Trying to Connect with a Hacker Online

[Karl]

On 10/13/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
> 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.

Saaaay I were one of those cool government agent types who gets all
the movies made about them and maybe always worries they would not
only lose their work but possibly be murdered (have not been in a
crowd where that happens myself) if they revealed who they are.  Say I
were working for a government and designed a really cool system that
lets you automatically alter the words people send over the internet,
so that things that were dangerous to the government no longer had
that effect.  Maybe some stuff comes out weird on the other side, but
what's important of course is that there is no longer unrest because
nobody even ever receives the word banana (altered from banana so that
you can receive this message).  Omigod my boss would love me!

What do you think of this idea?

>
>
> 	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.

You don't know unless you use signatures!

Don't get scared, most people are kind and trusting.

However, here is a random tutorial on altering the messages of other
people: https://linuxhint.com/mimt_attacks_linux/

>
>
>> (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.

Good advice, there.  Really, though, I actually need help setting up
message signing, and I'm not sure where to go.  So, my plan is to
figure it out and share it.  I already have my raspberry pi!

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>> >
>
>