The Intercept steps up after catching a reporter faking data and sources
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 7 12:04:30 PST 2016
On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 22:07:10 +0000
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> I like your [Rayzer's] .sig, but perhaps you haven't figured out,
> riseup.net is the establishment's false opposition - "Occupy"
> bullshit and all that, used to capture as much rebellious protest
> energy as possible, channeling that into the most irrelevant
> non-directions of ephemeral bullshit we've ever seen.
I noticed a couple of weird things about riseup.net. First
thing is that there is a lot (relatively speaking) of messages
from riseup addresses in the "tor-talk" mailing list. One would
naively expect that 'progressive 'anarcho' commies would have
nothing to do with the pentagon's fake anonimity network...yet
Also, taking into account what kind of joke 'cybersecurity'
is, it doesn't look like a terribly good idea to use a
centralized service like riseup. Even if we naively assume that
riseup owners are 'honest'(...), their servers remain an
'interesting' target and will be treated accordingly.
> Oh yes, the occasional "petition" that begs the government for some
> scrap of bread.
> Here in Australia, it became clear at some point that Riseup.net was
> being driven by Labour ("Democracks"), but for those who haven't yet
> figured out the whois command, riseup.net is a product of a
> Washingtun, Ewe Ess Eh? company called Riseup Networks.
wikipedia's article is very very short, which is weird,
especially considering the ideological overlap between both
> Had potential. If it weren't the establishment.
> If you don't own it, you don't control it.
> If you don't control it, it may be used against you.
> If you can't trust those who DO control it, it WILL be used against
> Not a difficult principle...
More information about the cypherpunks