Greenwald, Scahill step down from The Intercept
groundhog593 at riseup.net
Mon Apr 6 11:22:04 PDT 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
> its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award
> there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a
dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the
person was hit by a drone strike
> no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never
> perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand
Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when he's
investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination
of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So gauche!"
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Alexis Wattel <alexiswattel at gmail.com <mailto:alexiswattel at gmail.com>>
> Speaking about facts checking: intrigued by these allegations I
looked up wiki on Omydiar, and his network association is said to have
partnered with the CIA, which is not generally all about "philanthropy",
although this claim lack any reference.
> Would someone know why is the Agency mentioned there?
> Aside from that, financed projects include "mobile intelligence"
for prospectors and deploying banks onto mobile phones to make sure
everyone even in Africa pays his fees to the landlords. They even dare
to say it's cheaper than cash. I wonder how that is.
> Anyway... Wild allegations are very entertaining, but seriously
what's the real meaning of this about Tor?
> Because no technical evidence suggest it is "backdoored" (whatever
that would mean, this is a trendy word, makes the one who says it sound
so l33t in journalism circles).
> On the other hand, Tor devs are more and more often prone on
reminding that traffic analysis/correlation is not part of their threat
model. The problem is that it is nowadays a definitely proven capability
> I really can't help thinking this is a deliberate desire of
keeping Tor at government's reach because the eternal argument they
oppose do not stand. They say that randomized wait times at each relay
would make the traffic too slow. But I remember using Tor 8 years ago
when it took forever to load a Web page, and still did I use it in spite
of this major extra effort, because anonymous surfing was such a blast.
> Today the network is fast enough to be able to swap 25% speed for
a massive increase of anonymity.
> The other solution, randomized length of packets with dummy
padding discarded at each relay would impact even less on responsiveness.
> I honestly can't see why they legitimately refuse to implement this.
> They seem to think that the need to observe both ends is too hard.
Did they hear about the BGP routing attack that targeted Iceland? Funny
how the Silk Road server was found a month later in... Oh shit, Iceland.
> When you claim to protect activists with government money, you'd
better not show dubious intentions if people trust are what you depend
on. Because that's why Tor was opened at first. The government officials
needed to hide among civilian traffic. They do need the people to run nodes.
> Le 6 avril 2015 15:04:21 CEST, xezha <xezha at riseup.net
<mailto:xezha at riseup.net>> a écrit :
> I think I may have to leave this list.
> Can you really not tell the difference between a real article and
something made up/joke/propaganda?
> Please be a little more critical and back up for claims before
slandering someones name. Even 5 minutes of research with google will
demonstrate that you are the only source of ANY claims about Jeremy
Scahills unethical journalism. You seem to have a screw loose.
> On 06/04/15 02:35, Cari Machet wrote:
> > thank you!!
> > i just want to say that @jeremyscahill took a selfie with a
(murdered) dead body which no & i mean no journalist does - no one ...
he is a very sick capitalist fascist
> > he has done more than this but i wont go on & on
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com
<mailto:juan.g71 at gmail.com> <mailto:juan.g71 at gmail.com>
<mailto:juan.g71 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:29:06 -0700
> > Seth <list at sysfu.com <mailto:list at sysfu.com>
<mailto:list at sysfu.com> <mailto:list at sysfu.com>> wrote:
> > > It's about damn time ;)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > is this some kind of stupid 'joke' ?
> > --
> > Cari Machet
> > NYC 646-436-7795 <tel:646-436-7795>
> > carimachet at gmail.com <mailto:carimachet at gmail.com>
<mailto:carimachet at gmail.com> <mailto:carimachet at gmail.com>
> > AIM carismachet
> > Syria +963-099 277 3243
> > Amman +962 077 636 9407
> > Berlin +49 152 11779219 <tel:%2B49%20152%2011779219>
> > Reykjavik +354 894 8650 <tel:%2B354%20894%208650>
> > Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
> > 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
> > Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
> > addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are
> > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
> > information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email
> > permission is strictly prohibited.
> Cari Machet
> NYC 646-436-7795
> carimachet at gmail.com <mailto:carimachet at gmail.com>
> AIM carismachet
> Syria +963-099 277 3243
> Amman +962 077 636 9407
> Berlin +49 152 11779219
> Reykjavik +354 894 8650
> Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
> addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
> information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
> permission is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 10657 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the cypherpunks