Fwd: Jacob impervious to "Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis" performed by Stewart Baker
this is pretty amusing :P (and needs a "Knuth is my Homeboy" homage?) --- http://bendrath.blogspot.be/2013/12/layers-of-struggle-privacy-vs.html Layers of the struggle privacy vs surveillance, in my picture of the year This is the picture of the year for me, on so many different layers: [view the image directly via: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbYqgdMIgAAX7Wk.jpg ] Stewart Baker, ex-NSA general counsel, and Jacob Appelbaum, internet freedom activist/hacker/journalist (left, right). They pretty much symbolise the two sides of the global scandal of the year. They also symbolise the attitudes of both sides. . . .
Il 14.12.2013 13:36 coderman ha scritto:
this is pretty amusing :P
(and needs a "Knuth is my Homeboy" homage?)
The title that spawned a dozen fanfics. ;P It's pretty excellent that they're both able to have a sense of humour about the situation. And, maybe someone will bring in the magic of Photoshop and turn this into a t-shirt :D ~Griffin
*insert applebaum NSA connection paranoia* It's pretty common for opposing parties to have respect for one another. To joke, too, isn't peculiar. They aren't bad people, they simply have different approaches. Disagree yet strive for admirable goals all the same. They do also enable eachother's existence. Without the fight for privacy we wouldn't need the warriors.
They pretty much symbolise the two sides of the global scandal of the year.
They also symbolise the attitudes of both sides.
Those considered hard right and those considered hard left have never been closer in outlook, never had greater congruence between their lists of what to overturn. Once it is both ends against the middle, you enter a pre-revolutionary state. That is what we have now -- growing flanks versus a contracting middle. It is middle class that is shrinking; it is the middle of the country that is depopulating; the political middle is where "only the lonely" live; both farms and banks are now only too small to matter or too big to fail; all journalism is now advocacy journalism; middle-tier college education is a ticket to debt and nothing else; etc. Conspiracy bait: Stew was Mark Shuttleworth's attorney for the Thawte acquisition and went with him to the Baikonur Cosmodrome. --dan
dan@geer.org:
all journalism is now advocacy journalism;
All journalism is and has always been "advocacy" journalism. Often people don't notice the so-called advocacy as it is usually for the unjust status quo in an unquestioning, fully compromising subservient manner, I'd add. All the best, Jacob
A good point, Jake. That status quo of commercial journalism. What's better than advocacy journalism subservience? How about an unfettered unredacted disclosure for unlimited access free of censorious redaction and withholding? And giving up the "dump" red herring, WikiLeaks is unfairly accused of that, and has been considerably more various, experimental and risk-taking than professional journalism. It would do well to give up the privileged protection of journalism which demeans its reputation. Exceptions to the cowardice of journalism abound, but have to be found so little are they known and credited beyond naming awards, and they defy the presumed status quo of what is permissable lawful and craven. Yes, many went to jail rather than bray about the jailing of others, reaping the rewards of consulting with authorities to maintain access. Hoped you had nutted Stew Baker, a lying sack of shit. At 01:07 PM 12/17/2013, you wrote:
dan@geer.org:
all journalism is now advocacy journalism;
All journalism is and has always been "advocacy" journalism. Often people don't notice the so-called advocacy as it is usually for the unjust status quo in an unquestioning, fully compromising subservient manner, I'd add.
All the best, Jacob
John Young:
A good point, Jake. That status quo of commercial journalism.
What's better than advocacy journalism subservience?
How about an unfettered unredacted disclosure for unlimited access free of censorious redaction and withholding?
Yeah, of course. The clear answer is to ensure that this is done in a sustainable manner as well. I don't mean fiscally either, I mean, more than merely living through it and staying "free" for some sense of the word.
And giving up the "dump" red herring, WikiLeaks is unfairly accused of that, and has been considerably more various, experimental and risk-taking than professional journalism. It would do well to give up the privileged protection of journalism which demeans its reputation.
I'm not sure that I follow but it sounds poetic, as usual, John. ;-)
Exceptions to the cowardice of journalism abound, but have to be found so little are they known and credited beyond naming awards, and they defy the presumed status quo of what is permissable lawful and craven. Yes, many went to jail rather than bray about the jailing of others, reaping the rewards of consulting with authorities to maintain access.
Indeed, on all counts.
Hoped you had nutted Stew Baker, a lying sack of shit.
I pre-empted his 9/11 trolling by talking about the holocaust. It clearly surprised him and the entire event was captured on video. He blamed FISA for 9/11, I blamed the FBI, NSA and CIA for being a bunch of criminals that exceeded their authority - without their misdeeds, FISA wouldn't even exist. He had nearly nothing to say to this assertion. I think he doesn't often spar with people who will go toe to toe. All the best, Jacob
At 01:07 PM 12/17/2013, you wrote:
dan@geer.org:
all journalism is now advocacy journalism;
All journalism is and has always been "advocacy" journalism. Often people don't notice the so-called advocacy as it is usually for the unjust status quo in an unquestioning, fully compromising subservient manner, I'd add.
All the best, Jacob
aka “I’m jealous that you have all the data and don’t care if anyone gets hurt by it being dumped unredacted on the net.” You realize that there are likely things hidden in the data that can get people killed. I know first hand, from a friend who *did* have their data in the wikileaks dump, that at least one of their informants only escaped being killed after it was unveiled because of family connections in the corrupt little nation they were in. I hear a lot of sour grapes and jealousy from a few people of “How dare Greenwald not give *me* access to all this data?!?!" From: John Young John Young Reply: John Young jya@pipeline.com Date: December 17, 2013 at 11:26:05 AM To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Jacob impervious to "Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis" performed by Stewart Baker How about an unfettered unredacted disclosure for unlimited access free of censorious redaction and withholding? -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
Ongoing debate on whether its better to hide government informers or expose them. They want to be hidden, their victims want them exposed. Customarily the victims don't win due to superior PR of informers and those who pay them. One case of harm has received attention lately. A lot of attention, as if an orchestrated campaign in parallel to the Snowden affair dominated by massive withholdings, redactions and fragments while claiming large numbers of files in reserve -- a hoary dissimulation practice of those complicit with officials. Beyond that, those who get control of sensitive material deputize themselves to redact or hide, with appreciation of authorities, not understanding they are usually less capable of comsec and judgment than official holders. They are blinded and corrupted by the bright jewels suddenly coming their way. It has been seen that the sensitive material from both Manning and Snowden was breached rather quickly. Literally under the noses of the defenders by Lamo and by Miranda, perhaps others not publicized. Recipients rush to consult experts as if those experts are not cooperating with officials covertly under contract or as informants like Sabu, or are themselves less capable at comsec and judgment. And also blinded and corrupted by being consulted about matters only imagined heretofore. Experts are expert at duplicity one and all. In the Manning and Snowden cases, recipients were quickly shown to be unprepared for handling what came to them, compared to say, reporters, researchers, writers and scholars who had long experience. In both cases, the original leakers had unreasonable expectations that amateurs (we believe in amateurs over professionals) would rise to the occasion, could handle the pressure of acclaim and attacks, could protect the leakers, could manage the information release, could protect the information, could be as good as the leakers with much superior training and discipline. Not so, under allure of media celebrity the schemes fell apart for Manning, maybe for Snowden. For this the leakers had no training only the shallowness of news reports about who to share the material with. Even now, the battle goes on, with accusations of harm to those identified in leaked material by WikiLeaks shaping the release of Snowden material. Little attention is given to what failed in handing material to notorious persons without grasping their limitations and the risks posed by that. At 02:31 PM 12/17/2013, you wrote:
aka âIâm jealous that you have all the data and donât care if anyone gets hurt by it being dumped unredacted on the net.â
You realize that there are likely things hidden in the data that can get people killed. I know first hand, from a friend who *did* have their data in the wikileaks dump, that at least one of their informants only escaped being killed after it was unveiled because of family connections in the corrupt little nation they were in.
I hear a lot of sour grapes and jealousy from a few people of âHow dare Greenwald not give *me* access to all this data?!?!"
---------- From: John Young mailto:jya@pipeline.comJohn Young Reply: John Young mailto:jya@pipeline.comjya@pipeline.com Date: December 17, 2013 at 11:26:05 AM To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org mailto:cypherpunks@cpunks.orgcypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Jacob impervious to "Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis" performed by Stewart Baker
How about an unfettered unredacted disclosure for unlimited access free of censorious redaction and withholding? -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
All journalism is and has always been "advocacy" journalism. Often people don't notice the so-called advocacy as it is usually for the unjust status quo in an unquestioning, fully compromising subservient manner, I'd add.
Perhaps, as you say, it was always thus at least in terms of bias of intent, but there seems something qualitatively different between the yellow press of yore (where stories were made up) and the press that is now in a world so awash in news stories that any "channel" can deploy its bias solely via story selection, i.e., it can lie using nothing but truth. Take that one phrase you selected to comment upon; it is entirely true that I wrote it, and it would be entirely legitimate to disagree with it in and of itself were it the point, but that phrase was a member of a series of supporting elements in an argument that polarization, a marker for societal strain, is proceeding on our watch. As Camille Paglia wrote, "...history's far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, ... as they become more complex and interconnected they also become more vulnerable to collapse." Polarization, that sublimation of the middle, is my point, and to go one step further, technologic progress is its engine. N.B., we are now waist deep in a rat hole. --dan
participants (8)
-
Al Billings -
coderman -
dan＠geer.org -
grarpamp -
griffin＠cryptolab.net -
Jacob Appelbaum -
John Young -
Lodewijk andré de la porte