out that it does not say that. Those words are in the form of a definition of 'Crypto Anarchy'. They do not state a charter of intent, preference, value, or anything else actionable. He is insisting that meaning is there that isn't. To loosely characterize what Juan seems to want, concluding that "being on this list means you should be supporting any and all forms of anarchy over other forms of government and social systems" vs. "the availability of encryption, digital money, etc. might cause collapse of governments" or "some bad forms of government hopefully won't survive an end-run around their oppressive systems" is weakly supported.
Let's unpack this shall we? "No!" I hear you say? OK, let's unpack it anyway...
Nice attempt at being funny, but it is all weak.
1)
Firstly, you wrote this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Now I might be slow, but I do note the words [0-5, 13-15], which if I decode this masterful encoding which massively reduces the amount of space required in an email to reference specific words in another's quote, is actually the following sequence of words:
What this does not include is plotting their demise Oh, and the nounal object of your quote is "political systems", so to flesh it out:
What this does not include is plotting the demise of political systems
OK, got it. Since you tried to be subtle about it, with appeals to authority, cutting down some really vile straw men and establishing yourself as the "need"ed go to (when I say "go to" I mean "authority"), i.e. just sort of "slipping it in, hopefully sorta may be under the radar", we were, unfortunately, "need"ing to unpack your position.
So, we got it, "Do NOT plot the DEMISE of Political Systems, of which I am closely associated."
Because, you know, that would serious be offtopic for this list and a REAL violation of John Young and Tim May's foundations for what's on topic to be discussed on this list, and you gonna teach us all a real bad ass lesson if we violate those absolute, in stone, unviolable, rules.
Got it. Anarchy bad. USA goverment good. SDW authority.
Simple really. Escapes me why I never thunked of these simple truths before ... ? ? ???
Silly me..
2)
Now, secondly, Juan said this:
Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments And note that little bit about "crypto anarchy: collapse of governments".
Hmm, ok, Juan's response is quite simple really. It says what it means, provides a factual basis, and means what it says.
The very definition of integrity.
Thanks Juan, we need a bit of clarity occasionally. Really appreciated.
Top stuff!
3)
Now, finally, you said this:
You are still failing to understand English. Except that this was factual, which it's not, this is a slur, a few words designed to bypass any real debate and degrade the character of your target.
I'm pretty sure this technique has a proper name ... something like adding to homo sapiens names or something ... can't quite remember it...
And resorting to ad hominem. AHHHH!!! YES!!! That's what it is called. THANK you Stephen, I'd forgottten just for a moment - you just used an "ad hominem".
I did? Where? By guessing at the error being made here? Pointing out what I think is the source of an error isn't ad hominem.
Well well well. I wonder what we're supposed to say now. I'll check above for further guidance.
...
..
.
...
Found it! The end of your email Stephen:
Lose lose lose.
sdw
Aaaand, there you have it :) SDW aka Weapons of Sanity Destruction, has made his decision - protect the id (sdw) at all costs. I was contemplating this last night, and dominoes obviously presented themselves - burn the addy, or soldier on. a) Burn the addy, start anew: some IDs have quite a bit invested in them, especially if they are real :) And so in this case, burning it off may be untenable, or simply too costly from a time and money perspective. b) Keep the addy, soldier on: although undesirable in the face of beeing seen, this may yet be the less expensive option; One must dutifully ignore what one can ignore, attempt to handle that which is possibly able to be handled with further feigned ignorance or "stretching things" (below is a good example) or etc. For us onlookers, b) is the preferred option, since the fun continues, XOR newcomers getting bitten occasionally - although that can also be fun - especially when 'innocent' little questions are asked to help provoke said newcomer into awareness of being taken for a ride. And ultimately, those who step up to the challenge and own their own rides (hat tip to Razer) receive the benefit of their duly exercised treadmill stepper machine. So, Stephen, in response to your tautological bluster below, try try again me boy, as the old saying goes... you're evidently up for it :) And it seems you have reading comprehension difficulties of another sort (aka attempting to ignore and pretend it wasn't said and that your mess just all goes away or something) - Tim May (and I'll point something out for you in case you missed that bit too - this is --THE-- Tim May, the very and and only one Tim May which you are so clumsily clamouring to for a curmudgeonly chip of external authority no less) has recently piped up and presented his austere and ever so conservative head on these matters. Oh ok, I'll give you another hint, I know these things are difficult for "solidly infested IDs" (whoops, I mean "invested") - there are three recent posts by Tim May, the one in the middle, that was a rather bad but bland troll which was resoundingly eclipsed by the well principled folks on this list whom I may be a little uncertain about, but clearly have more scruples than -you- me boy! Oh, and even Tim May responded to the troll in his usual conservative and pro state self. But please, do carry on, "why it's ever so much fun" said Alice. On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:07:54PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/6/16 4:06 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:05:35PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments You are still failing to understand English. And resorting to ad hominem. Lose lose lose. Hmm. Interesting. It sounds like you are alleging that Juan has failed to understand English.
Exactly. He is saying that this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise is wrong because this:
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Means something like:
"We advocate and work toward all conceptions of Crypto Anarchy including all of these: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
And I am pointing out that it does not say that. Those words are in the form of a definition of 'Crypto Anarchy'. They do not state a charter of intent, preference, value, or anything else actionable. He is insisting that meaning is there that isn't.
To loosely characterize what Juan seems to want, concluding that "being on this list means you should be supporting any and all forms of anarchy over other forms of government and social systems" vs. "the availability of encryption, digital money, etc. might cause collapse of governments" or "some bad forms of government hopefully won't survive an end-run around their oppressive systems" is weakly supported.
Let's unpack this shall we? "No!" I hear you say? OK, let's unpack it anyway...
Nice attempt at being funny, but it is all weak.
1)
Firstly, you wrote this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Now I might be slow, but I do note the words [0-5, 13-15], which if I decode this masterful encoding which massively reduces the amount of space required in an email to reference specific words in another's quote, is actually the following sequence of words:
What this does not include is plotting their demise Oh, and the nounal object of your quote is "political systems", so to flesh it out:
What this does not include is plotting the demise of political systems
OK, got it. Since you tried to be subtle about it, with appeals to authority, cutting down some really vile straw men and establishing yourself as the "need"ed go to (when I say "go to" I mean "authority"), i.e. just sort of "slipping it in, hopefully sorta may be under the radar", we were, unfortunately, "need"ing to unpack your position.
So, we got it, "Do NOT plot the DEMISE of Political Systems, of which I am closely associated."
Because, you know, that would serious be offtopic for this list and a REAL violation of John Young and Tim May's foundations for what's on topic to be discussed on this list, and you gonna teach us all a real bad ass lesson if we violate those absolute, in stone, unviolable, rules.
Got it. Anarchy bad. USA goverment good. SDW authority.
Simple really. Escapes me why I never thunked of these simple truths before ... ? ? ???
Silly me..
2)
Now, secondly, Juan said this:
Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments And note that little bit about "crypto anarchy: collapse of governments".
Hmm, ok, Juan's response is quite simple really. It says what it means, provides a factual basis, and means what it says.
The very definition of integrity.
Thanks Juan, we need a bit of clarity occasionally. Really appreciated.
Top stuff!
3)
Now, finally, you said this:
You are still failing to understand English. Except that this was factual, which it's not, this is a slur, a few words designed to bypass any real debate and degrade the character of your target.
I'm pretty sure this technique has a proper name ... something like adding to homo sapiens names or something ... can't quite remember it...
And resorting to ad hominem. AHHHH!!! YES!!! That's what it is called. THANK you Stephen, I'd forgottten just for a moment - you just used an "ad hominem".
I did? Where? By guessing at the error being made here? Pointing out what I think is the source of an error isn't ad hominem.
Well well well. I wonder what we're supposed to say now. I'll check above for further guidance.
...
..
.
...
Found it! The end of your email Stephen:
Lose lose lose.
sdw
participants (8)
-
coderman -
Dmitry Sherman -
Eugen Leitl -
John Young -
juan -
Razer -
Stephen D. Williams -
Zenaan Harkness