Trying to Connect with a Hacker Online

[Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 14:53:26 -0400
Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, I'll read it more.
> 
> It sounds like you're imagining me suspecting the list administrator
> of harming the list, and feel disgusted by that idea. 

	I'm  saying that nobody is going to bother altering the messages that are posted to the list. And if somebody does, so what. Actually it would be entertaining if sombebody did and we  got to see how the 'intelligence services' operate. 


	So maybe all the fascist crap that jim bell posts doesn't come from jim bell. Except, the stuff posted by 'jim bell' is exactly the sort of stuff I'd come to expect from the guy who thinks that murder is the 'libertarian' way to deal with theft.


> (I wouldn't
> suspect them of this.)  It sounds like you then tell me that signing
> messages is futile and pointless.  (I'm not sure why.)


	it's pointless for the resaons above. 

> 
> It seems you're noting there being public cryptographic proof that I
> would have sent signed messages, and harm befalling me because of
> this.  (I have that harm already, and one can always make a new
> private key for a new identity.)


	so signing makes you less 'anonymous'. You're already using a joomail address anyway. 

 
> But I wasn't asking why you think it's a bad idea.  I was asking what
> you're frustrated about.

	
	I'm frustrated because a bad idea is being promoted...Not sure what else is needed? But  again, if you want to sign your own messages, do so. 


> 
> On 10/13/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:46:04 -0400
> > Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey punk,
> >>
> >> On 10/12/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:43:31 -0400
> >> > Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Couldn't it be used for the mailing list, to verify that each person
> >> >> is
> >> >> saying what they intend?
> >> >
> >> > 	you think the list administrator is tampering with the messages? That
> >> > would
> >> > be pointless and easily detected. Signing messanges buys you nothing.
> >> >
> >> > 	ON THE OTHER HAND, if you sign your messages you're providing
> >> > 'crytographic
> >> > evidence' for govcorp to further attack you.
> >>
> >> It sounds like you felt irritated when I mentioned verifying integrity
> >> of messages.  What's going on?
> >
> >
> > 	I explained why it's a bad idea above. Read what I wrote. If you want to
> > sign your stupid messages, sign them and leave the rest of people and the
> > list list alone.
> >