A short sad history of Lance Detweiler our first NET.LOON Re: Brag About Exploits, Go to Jail

[gwen hastings]

Doesnt Surprise me,


    During the original publication cycle of PGP an effort was made to
reach out to mitch kapor and john perry barlow for aid from EFF but Jim
Bidsoz was already there with his lies that PGP was stolen/purloined
code and thus mitch/perry washed his hands of PGP. FUCK THEM..

FUCK MITCH KAPOR, FUCK JOHN PERRY BARLOW!!

and yes this list and so called movement(HAH!) was founded on Media
Manipulation/Braggarts/BS if you will) of the highest order, It even got
a greater push after we viewed an Inforwar Con V  presentation  in 1994
 called Red Teaming(it was an information attack on the structures of
the press(propaganda with a twist)).

And given Internet Sockpuppets :) its remarkably easy to be ones one
greek Chorus(and press army)..  in fact Anonymous vs the rootkit.com
founder was over "greek chorus" type of sockpuppet software that the
firm was developing , and while javascript turing scripts did pose
initial problems for same(sockpuppet software) when facebook and others
tried implementing them, call outs to the "mechnical turk" and later to
the Selenium plugin nowadays for the amateur efforts quickly solved that
technical issue.

Anonymous remailers have also been remarkably effective in hoodwinking
both the press corp and the public and even members of this list
 to swallow both the malware nostrums(mcafee and others)(hook) and later
PGP/other crypto/security crap (line and sinker).

This kind treatment of the truth was drove our first list foil Detweiler
stark raving bonkers and sent him raving on the list about tentacles of
MEDUSA especially after list participants picked up and started remailer
bombing him with a procmail script that someone thoughtfully published
to the list that would email him several (n+1)slightly different copies
of his own posted mail each time he posted.

Detweilers final demise from his position as one of the privileged
Sysadmins at the University when he carelessly replied to a type one
remailer block that contained his direct supervisors spouse's(wife)
email address among others(the chancellors of the university  email
addresses were included in that block.) thinking that he was instead
replying to one of his sockpuppet harassers(I believe it was tentacle
#69 who copped to this).

Badda bing Badda boom,, all 83 email addresses he had been abusing from
the university  position where he was employed were gone in 1 hour
etc...as was his job and privileged position from where he abused the
rest of the list.

David Sternlight was made of much stronger stuff :) ... Lance Detweiler
was MUCH more careless and thought he was one of the rulers of us..



      I LOVE this topic John!!
      GH
ps more on earlier list protagonists/propagandists later...statute of
limitations for all of these early list antics is of course LONG expired..

pss if Lance Detweiler had NOT stepped up we  would have had to create
him as a SOCKPUPPET..

more on the NOT lamented Detweilers ravings:


https://www.google.com/search?q=tentacles+of+MEDUSA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#channel=fflb&q=tentacles+of+MEDUSA+lance+detweiler&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official.

On 1/8/14 7:29 AM, John Young wrote:
> Did you read today (NYT) that one of the founders of EFF, Mitch
> Kapor, was a first investor in a leading ubiqutious camera
> spying venture to put in the hands of everybody what once was
> used only by spies and cops? Everybody is TLA, TLA is everybody.
> 
> Snowden, allegedly, gave docs to a world-class braggart,
> Greenwald, and to two or three much less loud-mouthed but in
> the professional bragging business, Poitras and Gellman,
> documentary tout and national security tout, respectively.
> 
> Thereafter the tout bragging industry kicked into high gear and
> quickly overwhelmed whatever Snowden might have intended
> by their own fabricated, doctored, hyperbolied super-touted
> headlined versions of his intentions, but more so, in their own
> economic interest, whipping up a frenzy about their noble
> intentions to rake in the loot after years of nearing bankruptcy
> (the forlorn solo journo, Greenwald and Poitras profiles too.)
> 
> Greenwald in particular bellows excessively, as a lawyer must,
> about his obligation to a pact with Snowden, and lately his much
> greater jury-pandering about his pact with Omidyar. His recent
> long bloviation on his blog is purely promotional bragging
> characteristic of the hustler forever crowing about its prowess,
> whining about attacks, disdaining critics with puerile condescension.
> 
> Omidyar and Bezos among others, have been sucked into
> the ultra-bragging game, large, inebriated with unquenchable wealth
> accumulation, after years of supporting highly vainglorious and
> dispensible NGO investments, not a few of which have failed
> due to exaggerated brochure-toute expectations which could
> not be met but were invented losers to be run into the ground
> for the tax benefits of ultra-concentrated wealth. This the exact
> model of the Firstlook venture, a combo of high-profit media
> industry and simulated "NGO" journalism to exempt the taxable
> profits.
> 
> Would that work here. Youbetcha. The very founding of
> cypherpunks employed that model and sustains it to solicit
> and amass data of crypto-freedom-drunk users for marketing
> peculiarly faulty products across the political spectrum from
> faux privacy to faux security. Https everywhere, har, Tor, har,
> WikiLeaks, har, Cryptome, spit, and what have you now,
> Snowden.
> 
> Braggarts always have noble purposes, bragging about
> nobility is what sustains the illusion of superiority. And
> glosses the nobility of great wealth or depthless desire
> for it.
> 
> Significant variations of braggardy, from loud to quiet.
> overstatement to understatement. Chump version:
> "needs killing." Chimp version: Snowden is a hero,
> or traitor. Wimp version: more leaks by others, none
> by me. Gimp version: this is nothing new. Limp version:
> don't insult people here, don't discuss politics, message
> deleted by moderator. Blimp version: this forum is
> unmoderated.
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:15 AM 1/8/2014, you wrote:
>> > Snowden wanted to be identified, so it is alleged, and
>> > has been caught as intended.
>>
>> I think the reasoning with Snowden was not so much to brag as to make
>> himself a hard-to-assassinate public figure. In his case, so few people
>> could have acquired the documents he did, that it was a matter of
>> (little) time before he was noticed to be conveniently absent as the
>> shit hit the fan.
>>
>> If he wasn't in the public eye by that time, he'd have been disappeared
>> and/or shot in short order.
>>
>> > Not to be overlooked: the essence of comsec and
>> > crypto is deception. So laugh at the open source ruse
>> > on the way to the pokey.
>>
>> Funny that, I look at closed source as evidence of deception; without
>> deception, there is no reason to hide the source. As long as they keys
>> are secret, the protocol and code can be open, and should be if anyone's
>> to trust that they're A) beneficent and B) competent.
>>
>> In the comparison of Cryptocat, which has tightened up radically because
>> of code audits enabled by Open Sourcing it, to Bittorrent Sync (which
>> used to advertise AES256 which was impossible with the keylength being
>> shared, now advertises AES128, nobody knows how they implement it but a
>> mistake like that screams "badly"), which is still unaudited snakeoil:
>> BTSync boast massive bandwidth usage implying a significant user uptake,
>> and moreso since the Snowden affair because of their snakeoil offering.
>> So the Open Source guy gets all the attention, audits and improvement,
>> while the closed source guys get no attention, no audits, and finally
>> notice internally that they're offering AES256 when they can't
>> physically accomplish it with the keylengths.
>>
>> I'll take Open, thanks. At least I can see what's wrong if it errs.
>>
>> On 08/01/14 12:55, John Young wrote:
>> > James Donald wrote:
>> >
>> >> And if he had, like Snowden, kept a low profile, instead of flicking a
>> >> towel in their faces, they never would have detected it.
>> >
>> > Swartz bragged to a slew of people and was caught.
>> > Manning bragged to Lamo and was caught.
>> > Kiriakou bragged to a journalist and was caught.
>> > Sabu bragged to cohorts and was caught.
>> > Barrett Brown bragged to the world and was caught.
>> > Several Anonymouses bragged and were caught.
>> > And so on, dozens in just the last decade.
>> >
>> > Jim Bell bragged online and went to jail. So did Carl
>> > Johnson. Cops love braggarts, brag themselves to
>> > braggarts to keep prisons happylands.
>> >
>> > How many did not brag and remained uncaught? There
>> > are likely thousands of them. Many of those work with
>> > or emulate spies who do not brag as rule number 1.
>> >
>> > Snowden wanted to be identified, so it is alleged, and
>> > has been caught as intended.
>> >
>> > Is this nuts or what, vainglorious stupidity, or a commonplace
>> > ruse to get the enemy to expose its capabilities, or to flaunt
>> > one's own hybrid of authentic and fake to spook the enemy,
>> > to seel products, to boost budgets, to manipulate public
>> > opinion. The fundamental purpose of leaks.
>> >
>> > Keeping a non-existent profile is worth considering, along
>> > with a hundred pseudos.
>> >
>> > And putting a high-profile out there is what the Internet
>> > was intended to do, fake, sock, pseudo, anon, sucker.
>> >
>> > Not to be overlooked: the essence of comsec and
>> > crypto is deception. So laugh at the open source ruse
>> > on the way to the pokey.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Tentacle #99

ecc public key curve p160
;9C~b~)3)cp0d!?C1JIVI=tI(

Governments are instituted among men,
 deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or
 abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
 foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers
 in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
 their safety and happiness.’