http://theindicter.com/the-weaponising-of-social-part-2-stomping-on-ioerrors... -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 6/20/16, Me <john@johnlgrubbs.net> wrote:
http://theindicter.com/the-weaponising-of-social-part-2-stomping-on-ioerrors...
Indeed, further down the rabbithole it goes... https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=deepweb
I don't know Suzie, but she is right. "... there are many, many more revelations to come." Some masks will be definitely removed. The future will be pretty interesting.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 07:44:05PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Tor HQ cannot come back from this with the current crowd. "http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8" is devastating. To quote one of the participants at line 227 "22:14 < Yawning> I don't think I can sit in this conversation and remain civil." I can only concur. Americans in power - the insidious arrogance and pride leading to blindness, heartless comparisons between e.g. Iraq war and Mahondas Ghandi, thuggery (implied threat to sue/ take legal action, bullying, distraction/ changing topic, isis "my keyboard does not work" in the middle of this really intense conversation. Just say no more! Anyway, the conversation indicts. Has to be read. grarpamp, thank you again. Both Juan and Putin claim (vehemently) that Tor is a creation and a tool of the NSA, the CIA and the American war machine, and that it cannot be trusted as a consequence of these facts. After reading this conversation, it is impossible to disagree with both Juan and Putin on this point. So I guess this makes both Putin and Juan, "conspiracy factualists", because there certainly ain't no 'theory' to be tested any more... It is not surprising that Russia is wanting to "button the digital hatches" so to speak, given the horrific demoncratic record of the CIA since WWII - the major and very sad problem is that such legislation almost never gets unwound once the battle is over. So there's always another battle.. At line 268: "< mikeperry> also, I am completely unsure what to do about the DaveC1 thing. it seems like it will put a lot of our community at risk and cause fallout. I was excited to have a bridge to the State dept and gov't bureaucrats, but this seems like the cost is too great. forgive me if I appear to otherwise ignore this, really not sure how to handle it" Thought: If the CIA, which funds Tor via the DoD etc, really wanted an advocacy position, then there was no reason to not just keep "DaveC1" on payroll at the CIA and promote Tor. So DaveC1's attempt to get on Tor payroll directly, and be close to the core of Tor, falls apart on multiple grounds as well as this. Here's a classic at 227 "22:25 < ioerror> We [Tor] don't hire war criminals, we don't [can't be accused of] discriminate by not hiring them" (in response to the supposedly "ex-" CIA man, DaveC1, who implied the threat he would sue Tor Inc if they refused to employ him "just because he used to work for the CIA and shot citizens of Iraq" (or rather, terminated his employment it seems, now that they figured out he lied to get employed, saying he was from US State Dept).
Here's a satisfying line 332: "22:35 < DaveC1> Runa: re: the not waiting until I could disclose. Didn't have the financial resources to end one career and wait (unsure how long) to start looking for other work. I tried to be as clear as possible with Roger what my situation was without committing a felony. I obviously failed. " Yep, seems CIA agents find it real hard to -not- commit felonies, even when they are -trying- to not commit felonies. Really, the entire log is a must read. ioerror/ Jacob Applebaum - this man is staunch! No wonder Jacob was taken down.
On 06/26/2016 05:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Don't trust ANYONE. But just because you don't trust doesn't mean you can't use items, or ally with people. Rr Ps. NASA didn't trust it's new laser measuring system and did trust it's old ally the 'drop-gauge' and the Hubble telescope ended up needing an expensive 'monocle' delivered.
I remembered an old fool story, hihi... ;) Few years ago, some Noisebridgers (members of a hackerspace in San Francisco) asked Jake's banishment saying that he was a FBI agent inside Tor, who betrayed Assange and Wikileaks, hahaha!! ;D Lovely Sunday everybody! <3 Cecilia
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:59:51 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/4pw7bz/tor_infiltrated_by_cia_agent/ http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8
This is more propaganada. It is to be expected from the likes of grarpamp. It has some nice touches, like illustrating the ABC of so called 'public choice'. First objective of the tor cunts is to get money. And they do that by servicing the pentagon. ALL of those shitbags are pentagon employees. Now. At this very moment. Only retards would care about the fact that one of them also worked for the CIA. That is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Furthermore, what kind of moral authority do tor cunts have over a CIA employee. They are actually WORSE than the CIA. They are pretending to be the 'good guys' while they are FUCKING NOT. I I can't believe the 'public' is so fucking retarded as to miss this point.
https://0bin.net/paste/blHWhjY9CRGB8A5X#EArYlEpN1fvqLSclzCivmmIMf3iRMvCYhi++...
Just links.
DUDE IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING'S COMPROMISED YOU CAN WORK WITH THAT! I don't think anyone who actually uses tor as more than 'something their neighbour told them to try so they try it once' actually BELIEVES tor is the ultimate in anonymity but... (see the shouting at the top) On 06/26/2016 02:11 PM, John Young wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:27:51 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
DUDE IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING'S COMPROMISED YOU CAN WORK WITH THAT!
But tor isn't compromised!! What are you talking about? Are you trying to scare people off tor? See what kind dishonest asshole you are rayzer? And in reality, the idea that you can 'work' with the compromised-by-design, pentagon's fake-anonimity network, is the kind of nonsense that...gov't agents wanting to entrap people would say.
On 06/26/2016 06:08 PM, juan wrote:
Dishonest... Really? Show me the discrepancy in any position I've taken at ANY TIME ... Troll.
Do tell. Some proof of that hypothesis Troll. FWIW I CAN PROVE compromised networks STILL accomplish a lot. ANY ORGANIZATION, political, corporate, you-name-it that has ever been existed has been infiltrated by feds/other corporations, opposition ... yet SOMEHOW they manage to get some things done. Same applies to HumInt networks in war zones... Troll. Same applies to Tor... It's not exceptional. Like you... Troll. Rr
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:07:56 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
From pretenting to be an anarchist who sucks the DMV's cock to being a torbot who now (maybe) admits he is promoting a 'compromised' piece of garbage? Your are too stupid rayzer - and dishonest.
What proof do I need for such self-evident fact, fucktard? You promote a fake-anomity network because that's the way to 'compromise' people. Have them use a 'compromised' tool. And what kinf of fucktard would argue that 'compromised' tools are still useful? What's the point of ever fixing anything if 'broken' tools 'work'. You can't be that fucking stupid rayzer.
FWIW I CAN PROVE compromised networks STILL accomplish a lot.
Of course. They accomplish a lot for the people who compromised them. That's the whole point, fucktard. ANY
So juan, what do you recommend instead of Tor? What do you use for privacy and/or "anonymity"? Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:57:51 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
So juan, what do you recommend instead of Tor?
To 'defend' against 'local' adversaries, the only thing that tor allegedly does? I don't recommend anything, but it looks like VPNs can be as good or as bad as tor. You can even nest them, can't you.
What do you use for privacy and/or "anonymity"?
Nothing. I'd play with freenet but I don't want to install java, so...
Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.
Except that when I use the internet I'm not tring to hide anything. And no lying piece of shit advertised the internet as having anything to do with : "Anonymity Online." Or that the internet lets you : "Protect your privacy. Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis."
On 06/26/2016 08:16 PM, juan wrote:
Obfuscation... no matter if it's momentary, is 'defense'. Sometimes all you need is the time to close your laptop lid and walk out of the cafe' to avoid identification and/or capture. The onus is on the USER regarding their infosec needs vs the method of defense. For best defense do what Osama did. Throw away ALL electronic communication devices including wireline telephones and use trusted couriers, and as can bee seen, even that didn't work in the long run... because a trusted courier used a plain ol cellie. But you probably believe bin-Hidin never existed... Right Juan? Rr
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:50:28 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
So mirimir, given the obvious technical facts and flaws about tor ('global' adversaries quite capable), and the 'politics' of the tor mafia, like outright censorship, infighting, feminazism, complete lack of transparency, complete lack of honest funding, etc. What do you 'recommend' =)
On 06/26/2016 10:04 PM, juan wrote:
At a minimum, I recommend hitting Tor through at least one VPN. Or better, nested chains of at least three VPNs. To prevent leaks, I recommend using pfSense VMs as VPN gateways, and Whonix VMs for Tor. One can also use VPS running SSH onion services for old-school host chaining. Each VPS connects through a VPN, so Tor can't detect that you're chaining circuits. See <https://www.ivpn.net/privacy-guides/onion-ssh-hosts-for-login-chaining>.
On 06/26/2016 08:50 PM, Mirimir wrote:
That was aimed at Juan. Mercenary recruiter for NATO (Kosovo Liberation Army) and formerly Arab Legionnaire, which was a CIA op in Afghanistan early on... Yeah. He was CIA... ...and I have an interesting theory on what 'turned' him, but that's entirely off-topic. Let me just say it involved another CIA Asset AQ Khan, the Pakistani nuclear boogieman India ATTEMPTED TO turn over to US authorities, a dirty bomb made from material he could have supplied, a Riyadh shopping mall, and PNAC, that really really REALLY wanted to wrest control of OPEC away from the Saudis b/c 'they don't control the volatility of the price of oil enough'. Osama hated the Saudi government enough to do it too. http://auntieimperial.blogspot.com/2010/11/there-are-couple-of-things-about-... I suspect someone higher up in spoookland nixed his plan and he said Fuck it, and went rogue Rr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/26/2016 11:50 PM, Mirimir wrote:
Very obvious he had zip point zero to do with the 911 event; to get his foreknowledge and participation into the record, it was necessary to promote a video featuring a short, fat, hook nosed gold-ring-wearing asshole as "Bin Ladin." Fairly obvious he died in the winter of 2001/2 as well, IF one examines the available information with this possibility in mind. ;o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXccJNAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqW/YH/3eZB1j0ZZkKHZbmBdoYkZiX MBLFmNmnjU3cFfNmTtJldx1D5oeFnYPnmNN/fcs1UO2DcxtcvAja7/FH5nArhDjK ufGUugugV2g+hQcP236O/hTyOV75ltxaxMxu6wmKbglR+yC6f6sE8OlDCmOYZ7Af fDjuPSrOFrtX5BWgHdh6dVVB8C+H9sd3SNK/Saa8+i2009vV3HbK5lkC+3cNZE8l Ohblav1pUugswTM7FM6fQ9y2IDEmaFNYC8JZ8O7VNVd8FMoZCG5RadUKIY6AzG7p gpaJI8teAP0pyVq1TTJH8IUyjGyoNyJ4gOxQp1uY7uWubQykEXdDf7NOItlXTL4= =R6v0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 06/26/2016 09:16 PM, juan wrote:
Yes, VPNs will provide as much privacy as Tor does for purely local adversaries. But if your adversary can get logs from the VPN server, or the hosting provider, you're screwed. With Tor, such adversaries would need to get logs from at least two of the three relays in circuits. And circuits change frequently, so that means lots of relays. And sure, you can nest VPNs. So a nested chain of three VPNs arguably does as much as a Tor circuit. But it's static. Or at least, I haven't figured out how to automate switching. And there's also the matter of paying for a bunch of VPNs. Anyway, I hedge my bets by accessing Tor through nested VPNs.
Right. I2P also runs on Java.
Well, that's cool, if it works for you. Doesn't work for me, however.
You have a point. But far too many people do seem to believe that they're anonymous on the Internet.
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:14:03 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Yes. But how easy it is for your or my local government to get logs from an ISP in a different country? There isn't a single answer, but I suspect in general it's not that easy. So unless we are a relatively serious 'criminal' 'threat', we should be safe, I'd think. And if the aim is to avoid surveillance from one's local ISP, then the bar is low since ISPs don't have police powers...yet.
True. So it would seem as if tor would be effective against adversaries in some particular cases... But the fact remains. Against 'small' adversaries tor isn't needed and against big adversaries tor doesn't work...
Yes, cost would be a problem. But it's not that tor is free either. Somebody else is paying the bill. On the other hand, tor is a subsidized state project. Like any state project the quality is limited AND it drives off 'private' investment and development.
I think there's a C++ implementation now as well.
Just in case, please don't think that I subscribe to the "I've nothing to hide" bullshit or something like that. I'd love to use a really robust darknet. But since I don't think the current darknets are to be trusted I'm doing without them, at least for the time being...
They are, if they use tor! OK, bad joke on my part.
On 06/26/2016 11:32 PM, juan wrote:
Yes, it's not so easy. And even with help from their national government, it would take a while. And even VPNs that log can't retain logs forever, so you might get lucky.
And if the aim is to avoid surveillance from one's local ISP, then the bar is low since ISPs don't have police powers...yet.
True. But ISPs normally aren't a treat. It's who's pushing their buttons. Whether it's the MPAA or Los Zetas.
Yes. But there are many mid-size adversaries. And you could also say that Tor works against all but the global adversaries. Plus clever ones that can exploit bugs.
True. But not me.
I have no clue what percentage of Tor code has been funded by the US government. There are lots of volunteers, after all. But I agree that Tor has rather dominated the space for "anonymity systems". Every few years, I see a paper about something new, but they never seem to go anywhere. So yes, there is a problem. But I don't think that state subsidy is directly at fault.
Interesting. But I still don't like I2P, because decent performance depends on being a relay, with a public IP address and open port. One can do it with VPNs and port forwarding. But still.
I get that. And I suspect that you're in a friendlier environment.
Many Tor users have been screwed by thinking that they were "anonymous". But still, many more would have been screwed if they had done whatever they were doing without any protection. Maybe some of them, such as the ones pwned by CMU, would have been better off using VPNs. That's rather ironic, considering how much abuse Tor supporters have heaped on VPNs. But overall, I think that Tor has done much good.
On 06/28/2016 01:31 PM, juan wrote:
For sure. But also for online drug dealers. There have been a few spectacular failures, certainly. And the security model of having illegal stuff mailed to meatspace addresses is laughable. But it has clearly increased availability, especially for niche substances like DMT and analogues. Quality too, I suspect. For me, that's a good. No question. More generally, Tor has allowed many to evade state control. Some of them deserve to die, in my opinion. But the important point is that Tor has overall reduced state power. Is that not a good thing, juan? It's true that Tor has allowed the CIA to act more freely in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, etc. But that, like freedom for pedophiles, is just a cost of usable "anonymity systems" (or whatever you want to call them).
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:23:05 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Yeah. Ask Ulbricht. Or the guys from agora who made it quite clear that tor doesn't work. Or freedom hosting, or or or Also, what % of 'illegal' drugs are sold through tor? 0.01%?
It is, but that's not the point. Although, you know, using the state's mail system to ship drugs is as stupid as using the pentagon's fake anonimity network for the online side of the business. *Furthermore*, this being the cpunks mailing list, the standard should be a lot higher. Tor is not a realistic option at all for people who have a quarrell with the powers that be. If you are selling an 'anonimity' network for crypto-anarchism, then your anonimity network better work against the US gov't and assorted lapdogs.
Yes. Many US agents and agents from vasal states. That's how tor serves western imperialism. Is that what you want?
Some of them deserve to die, in my opinion.
You mean the state agents no?
But the important point is that Tor has overall reduced state power.
Yeah well. Sounds nice. Too bad there's zero evidence for that claim. Actually the claim is pretty absurd. How can a project of the US military whose purpose is to serve the US military and the US state 'reduce state power'? Are you on drugs? =)
Is that not a good thing, juan?
No, tor is not a good a thing. Dissapointing. Your argument boils down to "the mafia or the state can do good things, maybe, sometimes". So you can look at some good stuff that can be attributed to tor, while ignoring all the bad stuff. That's like basic economics turned on its head...
lol - so now it turns out that 'pedophiles' are the moral equivalent of the CIA or the murdering psychos at the pentagon?
On 06/29/2016 05:26 PM, juan wrote:
Ulbricht went down because associates fucked up, got busted, and cooperated with investigators. Also, it seems that his OPSEC sucked. It's not clear how Freedom Hosting got compromised. I don't believe that it was a Tor exploit. And it was call-home malware that pwned users. Which only affected idiots using Tor browser in Windows. Agora owners never said exactly what flaws in Tor concerned them, as I recall. And there are workarounds. Bigger problems, I think, are moving large amounts of money anonymously, and explaining income.
Also, what % of 'illegal' drugs are sold through tor? 0.01%?
I have no clue. But for some demographics, I bet that it's huge. Have you ever tried to find DMT? I love DMT :)
It's the best that's available, I believe.
Perfection is the enemy of workability :) And if you know of something better, please do recommend it.
It's not what I want, but it's what I'll accept. Consider this thought experiment. Let's say that some cypherpunk, with unimpeachable anarchist credentials, creates an anonymity system. One that's not vulnerable to local adversaries or global adversaries. One, perhaps, that uses covert channels, so ISPs can't even detect that it's being used. Then they release the source, and fun begins. So who would use it? I'm guessing that everyone who uses Tor, I2P, etc, etc would use it. And so we'd be back to where we are now with Tor, with just the exception that the new system isn't vulnerable to global adversaries. How would you keep statist criminals from using it? There's still the criticism that Tor is intentionally vulnerable to global adversaries. Maybe it was at first, by design. But it's an open-source project. You'd need to argue that contributions which increased resistance to global adversaries have been rejected or discouraged. Is there evidence for that?
Both.
By providing freedom and privacy for state subjects. Also, see the above thought experiment. It doesn't matter whose project it is. The same people would end up using it.
Are you on drugs? =)
Always :) Mostly caffeine, though. Modafinil too :)
It's not a zero-sum game. As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like a dream.
Maybe not, but pedophiles are the goto example. Government criminals fuck people at much larger scales, for sure. Maybe the crypter assholes are a better example, but that's still small-scale.
On 6/29/16, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
When you have a non vulnerable network, or at least one that's equally invulnerable to or exploitable by all participants, the question of who uses it becomes more mooted by that balance. Today's overlay networks are vulnerable to GPA's, which at this stage are just governments and global telecoms... not end users. There's a big imbalance there, and it's not in favor of said users.
Best design principles vs adversaries, as school of thought over a decade ago, are certainly different than what would be designed in 2017. There's room for something new.
On 06/29/2016 08:36 PM, grarpamp wrote:
True.
That's also true. But you take what you can get.
I totally agree. What about Dissent?[0] Also funded by DARPA ;) What do you see as promising? [0] http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/10/192387-seeking-anonymity-in-an-interne...
On 6/29/16, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
But you take what you can get.
Of course, and build on it.
Also funded by DARPA ;)
DARPA is fine so long as you always remember who and what they're procuring for. Which is rightfully a no go among the the ideals of many people. I had this chat with someone once, and they chose to leave their job later on because of that conflict seeded.
What do you see as promising?
Hard to say as keeping track of all the papers and few actually coded implementations is hard. I2P is still interesting as a packet switched net. PS tech tends to have more modification flexibility to new pluggable ideas than circuit switching. All the other little more specific messaging / file systems have some good elements. More than asserting something promising from the mess, there might be value in the prior step of sorting out what may be promising. There are folks who would be good partners in that.
On 06/29/2016 10:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
On 6/29/16, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
Yes, far more papers than implementations. Once you have something that works well enough, or that people are at least so convinced, new ideas don't attract much interest. But maybe that's changing now.
Why did Tor go with circuit switching? Was it mostly about efficiency? We have a very different Internet now. Also, is it easier to bury packet switching in chaff?
All the other little more specific messaging / file systems have some good elements.
Which ones, in particular? With global active adversaries, which can observe and modify packets on every public network, it's hard to imagine how substantive [anonymity | unlinkability | deniability | privacy] is possible. Sure, every node might send traffic that's not provably nonrandom to every other node at constant rate. But it's still obvious that you're up to something. And once they tweak your traffic, they can look at what other nodes start behaving differently. So I come back to the need for covert channels.
Maybe so. But many of them tend to keep to themselves ;)
On 6/30/16, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Yes, far more papers than implementations.
Papers are a legitmate validation route before investing in implementation. Though when faced with many rough equivalents, moving to code is the ballsy right move.
We know fossil fuel is unsustainable at current rates.
Why did Tor go with circuit switching?
You'd have to ask Paul and the historical anonbib on that.
Was it mostly about efficiency?
Perhaps. And or prevalance of TCP / parts of historical thinking telecom models.
Also, is it easier to bury packet switching in chaff?
Which is more programmable and pluggable? Which is harder to emulate with the other? Circuit switching, packet switching, packet switching with MPLS. Why doesn't Ma Bell have 1:1 hardlines from NYC to Delhi? And does it matter to you?
Which ones, in particular?
Pick any of them and folks will say some parts are really cool and effective, other parts not so much.
But it's still obvious that you're up to something.
It seems very hard to hide that fact. But so long as free speech and or via crypto is upheld, actual fact of usage doesn't seem that bad. If not held, you've probably got bigger problems to where Libtech has to sneak in and Arab Spring your ass out.
Not if those other nodes refuse to talk with or pass traffic for you until your traffic falls back in line with expected network params. Think of it this way... TCP is nice because it silently and flexibly adapts to network conditions. When your adversary *is* the network condition, you may not want that feature. Tor checks for invalid packets via the OS stack, cell format and crypto. But it and others have zero visibility into me shaping your throughput into nice waveforms and watching whatever else your NIC does appear straight out the other side somewhere. That's dumb as fuck.
So I come back to the need for covert channels.
These are definitely useful. SDR, guerilla community meshnets, sat transponders, tropo, bulk sneakernets.
We have a very different Internet now.
What do the spies say? Does it matter?
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:39:04 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
You parroted bullshit from the feds : you earned -10 points [deleted lots of dishonest bullshit]
Still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' your absurd claim. The tor project is good for the military and state. Therefore it's bad for the military's and the state's victims. Buy yeah, first rule of the torbot : play dumb and parrot propaganda.
OK. This is the first reasonable and honest thing you said. You finally acknowledge that all your bullshit is a 'dream' - it's not reality and not true.
On 07/01/2016 12:28 PM, juan quoted mirmir:
By providing freedom and privacy for state subjects. Still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' your absurd claim.
Open source code allowing for discovery of flaws and concurrent fixes is proof of concept. You're looking for "perfect" security. That's why I think you're a fucking fascist, Juan. Fascists WORSHIP some fubar ideation of 'perfection'. Of genetics, of social conformity, of human features such as eye color... of code. 100+ malicious nodes found snooping on Tor hidden services. https://motherboard.vice.com/read/over-100-snooping-tor-nodes-have-been-spyi...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:47:57 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
LOL - you are way beyond stupid - and trolling. What the fuck has 'open source' got to do with the dishonest and baseless claim made by mirimir? Anwer : no - thing. So we'll be waiting for the evidence showing how the pentagon advances freedom...forever...cause the evidence does not exist.
Ah rayzer, you really don't know what else to say. Only a fucktard like you would try to equate individualist anarchist with 'fascist' =) You on the other hand are a mix of marxist commie with...americunt fascist! Go suck the pentagon's cock, asshole. And why are you, a dumb anti-liberal bot in this list, apart from trolling? Eh rayzer? Oh I know you 'have' to pay the bills...
Fascists WORSHIP some fubar ideation of 'perfection'.
lol - pyschobabble comming from a commie fascist. Isn't that cute.
Of genetics, of social conformity,
that would be the ideal of commie marxists like you - either obey society or die. As matter of fact, scumbag, you devoted more than a few messages to make the point that individuals should obey 'society' or the 'species' or some other deranged 'collective' 'entity'.
On 07/01/2016 07:28 PM, juan wrote:
Yore reading comprehension sucks ;) Read the fucking paragraph that you quoted. It says nothing about Tor. It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you? But right now, Tor is the best we have. So we use it, with suitable precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:55:42 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Yore reading comprehension sucks ;)
I don't think so.
Read the fucking paragraph that you quoted. It says nothing about Tor.
Dude! Context! The whole discussion was about tor! And at some point you said "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially" "They" stands for "anonymity systems" which in this 'context' basically means tor. Even more so since you keep repeating that tor is the best system 'we' have. So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems like a dream. So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the fact that tor doesn't work. Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power? No. Especially tor, a creation of the state.
It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you?
Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular.
But right now, Tor is the best we have.
Yeah. You said so a couple of times...
So we use it, with suitable precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?
I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the 'free' tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and apparently don't care much about the real price of the system. I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay away from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk 'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause.
On 07/01/2016 08:41 PM, juan wrote:
As I said, your reading comprehension sucks. Or you're just twisting shit to pretend that you're right.
It works for many people.
So you keep saying.
Yes, but statements about anonymity systems generally aren't limited to Tor.
No, I don't care about the "real price of the system". Why should I? And, as I said before, people that you hate would be using any effective anonymity system. So you might as well get over it.
The Pentagon is everywhere, dude ;)
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:07:22 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
As I said, your reading comprehension sucks.
No it doesn't. I explained that given the 'context' my reading is quite valid. Looks like your writing sucks.
Or you're just twisting shit to pretend that you're right.
I am right. And you admited that anonimity systems don't work.
What a fucktard you are. It's clear again that your writing skills suck. "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. " So they don't work "It works for many people." So you contadicted yourself. But don' worry. You got it right the first time. Anonimity systems don't work.
Because it is correct.
But tor is 'the best'. So if even 'the best' is a failure, then the rest of systems are going to be even more of a failure. That's like the A of the ABC of basic logic.
Right. You are a 'nihilist' eh? As long as you can buy dmt it's OK for the pentagon to fuck as many people as they can.
And, as I said before, people that you hate would be using any effective anonymity system. So you might as well get over it.
grarpamp replied to that particular piece of bullshit.
So?
On 07/01/2016 09:21 PM, juan wrote:
De gustibus non disputandem ;)
I did no such thing.
You're forgetting the "substantially" bit. Tor does reduce state power, now, for many people. Maybe not overall, on a net basis, given how state fascists use it. By "substantially", I mean that anonymity systems might eventually destroy states by undermining taxation. As in Stephenson's _Snow Crash_ or MacArdry's _Last Trumpet Project_.
They don't yet work substantially, fucktard ;)
The best _right now_ does not mean the best ever. WTF.
It's not "OK". It's what's so. The Pentagon will use any anonymity system to fuck people.
He's not so rabid about not using Tor, I think.
It's in your mind ;)
I think his key point here is that we must not be in self delusion. It is ok to dream. Cypherpunk dream is a great dream. A dream of freedom, hope, for everyone. But when we are in a denial of a particular problem, or speaking as though a particular limitation does not exist, or a particular piece of software provides some guarantee which it does NOT provide - then not only are we deluding ourselves, but (and I see this as a pain for Juan) we are leading others astray. This is why over and over, when the facts don't support an assumption, especially when that assumption could endanger life and or liberty of someone trying to do some good (e.g. a whistleblower), then how can we say anything but support for Juan's outspoken vehemence? Juan says "I will not compromise the safety of a fellow fighter no matter what", and he sacrifices the appearance of civility to try to achieve this - to try to support our brothers who want to fight, who want to whistleblow, who want to undermine the murderers in our world. Leading potential fighters astray in their thinking is essentially unforgiveable - which is why I am bound by my own conscience to always say "Juan, thank you! So few speak up as much as you do, for those who genuinely need someone to speak up for them!" How can we let down our brothers so much? Yes, speak our dreams, our hopes! But do so honestly! "Positive thinking" is not about deceiving ourselves or those who read our proclamations on crypto anarchist software. And in fact it's quite the opposite as I hope is clear by now - let's get off the hippy flower power "positive speaking will magically manifest secure anonymising software" bullshit bandwagon, and speak bluntly, plainly, and clearly so onlookers are NEVER deceived! Surely this is the LEAST we can do for our potential future brothers in punk land?!
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 11:38:44AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Because there are SO FEW REAL FIGHTERS FOR FREEDOM!!! We absolutely MUST do everything we can to support those who may tentatively try to make SOME stand in this world for truth, for transparency, and against evil!
-- Free Australia: www.UPMART.org Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
On 07/01/2016 07:38 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: <SNIP>
Well, Juan basically tells them to use nothing. Or at least, I haven't managed to elicit any substantive recommendations. So what the fuck?
Yes, speak our dreams, our hopes! But do so honestly!
Yes, the Tor Project is bullshitting people, and that's evil.
I'm not about positive thinking, but rather about working with what's available. And that includes Tor, even if it's primarily a tool of fascist oppression. The Colt M1911A1 is one of my favorite weapons, for example. Even though it was built for the US military.
Surely this is the LEAST we can do for our potential future brothers in punk land?!
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:13:23PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I agree with that. Juan is very conservative when it comes to saying a particular piece of software is useful for something. That conservatism is a healthy thing. We should emulate that conservatism (if not his particular style :)
Surely this is the LEAST we can do for our potential future brothers in punk land?!
On Jul 1, 2016 11:22 PM, "Mirimir" <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
And that includes Tor, even if it's primarily a tool of fascist oppression. The Colt M1911A1 is one of my favorite weapons, for
example. Even though it was built for the US military. Better examples than weapons, my dear... https://mic.com/articles/86489/11-incredible-products-that-were-really-inven...
On 07/01/2016 06:38 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
then how can we say anything but support for Juan's outspoken vehemence?
ROTF! Because he won't be satisfied with anything less than perfect bulletproof cant-bust-em security. That's delusional and I don't pander to people's delusions. Rr
On 07/01/2016 09:08 PM, Rayzer wrote:
It's more about ideological purity than perfection, I think. He says that he _uses nothing_.
That's delusional and I don't pander to people's delusions.
I gather that he's calling for a boycott of Tor, based on its origin, design, and funding. But it's not as clear as, for example, boycotts of South Africa or Israel. Many years ago, I recall getting shit from Jewish friends for driving a VW Bug. Designed by Nazis! But this was decades after WWII. So how were Nazis still relevant?
Rr
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:32:27 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
It's about common sense and basic decency.
I think. He says that he _uses nothing_.
And I also said that you can use VPNs if you want. So don't twist what I said, ashole. I'd also say that freenet is a better choice for distributing content than tor, for instance. But of course, I make no recommendations.
And how well it performs. And its real objectives : to increase even more the power of the US state. But hey, as long as you can get high on dmt, everything is fine.
On 6/29/16, Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
The realistic option is an assortment of tools, of which tor is one.
Yes this is why people mix things like Freenet over Tor, Bitcoin over I2P, etc. They can run independant, but in the absence of themselves being a perfect overlay network, they add other layers toward achieving that as a whole.
I wonder if it's even that high? Err no pun intended. I think you'd be a fool to purchase dope over tor.. there are still indictments coming down on low level buyers all over the world, fallout from the first and second Silk Road busts. Also, unless you're looking for somewhat rare entheogens, in general the prices online are way jacked up. I still make all my transactions the old fashioned way - I just feel like agora etc are crawling with Feds and scammers. Risk reward ratio doesn't balance out when the shit so readily available anyway. -- John
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:12:35PM -0700, Ted Smith wrote:
Juan doesn't get paid to recommend privacy-enhancing technology. Just to scare people away from using it.
I doubt he gets paid for that, but it's certainly a much needed community service. Can't have potential leakers and dissidents running around being led to their own state-sponsored damnation by the MIC shills now...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:12:35 -0700 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
Juan doesn't get paid to recommend privacy-enhancing technology. Just to scare people away from using it.
And here's another nugget from Ted : According to him I am `at worst an agent of some oppressive government hoping to scare people off Tor" I realize that it's quite legitimate for you to come up with crazy conspiracy theories while denouncing people who denounce the tor conspiracy... ...but anyways, do humour me, which 'oppressive government' do I work for? =) I think I deserve to know =) Or at least I deserve to be entertained a bit...
Juan, I don't know how you could have thought that message referred to you. You're one of the only voices of truth on this list. I read every one of your emails twice, even three times. PLEASE keep posting. On June 26, 2016 9:33:17 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:07:58 -0700 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
Come on Ted. We know you are pathetic, but I expected something slightly better =) I know the message refers to me because it starts with my name =) - As to the other message you sent to tor-talk, 'context' made it quite clear that it referred to me. And when you take into account that they are basically the same message... So go ahead Teddy, tell me who I work for.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 08:57:51PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.
I dont think the pwn3d'ness of the reguar internet is in question, or arguable, at all. I mean, if there were ANY questions, they all went away PS (post snowden)... -- John
On 6/26/16, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
This is more propaganada. It is to be expected from the likes of grarpamp.
To be clear, content of any links is not mine. Posted for careful analysis and respectful discussion, including any you may have to offer. I have nothing more to say. Peace.
On Sun, 2016-06-26 at 18:02 -0300, someone wrote:
I've never engaged in ad hominem attacks on this list, and I don't think they have a place here. This post starts with an ad hominem attack, and goes on to slam those who run the Tor Project (some of which are likely volunteers), while incorrectly saying they all work for the US military. To the rest of the readership on this list (besides the original poster), do you consider this acceptable? Once upon a time, cypherpunks was a place where constructive discussion was the norm, and outright garbage being posted to the list was not. Now, it seems it is the reverse of that. What do we have to do to fix this? -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:04:14 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
To the rest of the readership on this list (besides the original poster), do you consider this acceptable?
OK, we are going to have some fun now.
First things first, so make scumbags like you pay for their crimes.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 08:04:14PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
That would be called either cypherNOTpunks or nettime, the latter exists and includes a lovely big copyright exclusivity warning threat at the bottom of every email the listserv sends out along with the moderation - should be just what your nanny ordered.
On 06/26/2016 07:04 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: <SNIP>
Why not just killfile people who post stuff that you don't want to read?
To the rest of the readership on this list (besides the original poster), do you consider this acceptable?
It's not my call. This is an unmoderated, uncensored list. I like that. If you don't like it, unsubscribe.
When would that have been? I've been subscribed off and on to various versions of this list for about 20 years, and there's always been garbage. Some of the garbage has been very entertaining :) Back in the day, there was so much garbage that I had to subscribe to the filtered version, to conserve bandwidth. And even that had loads of garbage.
On Sun, 2016-06-26 at 20:52 -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I shouldn't have to. That's what community standards of decent behavior are for. That's what moderation is for.
As part of the community, it is your call. A simple "no, I consider this unacceptable" would have sufficed.
This is an unmoderated, uncensored list. I like that. If you don't like it, unsubscribe.
That's a complete non-solution, as it means I lose all of the quality messages along with the crap. It is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Standing up for someone's right to pollute the list with messages that, in all honesty, contribute nothing to civil discussion, is bad enough. Your suggestion that I unsubscribe is many times worse than that.
Maybe circa 2003-2006 or so, it used to not be like this. At least, I don't remember it being anywhere near this bad, even when there was the occasional flaming going on. I've never seen someone spew one attack after another after another. Getting banned from a mailing list, in general, should serve as a warning that one's conduct is unacceptable. If this describes you, recently, please heed that warning. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:44:18PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Standing up for someone's right to pollute the list with messages that, in all honesty, contribute nothing to civil discussion, is bad enough.
You get to choose EITHER: a) the nature of the list you join (nettime seems like a good fit for what you say you want), or b) with whom you jump onto the same list You don't get to choose both. That would be a fascist dictatorship by any other name. Some of us happen to like the mix. You don't like the mix, and you are free to complain about the particular mix in this neck o the woods, as we are free to mock such requests and cackle like hyenas.
Your suggestion that I unsubscribe is many times worse than that.
Perhaps be grateful that's the only suggestion you got. Seriously there are millions of people online, and 100s of 10900s of online forums to cater to those folks - you can't accuse the web of lack of choice. And if you really want something just that little bit different to what's already out there - a new ShawnCyphers forum is but a few clicks away - in this regard we live in a world of abundance.
On 06/26/2016 08:44 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
I shouldn't have to. That's what community standards of decent behavior are for. That's what moderation is for.
Direct question,,, Why are you interested in changing a list's demeanor when it's ALWAYS been like this according to long term "residents"? Maybe you should just unsub if it's an issue for you. Rr
You're totally correct, but the people who actually do control this list have decided it's more important for the obvious CyberCom trolls to drive the list into the ground than it is to violate their concept of ~freedom of speech~. It really sucks that the list has been fucked over by some people who are at worst being paid to do so by a government (a possibility I've become convinced is near to the truth), or at best just assholes who didn't even have the balls to post on the al-qaeda.net version (of course, signatures indicate they were trolling the debian lists during that period). Every ecosystem attracts parasites, and the best kept gardens die by pacifism. People whom this post/subthread is about: how many people have to say they dislike your posts and killfile your email before you take the hint and stop posting? You are not contributing anything of value, and you aren't liked in this community. If this list was a party, you'd be having your circlejerk in the corner, or screaming alone, while literally everyone else ignored you. Try to feel, just for a second, the shame, isolation, and sense of social ineptitude I'm sure you have at plenty of times in your life if not most of it. That is how you should feel wherever you post to this list. Inb4 the lurkers support you in email On June 26, 2016 8:44:18 PM PDT, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:21:54 -0700 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
You mean, the people who host the list do have principles? Unlike you? I understand how you feel Ted. Having no principles while dealing with people who do have principles and respect free speech must be painful. Ah, you are giving your game away too. You are another wannabe lefty 'anarchist' who actually use robotic jargon from the US DoD and neocon establishment. "oppressive government" What kind of person uses that cliche...? (certainly no anarchist would, since the expression clearly implies the existence of 'non oppressive' government...Plus 'oppressive government' means 'government' in the pentagon's kill list)
Based on what evidence? =) Come on Ted. You are a scientist and a champion of 'transparency'. Do enlighten your readership.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/27/2016 12:21 AM, Ted Smith wrote:
Every ecosystem attracts parasites, and the best kept gardens die by pacifism.
Pardon me for butting in, but I noticed you calling human beings "parasites" and given us a murderer's definition of pacifism. The other day Juan called me a motherfucker among other silly things. I take that as an endorsement, but then, I'm an anarchist. In our present context, Moderation is to Censorship as the Just War Theory is to public mass murder for private profit. I believe you will find that similar views prevail in the local community. Here's one for the lofty philosophical quotes file: The difference between pacifism and passive-ism is an appreciation of the difference between force and violence. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXcO5PAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuq/oIH/3awvlGYNhGrmwVwDUzWLv7w 2ryyh3FjDVMYJHfW/kLLg2teenM6JnZL5FKi+++EB1wsyq3HxbODG0HAx8nB+VMq aXXGRJ9C9vJXNcNfvQEN+VSuN9sbvlAk6paQ9bxkSaqEV8p4Mrczh3CJqlhij5vE jVTfy8QflSE9IcBLZYtrEok2No0KW445jN6khMlYDxM1sD1cficHtW3/z7PifCn9 2eyeXo7vjpRV3bc3snumiE8C/E8qOmfLQ5EmqkpbccwSpocx0BtxX45WwhRLwS0i ZbNxK6PCcaNJ8lI8DlwxKhIEsoD4PUCI/8Od1Mr3xeipOLFvqZ5RqxcS9o8vylM= =udSn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
! Nothing to add. Except that WE BOTH were banned for that reason by fuckers who talk about "principles/decency/etc." Boyce, Quinn,..... - are hypocrites. Just ugly hypocrites who play with beautiful words like jugglers. I prefer to be banned of all existent mailing and discussion lists than
supporting something so infamous, so disgusting...
!!! Me too.
Quinn, You use a lot the adjective "decent". Please, your patterns of decency are _not_ exactly the same adopted in a punk community or even in several countries around the world. Mine, for example. I am not being ironic or agressive. I am talking too serious with you. Sorry, asking for moderation here, in this specific list, makes no sense. It would be really wrong. I was banned from tor-talk mailing list for defending a victim of brutal harassment and accusations with no proofs. This victim is my friend and is being attacked for a lynch mob. Is it not decent for you? I already had seen Jake in several talks before, but he just becomes my friend when I saw him crying for Aaron Swartz. I learned to love him after it. I was crying next to him and I was a cute, fragile, young girl, but he prefered to comfort and to hug a fat, tall, not so young man, who was crying much more than us together. Jake never knowed, but the tall North-American guy that, years ago, he hugged in a so sweet way is one of the persons that I more respect in the whole world. I could die for this guy now if he needs it, because he has a huge, amazing heart, one of the kindest souls that I know and he really believes in a better world and works hard for it. I think Jake never will remember me, but that was the first time I saw him as a friend. Jake was not a "rock star" (ridiculous expression used for some people), he was just a sad boy crying for a dead friend, for Aaron's lost dreams... I've spent a long time just seeing them hugging each other and, even not being the best of creatures, I sincerely prayed for them, asking God to bless both and Aaron' soul and his family. When Jake left my friend, I also hugged him, my huge lovely crying teddy bear... Jake saw our hug with some curiosity because he saw me watching them for a long time. I was hugging my friend and Jake saw my eyes still crying. My head was almost behind my friend's arm, because he is much, really much taller than me. Jake was not so close and made me a signal, asking me if I needed something. I smiled, so he smiled and finally left the room. After it, I already saw Jake crying, blushing, smiling, laughing, missing more friends, dead and alive... God, do you really think that would be decent to let stupid blind people destroy my friend's life?! If you think it is decent, sorry, I reject your concept of decency now and will reject it all the days of my life. I prefer to be banned of all existent mailing and discussion lists than supporting something so infamous, so disgusting... Take care and (re)think about your concepts of decency, please. Cecilia
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:59:51 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
It was somewhat entertaining.... ** = my comments. sekritarma> my little birdy tells me silk road 2 was indeed opsec sekritarma> failure, and the surrounding busts were because the silk sekritarma> road 2 guy named a whole lot of names **"my little birdy"(transparency first!) and tor's failure is always blamed on someone else. ioerror> Once, I was deported from Lebanon for being jewish, which was ioerror> because htey said i was a spy for israel (false) **lol - he needs to deny it...? mikeperry> I was excited to have a bridge to the State dept and gov't mikeperry> bureaucrats, **no comment... ioerror> If we hire a CIA person, which we have done apparently, we ioerror> will get people murdered **...because of opressive regimes! gamambel> why don't we take the RBN money for HS? **RBN? mikeperry> we're in that line also in part because we need lots of mikeperry> people to find Tor valuable, including the CIA **no comment. mikeperry>Andrew mailed tor-internal about his creepy plane flight with mikeperry>CIA agents next to him, telling him he should apply for IARPA mikeperry>funding/CIA funding mikeperry> I have no doubt that the CIA would find Tor useful, and its mikeperry> funding would not comrpromise us, **no comment. ioerror> mikeperry: Funding does compromise us ioerror> I am clear on that now. ioerror> Tor is compromised. **wow - that's so honest - as long it's said behind closed doors... DaveC1> And, I mean, again. I was joining an organization started by a DaveC1> NSA veteran. THat's the part that's still really confusing to DaveC1> me. ioerror> DaveC1: Roger's internship at the NSA is not the same kind of ioerror> veteran who helped invade iraq **sure - the NSA are good guys. Looks like the ex murderer, I mean 'soldier' and CIA agent is more reasonable than the tor mafia. ioerror> I have a lot of respect for Paul from the NRL and for many ioerror> people who fought in many wars **and looks like appelbaum's 'pacifism' is quite selective. Then again, he's on the pentagon's payroll... ioerror> I have very different politics than most people comprehend **yeah! fake anarchist working for the pentagon is kinda hard to 'comprehend'... DaveC1> ...But the things you're saying create an actively hostile work DaveC1> environment for veterans. **american psycho-murderer (aka soldier) whining about 'discrimination' - priceless. DaveC1> Runa: Griffin asked what was up. I told her "let me tell Roger DaveC1> first?, is that OK?" I would have told you the same. **griffin?? that wouldn't be the worthless scumbag boyce, would it...? because he says he doesn't work for the tor mafia... DaveC1> Runa: Sorry. I really didn't think that it would be a big deal DaveC1> since Roger was NSA. **birds of a feather... mikeperry> asn: I am not as distressed by the idea of a CIA pm as I am mikeperry> by what the rest of the world will think. **we are corrupt to the core, we only care about deceiving people as best as we can. ---------------- Also, there's a guy constantly repeating that his family in iran is going to be murdered because of this CIA guy. The story is completely nonsense of course. Supposedly, the iranian guy is working for tor, *helping the pentagon undermine the iranian government*. That's fine and dandy. The iranian gov't doesn't really care. HOWEVER, if the silly story about the CIA agent gets out, now the iranian government is going to kill this guy's family....why exactly? Because now they really understood what tor is about? Please.
participants (14)
-
Cecilia Tanaka -
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
John Newman -
John Young -
juan -
Me -
Mirimir -
Rayzer -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Steve Kinney -
Ted Smith -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр