From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:01:58 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:01:58 -0700 Subject: The BlackList: Murphy's lame reply In-Reply-To: <54829360.386325.1446354852647.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <54829360.386325.1446354852647.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/15, jim bell wrote: > ... > What "conflict"? In what way "destructive"? we can pick a resource for discussion. water you drink, perhaps. [ and municipal water supply or well on your propery, we can find a commons to conflict or cooperate over. ] > You don't explain how to "defeat bad ideas". a bad idea is considered, and rejected for a better alternative. [ this necessitates a common ground of discourse, terminology. ] > consider that competition can never reach a solution at which full > cooperation will arrive. > I disagree. if the only solutions are through conflict in your world view, you're right. nothing left to discuss... From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:06:08 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:06:08 -0700 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/15, Juan wrote: > ... > Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, > ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important > targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the > list? Who's going to finish them off? this is exactly the beauty of AP: when a nation sized crowd gets pissed, not even the shield of nation state power can protect you! in other words, APs solution is to ramp the incentive sky high, and let nature find a way... From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:26:30 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:26:30 -0700 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: References: <1728049566.361887.1446354967523.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, grarpamp wrote: > ... >> Simple answer: No. > > That would seem to be a service offered by the contractor, > not by the mark maker. you might simplify further, and say that ideally this reduces to transaction costs alone, as lower bound. in which case, the minimum cost of human life is around 0.0001 BTC, or about 3 cents. best regards, From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:42:32 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:42:32 -0700 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, Juan wrote: > ... > There isn't much proof that 'enough incentives' will get the job > done. You just restated a baseless assertion. just because we've never had AP does not mean that it won't work. there are plenty of cases where those with privileged access and lifetime reputation betray it for roughly millions or less, in USD. the rest, assuming AP exists, becomes probabilities and patience. From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 01:16:15 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:16:15 -0700 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, Juan wrote: > ... > It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high > ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree? no, this is movie plot thinking. you need someone with access and opportunity. > You are saying that those targets will be taken down by > 'traitors'? That can happen sometimes but I don't think it > would be common. most traitors are traitors for money, not ideology. > Also notice that 'traitors' a la snowden don't > do it for money. And he didn't kill anybody either (and he's no > anarchist anyway) Snowden is not a typical traitor, as discussed. > Yet you are saying that a 'modern', big, very well > funded government can be overthrown by buying off some of its > members with a few million dollars? i don't think AP would destroy government - that's a separate question. i do think AP would successfully murder even the most high profile targets, though. From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:12:51 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 03:12:51 -0400 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: <1728049566.361887.1446354967523.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1728049566.361887.1446354967523.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:16 AM, jim bell wrote: > From: coderman > for an AP target? should there be a "minimum kill price"? > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life > Simple answer: No. That would seem to be a service offered by the contractor, not by the mark maker. Though a various classes of historical minimums may settle out of the marketplace based on things like ease of access to particular levels of marks, risk factors to fulfillment of any particular task, contractor density and regional differences, etc. For any completed tasks that were scrutinizable by the public, the market would certainly keep track of those metrics, even if only as a tool for makers to properly allocate their budget. From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:54:51 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 03:54:51 -0400 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: References: <1728049566.361887.1446354967523.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:26 AM, coderman wrote: > you might simplify further, and say that ideally this reduces to > transaction costs alone, as lower bound. Some contractors might work for free, they might even pay to be fed juicy marks... establishing a rep, grandstanding, love of the hobby, whatever. > about 3 cents. That might be true too on a net forward contribution [to something new] scale. From juan.g71 at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 00:30:25 2015 From: juan.g71 at gmail.com (Juan) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 04:30:25 -0300 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:06:08 -0700 coderman wrote: > On 10/31/15, Juan wrote: > > ... > > Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, > > ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important > > targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the > > list? Who's going to finish them off? > > this is exactly the beauty of AP: when a nation sized crowd gets > pissed, not even the shield of nation state power can protect you! > > in other words, APs solution is to ramp the incentive sky high, > and let nature find a way... Yes, you just confirmed what I consider a correct guess on my part. There isn't much proof that 'enough incentives' will get the job done. You just restated a baseless assertion. "ramp the incentive sky high" I call bullshit. From juan.g71 at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 01:12:45 2015 From: juan.g71 at gmail.com (Juan) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 05:12:45 -0300 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:42:32 -0700 coderman wrote: > On 11/1/15, Juan wrote: > > ... > > There isn't much proof that 'enough incentives' will get > > the job done. You just restated a baseless assertion. > > just because we've never had AP does not mean that it won't work. Sure. But I never said "It won't work because it's new". I'm just asking for more details. > > there are plenty of cases where those with privileged access and > lifetime reputation betray it for roughly millions or less, in USD. It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree? You are saying that those targets will be taken down by 'traitors'? That can happen sometimes but I don't think it would be common. Also notice that 'traitors' a la snowden don't do it for money. And he didn't kill anybody either (and he's no anarchist anyway) Yet you are saying that a 'modern', big, very well funded government can be overthrown by buying off some of its members with a few million dollars? > > the rest, assuming AP exists, becomes probabilities and patience. From jdb10987 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 1 01:07:57 2015 From: jdb10987 at yahoo.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 08:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Bitcoin Halloween... A Dangerous Idea... They're Terrified We'll Use It In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1471381325.408517.1446365277696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: grarpamp To: "cypherpunks at cpunks.org" Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Bitcoin Halloween... A Dangerous Idea... They're Terrified We'll Use It On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:16 PM, jim bell wrote: > Generally, I'm not interested in "upgrading" anything.  I just want things > to WORK. Should I have been able to access the site using my browser? Onions should never resolve, so the answer is no.  I wish I understood what you just said.       Jim Bell -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2153 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jdb10987 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 1 01:12:00 2015 From: jdb10987 at yahoo.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 08:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> References: <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <935312752.388847.1446365520386.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: Juan >    The AP thing takes a few things for granted. One of the things  >   taken for granted seems to be that, if some kind of prize is  >   put on A's head, somebody is going to kill A to collect the >    prize.  That is certainly a possibility. >    Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say,  >   ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important  >   targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the  >   list? Who's going to finish them off? Even most of the very important targets are probably not very well protected, 24 hours per day.  But if they are inaccessible, their employees could be targeted as well.  And their employees will have access to them. > And what is the contractor >    going to do with his money once the job is done? Deposit it on a >     numbered account in switzerland? Buy an island? Donate it >    to charity? Or? Whatever he wants to do with it!   It's his money, of course.           Jim Bell   -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3126 bytes Desc: not available URL: From oshwm at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 01:20:28 2015 From: oshwm at openmailbox.org (oshwm) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:20:28 +0000 Subject: Bitcoin Halloween... A Dangerous Idea... They're Terrified We'll Use It In-Reply-To: <1471381325.408517.1446365277696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1471381325.408517.1446365277696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5635D95C.4030303@openmailbox.org> On 01/11/15 08:07, jim bell wrote: > > From: grarpamp > To: "cypherpunks at cpunks.org" > Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 11:41 PM > Subject: Re: Bitcoin Halloween... A Dangerous Idea... They're Terrified We'll Use It > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:16 PM, jim bell wrote: > > >> Generally, I'm not interested in "upgrading" anything. I just want things >> to WORK. Should I have been able to access the site using my browser? > > Onions should never resolve, so the answer is no. > I wish I understood what you just said. > Jim Bell > Please accept my apologies if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs, being trolled, shit like that but I'm going to assume minimal knowledge of this... Basically, you have a bunch of tools designed to hide your communications when using the internet. This particular set of tools has at it's core, The Onion Router (Tor) which passes your internet communications via many different proxies using multiple layers of encryption so that none of the proxies in the middle of this chain can identify the source and destination of the connection. Tor can be used to hide your communications when looking at normal websites such as www.cryptome.com but this carries a risk. Any of the proxies can be monitored and using traffic correlation you can be identified by comparing the communications entering Tor and exiting Tor (to reach the website). To avoid this, you can use Tor to only access Hidden web servers so that your traffic never leaves the Tor network, making the traffic correlation techniques much harder to do. These hidden web servers are only visible in the Tor network and their web addresses end in .onion Hence, people referring to onions :) So, if you wish to view the content on the hidden servers like the one coderman linked to then you need access to the Tor network. The Tor project make a modified version of the Firefox web browser available for download and install that gives a simple way to access Tor without having to do much messing about with your computer. It also, has a modified configuration to reduce the amount of private information you leak when using it. Information from the horses mouth: https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en Download the Tor Browser: https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html.en The quality of information available at the Tor link will far surpass what I have just written and you should assume small but possibly devastating inaccuracies in my description above :) Sorry for the long post but I couldn't think of a quick way of writing it if you haven't come across Tor before. There are also other similar systems: i2p, freenet but Tor seems to be the most popular. Something to weigh up though is that Tor was created by the US Navy and the project still receives US Government funding so you should probably bear this in mind when using it although reading more information on the Tor Project's website may or may not reduce feelings of discomfort that come from knowing where the funding comes from. Cheers, oshwm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jm at porup.com Sun Nov 1 06:21:18 2015 From: jm at porup.com (J.M. Porup) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 09:21:18 -0500 Subject: The United States of Air (novel) free ebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101142117.GC1760@fedora-21-dvm> The United States of Air is a satire that makes fun of mass surveillance and the NSA. CC-licensed, so free to share. Free audiobook too. XHTML on GitHub, run it through calibre for an epub or mobi: https://github.com/toholdaquill/united-states-of-air free audiobook here: http://podiobooks.com/title/the-united-states-of-air-a-satire/ ... The National Sewer Agency is spying on people's toilets, looking for food terrorists... Food Enforcement Agent Jason Frolick believes in America. He believes in eating air. He struggles to get the food monkey off his back. As part of the Global War on Fat, his job is to put food terrorists in Fat Camp. When a pizza dealer gets whacked in the park across the street from the Thin House, the Prophet Jones himself asks Frolick to investigate. For the first time ever, Frolick solves a murderbut what he finds out shakes his faith. Will he ever be able to eat air again? From jdb10987 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 1 01:25:12 2015 From: jdb10987 at yahoo.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 09:25:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: grarpamp On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:26 AM, coderman wrote: >> you might simplify further, and say that ideally this reduces to >> transaction costs alone, as lower bound. >Some contractors might work for free, they might even >pay to be fed juicy marks... establishing a rep, grandstanding, >love of the hobby, whatever. While the first few collected rewards would probably be in the tens of thousands of dollars range, after a few hundred are collected I think the price could easily drop to the low thousands.  One reason is that once it is clear that government has no effective defense, it will also be clear that soon enough, the government(s) will surely fall.  The main reason a given "special bettor" might hesitate to act is the possibility that he will be stuck in prison, if identified and caught.   But the entire process could be over in just a few months, with the government(s) yelling, "We surrender!".  One condition for that surrender will certainly be the release of all the hostages.   Another tactic which could be used to strengthen the resolve of potential AP winners is to arrange the bounty system so a portion of all bets also will be used to target anybody who is part of the prosecution of any caught persons, or for that matter anyone who kills or even arrests them:  The judges, prosecutors, and other court staff, as well as hostile witnesses.  Even unsuccessful defense attorneys:  The possible threat of death would provide an automatic appeal issue.  What about a standing publicly-offered reward for $10,000 for any juror who votes to acquit, if that vote doesn't result in a subsequent prosecution.  (And it can't, if the vote is unanimous for acquittal.)  Anyone who holds out for a conviction wouldn't get any money.  As was stated in the movie Dr. Strangelove,  "Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the FEAR to attack".  If the only tool they have is to prosecute people, make them FEAR to do so and soon enough, they won't dare.   What is the economics of all this?  Consider that in 2014 a record 3 trillion dollars in taxes was collected by the Federal government.  If those who paid those taxes were willing to donate 1% of that value once, to have it stopped, forever, that would amount to $30 billion.  If the average amount that had to be paid for a single death was $50,000, that would amount to 600,000 deaths.  Does anybody seriously believe that the USG (or any other government, for that matter) would even try to survive such a blow?  Clearly not:  They would resign.             Jim Bell Note to the ones monitoring:  1969 Supreme Court decision Brandenberg v. Ohio   https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444  guarantees as 'protected speech' under the First Amendment even encouragement to others to commit crimes, as long as a riot-type situation is not going on.  There is no riot here, and I haven't encouraged anybody to commit any crime. There is no imminent lawless action anticipated. "These are not the Cypherpunks we're looking for.  You can go about your business.  Move along" [Quote from Brandenburg:] The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute was enacted in 1919. From 1917 to 1920, identical or quite similar laws were adopted by 20 States and two territories. E. Dowell, A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States 21 (1939). In 1927, this Court sustained the constitutionality of California's Criminal Syndicalism Act, Cal.Penal Code §§ 11400-11402, the text of which is quite similar to that of the laws of Ohio. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. [n2] As we [p448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297-298 (1961),the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967);Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500(1964); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964).Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime[p449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. [n3]Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. [n4] Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.Reversed. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 19267 bytes Desc: not available URL: From oshwm at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 01:27:47 2015 From: oshwm at openmailbox.org (oshwm) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:27:47 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing > > Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim of > what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people on the > internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL account and published > emails and documents found inside, many of them personal and > sensitive. > > It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word "documents." It > emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge tactic, and has since been as > a tool to harass and intimidate people on the internet. Someone would > threaten a woman with physical harm, or try to incite others to harm > her, and publish her personal information as a way of saying "I know a > lot about you—like where you live and work." Victims of doxing talk > about the fear that this tactic instills. It's very effective, by > which I mean that it's horrible. > > Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker had a more > political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate Brennan; he simply > wanted to embarrass him. His personal papers were dumped > indiscriminately, fodder for an eager press. This doxing was a > political act, and we're seeing this kind of thing more and more. > > Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal > correspondence, documents, and information they would rather be > private > > Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this to Sony. > Hackers the FBI believes were working for North Korea broke into the > company's networks, stole a huge amount of corporate data, and > published it. This included unreleased movies, financial information, > company plans, and personal emails. The reputational damage to the > company was enormous; the company estimated the cost at $41 million. > > In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents from the > cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That same month, > different hackers did the same thing to the infidelity website Ashley > Madison. In 2014, hackers broke into the iCloud accounts of over 100 > celebrities and published personal photographs, most containing some > nudity. In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA. > > These aren't the first instances of politically motivated doxing, but > there's a clear trend. As people realize what an effective attack this > can be, and how an individual can use the tactic to do considerable > damage to powerful people and institutions, we're going to see a lot > more of it. > > On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living in a > world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated attacker will > circumvent network security. Even worse, most internet security > assumes it needs to defend against an opportunistic attacker who will > attack the weakest network in order to get—for example—a pile of > credit card numbers. The notion of a targeted attacker, who wants Sony > or Ashley Madison or John Brennan because of what they stand for, is > still new. And it's even harder to defend against. > > What this means is that we're going to see more political doxing in > the future, against both people and institutions. It's going to be a > factor in elections. It's going to be a factor in anti-corporate > activism. More people will find their personal information exposed to > the world: politicians, corporate executives, celebrities, divisive > and outspoken individuals. > > Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will. Some of them > will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of them will be inadvertent > victims of a doxing attack aimed at a company where their information > is stored, like those celebrities with iPhone accounts and every > customer of Ashley Madison. Regardless of the method, lots of people > will have to face the publication of personal correspondence, > documents, and information they would rather be private. > > In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively use > against the powerful. It can be used for whistleblowing. It can be > used as a vehicle for social change. And it can be used to embarrass, > harass, and intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this > effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting the doxers is > so difficult. > > There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the right to > privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But we're not, and those > of us who are in the public eye have no choice but to rethink our > online data shadows. > Political figures in most countries have been using their personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar' in order to avoid information being subject to oversight, most probably because its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very least not good for the image of governments. When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal life that may happen. If people in power act properly in their professional dealings then their is an argument against d0xing their personal information but once they start to try to hide information then it's open season on every aspect of their life. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 02:20:06 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 10:20:06 +0000 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <610880110.330106.1446346260872.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <610880110.330106.1446346260872.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5635E756.1030004@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 jim bell: > From: intelemetry >> From: Cari Machet To: coderman >> Cc: cpunks ; jim >> bell Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 PM >> Subject: Re: The Black List > >>> But I approached the problem differently: I saw that very few >>> people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy someone else's >>> death. But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people might >>> want to pay $1 each for that outcome. That amounts to a >>> crowdsourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and >>> benefits. And I also saw that such a functioning system would >>> deter virtually everything which we call wrong in today's >>> society. Anybody who is trying to argue against an AP-type >>> system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flawed >>> status quo, even if they don't realize that. I also solved >>> David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery >>> of Freedom", the previously-assumed difficulty or >>> impossibility of providing for the defense of a fully >>> libertarian or anarchistic society. Perhaps my big advantage >>> was that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, >>> at least under that label, until long after I'd already solved >>> it. > >> Claiming that an assassination market solves the defense problem >> in Friedman's utilitarian and general anarchocapitalism is very >> bold. You have a betting pool for killing people.>You don't have >> any sort of collection of funds that protect a society from >> something like everyday crime, you've merely got a hit market. > To the extent that crime presents a problem that needs to be > solved, there is no reason that private organization can't exist to > detect crime, and then prove it to an excellent standard. Those > who commit crimecan be presented with a choice: make your victim > whole, and/or accept preventive confinement, or earn a bounty on an > AP-type system. Your idea is effectively crowdsourcing, which in > many ways could be very useful for Friedman's hard problem. > However, while remaining purely voluntary in nature, what > differentiates your assassination market from: > > - taxes (compulsory collection of small amounts from many) Taxes > are, as you pointed out, compulsory. Donating to an AP-type system > won't be compulsory. But potential criminals won't know who is > donating, andwho is not donating. And it will probably not matter: > Most people, out of a sense of self-protection, will donate to such > crime-prevention and detection funds,because they will amount to a > deterrent against all criminals. - hits (a few wealthy individuals > take out a contract) > > > Moreover, you still are facing the 'free-rider' problem, where, > "if everybody else in my community payed a dollar to kill this guy, > why should I have to do so, it is only -1 dollar. I don't think > 'free riders' will be much of a problem. For one thing, I think > the system (AP) will be vastly more efficient than the convention > crimeprotection system. (in the same way that military defense > could be 100xcheaper. > > > >> I am neither trying to discredit nor insult your ideas; just >> curious if you could expound upon how an assassination market >> fits into defense in a free society. > >> This video might help set the context: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for >> Security | Robert P. Murphy ' - - Intelemetry > I hope that someday, in the future, technology will advance to the > point where transcripts to 55-minute videos can be automatically > generated. I can alreadysee that Murphy speaks rapidly, but I > could easily read the transcript 10x as fast as he can speak it. > By pointing to that video, you are effectively asking me to employ > 55 minutes of my life on something which you say will merely "set > the context". Murphy and his business partner, Robert Vroman, > engaged in a public three-part debate about AP. Vroman wote two, > Murphy wrote one. Bob Vroman > http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape > , > http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated at minder.net/msg02068. html > and of Bob Murphy, www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy17.html > (although the Murphy essay might not be available, except as an > archive on the Wayback Machine.) as well as by R. Sukumaran > http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationand theTerrorismFuturesMarket_rsukumaran_0404.html. > Jim, astute and concise reply as always. If you're looking for a shorter tract on some of Murphy's work you should consult this: http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Essays-Market-Anarchy/dp/1479258377 The Mises Institute is good about making their work freely available as well. > Further, consider > > https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content /anarchism/game-theory-anarchism-ii-how-information-can-smash-the-state. md > > https://c4ss.org/content/1157 > > series -- anti-state.com I think the idea of assassination politics distills to a very insightful approach to defense and crowdsourcing in general. However, from the vantage point of anarchism one crucial aspect worthy of consideration is that of self autonomy and negative liberty. You don't have "freedom to," but rather "freedom from" the state. With assassination politics there is an argument that this is retributive justice regarding compulsory theft of assets (and property, in certain instances). However, I strongly urge you to consider that the taking of a life is serious business. Consider this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208907/The-Ashley-Madison-suici de-Texas-police-chief-takes-life-just-days-email-leaked-cheating-website - -hack.html There are lesser means that can be employed and crowdfunded which could strongly dis-incentivize working for the state (such as invasion of privacy, which is arguably retributive with respect to Rothbard's notion of justice). The problem with David Friedman is that he approaches Anarchocapitalism like a problem in physics. It will just end up a certain way because market forces will make things happen. However, one thing that he does not take into consideration (for instance, where he differs from the Independent Institute and the Mises Institute) is the notion of individual freedom and the right of neither the state nor any external actor to violate your personal autonomy (which you can extrapolate from your body/mind and unto you property). - From the Friedmanite perspective, citizenry will kill the state, the state will kill back, and the process will reach an equilibrium. While that might work in the 'market sense,' to reach that state requires pretty grotesque action to take place. That is the problem with Utilitarian Anarchocapitalism. There is no real consideration of actual human rights, it is a market driven theory on how society could potentially function in the absence of the state. Nothing more. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNedWAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+h4sL/R0Y3Q/JRqFaMZ80i4x0Y/ib /77CTpSkR1F9Fo+A3G+POs/lpXzw1fss22+qfV3xg+li5O+1ipYynG18Vz7jXTiJ lDgQmVp+V63wkhUpHwmfv+V9YIXVpLMxrOPlpjUgchwNAKPxtALcqQMHeCGBAL0r WRsrzxTbj4kWZfWWRTcCtwS4xRWE2GOxr53f/Jqp2sc5kDh3wLUhfVkSzbwf1TL2 Ah19q51aZCmVgLuI5BUKeVqVXcM9u7kNDX4C3atd2a1uN+/1YWorGcLz/pv6pvpk moUwtd2WL1t/XYxUzCSBSuUIb0p2DHOqMj51r/ywoJvG2sXk+YPaQuiMAiQHjhB8 KrPgNQLfcJYF0o24wVpSs9pg5qxGC578Ve9Y3uNbpHEgIINcDq4y+D1oEmrTHZOu xoA8Mir15C9Kk3jE6kqWz1Zeqe135BcCMYHz7OrS9a3+OH6SYrcU9TRG4lGZAwcw 9xRH5QQgX+ABZx0rM6zypWYW/ftQXHn3JKUGQLH/1A== =DNQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 02:52:53 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 10:52:53 +0000 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5635EF05.3030709@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 jim bell: > From: intelemetry > >> This video might help set the context: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for >> Security | Robert P. Murphy ' > > - - Intelemetry > > I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments > you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself > a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: > https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m urphy/murphy17.html > I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it > inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how > nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. > Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, > a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't > think we will have the millions of small donations that AP > requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No > individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the > difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would > be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the > donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government > would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish > anyone who even visited AP sites. I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach. I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc). Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable. I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union. The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state. > My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize > just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average > American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being > wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with > the deficiencies of the world's status quo. I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda. But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of governments. http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio n-people-over-the-last-century.html Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government employees? > The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, > that the citizens of many major governments have been under a > nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a > reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more > understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything > we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were > told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding > of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control > of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such > people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut > down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many > government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit > whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the > "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to > the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed > of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and > his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the > world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by > governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the > citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear > hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few > governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' > "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and > certainly not the opposite! > > " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, > say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I > don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP > requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No > individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the > difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would > be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the > donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government > would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish > anyone who even visited AP sites." > > Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They > would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. > I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the > governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all > the more reason we should disregard those governments' official > desires. Jim Bell > There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC: https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter ^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^ > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== =KPje -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 12:05:51 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:05:51 -0800 Subject: Bitcoin Halloween... A Dangerous Idea... They're Terrified We'll Use It In-Reply-To: <5635D95C.4030303@openmailbox.org> References: <1471381325.408517.1446365277696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635D95C.4030303@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, oshwm wrote: > ... > Please accept my apologies if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs, being > trolled, shit like that but I'm going to assume minimal knowledge of > this... the beauty of forever on the web, is that if only one finds your reply useful, one day, then all not in vain, even when trolled lightly, or with vigor. ;) > Basically, you have a bunch of tools designed to hide your > communications when using the internet. > > This particular set of tools has at it's core, The Onion Router (Tor) > which passes your internet communications via many different proxies > using multiple layers of encryption so that none of the proxies in the > middle of this chain can identify the source and destination of the > connection. > > Tor can be used to hide your communications when looking at normal > websites such as www.cryptome.com but this carries a risk. > Any of the proxies can be monitored and using traffic correlation you > can be identified by comparing the communications entering Tor and > exiting Tor (to reach the website). > > To avoid this, you can use Tor to only access Hidden web servers so that > your traffic never leaves the Tor network, making the traffic > correlation techniques much harder to do. > > These hidden web servers are only visible in the Tor network and their > web addresses end in .onion > > Hence, people referring to onions :) > > So, if you wish to view the content on the hidden servers like the one > coderman linked to then you need access to the Tor network. > > The Tor project make a modified version of the Firefox web browser > available for download and install that gives a simple way to access Tor > without having to do much messing about with your computer. > It also, has a modified configuration to reduce the amount of private > information you leak when using it. > > Information from the horses mouth: > https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en > > Download the Tor Browser: > https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html.en > > The quality of information available at the Tor link will far surpass > what I have just written and you should assume small but possibly > devastating inaccuracies in my description above :) > > Sorry for the long post but I couldn't think of a quick way of writing > it if you haven't come across Tor before. > > There are also other similar systems: i2p, freenet but Tor seems to be > the most popular. > > Something to weigh up though is that Tor was created by the US Navy and > the project still receives US Government funding so you should probably > bear this in mind when using it although reading more information on the > Tor Project's website may or may not reduce feelings of discomfort that > come from knowing where the funding comes from. > > Cheers, > oshwm thank you! a reasonable summary for certain. and Jim, this special ".onion" domain is reserved by Tor, and recently officially recognized. when connecting via SocksPort, and requesting connection to a *.onion host, tor the process handles this hidden service circuit building internally, and connects the "hidden server" to your client through this SocksPort connection. this is why saying "Onions should not resolve" via normal means, is another way of saying "Use the Tor network to access that hidden site." an excellent detailed technical review is here: https://ritter.vg/p/tor-vlatest.pdf --- pedant detour: there is DNSPort and TransPort, which allows transparent proxy of connections. when behind a transparent Tor proxy, DNS will indeed resolve onions correctly, and your normal browser can reach these previously unresolvable/unroutable destinations. see https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TransparentProxy for details and caveats... best regards, From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 12:11:37 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:11:37 -0800 Subject: slow strangulation of the state, instead of violent phase transition out of state Message-ID: On 11/1/15, intelemetry wrote: > ... > I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. > agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did > his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union. > > The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a > robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as > opposed to direct overt warfare with the state. supplant the state with multiplicity of better mechanisms, and through this usurp the power and authority of the state, until nothing left but hollow fictions of formality (of former state). From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 12:16:50 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:16:50 -0800 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, oshwm wrote: > ... > Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving out links > to data? also, idling in IRC is consent for activities of others! From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 12:19:36 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:19:36 -0800 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <56366FC0.30900@riseup.net> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> <56366FC0.30900@riseup.net> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, Douglas Lucas wrote: > ... > My article at Revolution News analyzing the transcript to his second > and final sentencing hearing, answers this question in detail. > > http://revolution-news.com/barrett-brown-vs-the-dept-of-justice-defining-the-right-to-link/ thanks for pointing out OPSEC failures against federal agents. while i think it is unreasonable to expect anyone but hardened #infosec malcontents to be able to do this, reliably, i understand why you point this out as most significant liability for Barry. my selfish take: his writing from prison is much more potent. it will be good for him? (it is at least entertaining to me. and his commissary can always use a tip! :) best regards, From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 10:16:55 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:16:55 -0500 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:25 AM, jim bell wrote: > over in just a few months, with the government(s) yelling, "We surrender!". If you're out to address governments that is. Corporations can benefit from such guidance too, however since they usually don't have Pinkerton tribunals of their own, odds of successfull fulfillment of market contracts increase by addressing govt impediments at same time. > reward for $10,000 for any juror who votes to acquit, if that vote doesn't Jury nullification, even one not guilty forces a new trial which is a big risk and pain in the ass for prosecution. Establishing contracts for people to just take the day off and plead not guilty to get a real hearing and possible trial for their stupid $150 revenue traffic ticket. There's nothing to lose by doing so. Right now the system is counting *entirely* on frictionless pleading guilty and paying out via credit card. The potential impact of well blogged reports of successes here is enormous. Paying people to hand out pamphlets about same on court steps. And that's just educational possibilities at no cost to them. Once people see how the system works, and that they can win as a collective, things start changing. It's about getting the ball rolling and people up off their asses, little bounties here and there. > amount that had to be paid for a single death was $50,000, that would amount Doesn't even have to be death, could be damage, raising costs, a little taxing of resources and capabilities here and there, strategic and tactical support to various efforts. The CIA does it, so can you. Though like as you say, without altering power to tax, that will provide only a temporary drop on their side. > What is the economics of all this? Consider that in 2014 a record 3 trillion dollars ... 1% ... to have it stopped, forever, that would amount to $30 billion. Does anybody seriously believe that ... would even try to survive such a blow? Clearly not: They would resign. People don't yet comprehend their ability to and results from steering lots of micro funds, even matching funds, into successful actions and macro effects they want. You'd think they would have learned that from the two examples of 1) Bin Laden, and 2) the ensuing govt micro funded (taxed) response by now. From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 05:27:33 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:27:33 +0000 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635EF05.3030709@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <56361345.4040905@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Cari Machet: > also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and > anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any > any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking > capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename > themselves > > the dude talks about that the community the community would not > allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not > allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need > an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a > pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque > solutions instead of being base theory > > ++++++++++ > > so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... > gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness > that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people > that perform these actions are getting off on There are many private mercenaries that don't work for a state. Organized crime and corporations use private security forces. In fact, in situations where there is a state but law enforcement does not exist gangs effectively perform this function. You adhere to a group wherein your membership is an arbitration agreement that includes protection in exchange for whatever it is you must do. In certain ethnic areas private law enforcement is carried out on an ad-hoc, hierarchical community level wherein citizens don't trust the police (e.g. "illegal" immigrant enclaves). This is not too far from a privatization of defense. > > https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s > > i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other > drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything > > so some people get off on the murder > > but we have to already know that > > the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent > or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the > japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had > surrendered > > all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think > they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the > psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we > have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on > murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out > of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced > assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one > or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then > that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even > the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people > > there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out > of all of this > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry > wrote: > > jim bell: >>>> From: intelemetry >>>> >>>>> This video might help set the context: >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market >>>>> for Security | Robert P. Murphy ' >>>> >>>> - - Intelemetry >>>> >>>> I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any >>>> arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from >>>> his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert >>>> Vroman, at: >>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.co m/m > >>>> urphy/murphy17.html >>>> I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it >>>> inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize >>>> just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average >>>> American. Especially if the government institutes a standing >>>> penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an >>>> AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small >>>> donations that AP requires. The situation would be a >>>> prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even >>>> $100 is going to make the difference between a target being >>>> killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the >>>> average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could >>>> be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely >>>> institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who >>>> even visited AP sites. > > I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of > privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your > solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is > unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's > approach. > > I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding > together and entering into private arbitration agreements with > private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving > liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration > agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of > private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations > for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, > fines, etc). > > Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination > politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private > arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein > mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) > seems more reasonable. > > I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK > (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case > because he did his work on parallel structures while under the > Soviet Union. > > The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state > -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies > as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state. > >>>> My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell >>>> realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the >>>> average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's >>>> comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is >>>> fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status >>>> quo. > > I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, > but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic > warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda. > > But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the > 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions > of governments. > http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-mill io > > n-people-over-the-last-century.html > Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I > very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably > couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose > those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, > even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him > HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if > necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were > necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average > Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is > no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then > wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million > ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 > million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government > employees? >>>> The "average American" has been aware, during and since the >>>> 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been >>>> under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it >>>> as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps >>>> it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not >>>> seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, >>>> these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP >>>> system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons >>>> absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, >>>> or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people >>>> can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut >>>> down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As >>>> many government employees could be killed until that occurs. >>>> No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying >>>> that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and >>>> horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ >>>> "average American", informed of what I say AP could >>>> accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments >>>> "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world >>>> tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by >>>> governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the >>>> citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as >>>> nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep >>>> a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the >>>> world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held >>>> hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite! >>>> >>>> " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty >>>> of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP >>>> donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small >>>> donations that AP requires. The situation would be a >>>> prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even >>>> $100 is going to make the difference between a target being >>>> killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the >>>> average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could >>>> be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely >>>> institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who >>>> even visited AP sites." >>>> >>>> Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. >>>> "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we >>>> MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, >>>> that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do >>>> something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should >>>> disregard those governments' official desires. >>>> Jim Bell >>>> > > There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. > PoC: > > https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter > > ^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^ > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNhNEAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+Bb8MAJ01J3GOJEs441T1YDsXVqWY scEhGbu3HBqI8T3x0wD9FTbDQOnu3LLy9Z3mJFUcOaNc/xUpKtfkijzDS1CzbxbD eBSaTlefokI9naGlnTSXh0Yy1s1zEp/ep/Ss8r14lOMryiRVTeDxGHI9LGTkKLS3 Zht53ILI5OVXtDtkvsmJ8mtaUeNiXeTQVb3lv4xawnRP1bKbGa8EoyM0mQ+JWmE9 7ghLELP0j2XTJxqHQCXSdE7w+f91dTPs6u7HZKZr/Qln1YmLZbYig5MXpFzjS3z4 K4iemi6J9O8lN2WdLw5YwqgUcVfbpmj9iISINknsXBsAXkyGDdHxb0OF9RNb2a+X Fe61GpnKIm2JPBjfFXBdOo2XD9ptm+AjXlpINzupLzyVCWS3IVxaDwgDWUMsQnn8 QA44wQCFuLSDpcn4FOyts3k9xddoV6bu6TNf2Enswam7+IY1qtLYadoMSpCLStPh AR/IiqMIgp/0rSAJ2v5jCWUINNOPeyj1/pQ+IDHKWw== =z90v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 13:51:24 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:51:24 -0800 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <56367655.9040005@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> <56366B45.8050708@openmailbox.org> <563672A3.9060600@openmailbox.org> <56367655.9040005@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, oshwm wrote: > A lot of reading there for me to be able to answer intelligently but I > see what you're saying - how to walk out of the door with all that data > on a Lady Gaga CD :D that was Manning. Snowden got all the Zunes outlawed :P From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 10:55:53 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: Bitcoin Halloween... A Dangerous Idea... They're Terrified We'll Use It In-Reply-To: <1471381325.408517.1446365277696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1471381325.408517.1446365277696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:07 AM, jim bell wrote: > Onions should never resolve, so the answer is no. > > I wish I understood what you just said. When you ask your browser to show you cpunks.org, your browser takes that name, asks your computer to translate (resolve) that name into an IP address. Your computer doesn't have the knowledge to do that so it then in turn sends the question out to the nameservers (resolvers) on the internet. They look up the name to IP mapping in their tables and send the IP back to your computer and browser which then turns around and connects back out over the internet to that IP address (cpunks server) which then sends the page back to your browser for display. Under the hood the internet (routers) only know IP traffic, so you need that translation layer if you want to punch names into your browser bar instead of IP numbers. While blockchainbdgpzk.onion is a name, .onion names are based on crypto under the hood, not IP's, and they're understood to belong to the Tor network, not the internet network. (Even though Tor rides on top of the internet somewhat like letters in sealed envelopes through the post office.) So just punching onions into your browser (which ultimately only knows the IP based internet) should not "work" unless you've installed software and modified your system to support that. If it does "work" and you're not aware that you've specifically modified your system to do that, then you're under attack and should seek help. For reasonably randomly trustable walk-in support / mentorship you might try computer clubs in your area. For punkery, trust no one :) From dal at riseup.net Sun Nov 1 12:02:08 2015 From: dal at riseup.net (Douglas Lucas) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:02:08 -0600 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <56366FC0.30900@riseup.net> On 11/01/2015 01:33 PM, intelemetry wrote: >> Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving >> out links to data? My article at Revolution News analyzing the transcript to his second and final sentencing hearing, answers this question in detail. http://revolution-news.com/barrett-brown-vs-the-dept-of-justice-defining-the-right-to-link/ From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:23:49 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:23:49 -0500 Subject: [tor-talk] OTR and logging In-Reply-To: <20151101151537.GB961@thinkpad.swarthmore.edu> References: <1702754326.357522.1446347780724.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <20151101151537.GB961@thinkpad.swarthmore.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Michael McConville wrote: > Tor Messenger *definitely* shouldn't log by default. This defeats much > of the purpose of private chat, and many people back up unencrypted to > the cloud. I think the OTR people specifically suggest that you don't > log. You're a fool if you think your "private chat" isn't loggable or being logged just because whatever app you're using doesn't have a logging / recording button. Fix your belief... regardless of whether or not the button exists. That's all I'm saying. From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:41:11 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:41:11 -0500 Subject: The United States of Air (novel) free ebook In-Reply-To: <20151101142117.GC1760@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20151101142117.GC1760@fedora-21-dvm> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, J.M. Porup wrote: > The United States of Air is a satire that makes fun of mass > surveillance and the NSA. Surveillance isn't funny. It takes legendary comedic talent to acknowledge that and drive it home, everything else are humor-ops attempting to pass it off as non-serious. Hundreds of channels, filled with ops. Where's the signal (beef)? > https://github.com/toholdaquill/united-states-of-air > http://podiobooks.com/title/the-united-states-of-air-a-satire/ From jm at porup.com Sun Nov 1 11:45:27 2015 From: jm at porup.com (J.M. Porup) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:45:27 -0500 Subject: The United States of Air (novel) free ebook In-Reply-To: References: <20151101142117.GC1760@fedora-21-dvm> Message-ID: <20151101194527.GD1702@fedora-21-dvm> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 02:41:11PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, J.M. Porup wrote: > > The United States of Air is a satire that makes fun of mass > > surveillance and the NSA. > > Surveillance isn't funny. > It takes legendary comedic talent to acknowledge that and drive it home, > everything else are humor-ops attempting to pass it off as non-serious. > Hundreds of channels, filled with ops. Where's the signal (beef)? I agree. Maybe read the book before you judge it? Jens > > https://github.com/toholdaquill/united-states-of-air > > http://podiobooks.com/title/the-united-states-of-air-a-satire/ From carimachet at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 05:18:04 2015 From: carimachet at gmail.com (Cari Machet) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:18:04 +0200 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5635EF05.3030709@openmailbox.org> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635EF05.3030709@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename themselves the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory ++++++++++ so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these actions are getting off on https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything so some people get off on the murder but we have to already know that the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all of this On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > jim bell: > > From: intelemetry > > > >> This video might help set the context: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for > >> Security | Robert P. Murphy ' > > > > - - Intelemetry > > > > I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments > > you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself > > a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m > urphy/murphy17.html > > I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it > > inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how > > nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. > > Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, > > a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't > > think we will have the millions of small donations that AP > > requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No > > individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the > > difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would > > be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the > > donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government > > would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish > > anyone who even visited AP sites. > > I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of > privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your > solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. > This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach. > > I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together > and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense > contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By > entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private > defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The > arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how > they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc). > > Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics > is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration > agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has > reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable. > > I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. > agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did > his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union. > > The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a > robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as > opposed to direct overt warfare with the state. > > > My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize > > just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average > > American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being > > wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with > > the deficiencies of the world's status quo. > > I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but > that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, > neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda. > > But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th > century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of > governments. > http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio > n-people-over-the-last-century.html > Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? > I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably > couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those > "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even > simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a > functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by > killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop > this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded > that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than > the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to > conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would > certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and > certainly 2.5 million government employees? > > The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, > > that the citizens of many major governments have been under a > > nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a > > reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more > > understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything > > we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were > > told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding > > of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control > > of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such > > people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut > > down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many > > government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit > > whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the > > "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to > > the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed > > of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and > > his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the > > world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by > > governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the > > citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear > > hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few > > governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' > > "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and > > certainly not the opposite! > > > > " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, > > say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I > > don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP > > requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No > > individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the > > difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would > > be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the > > donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government > > would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish > > anyone who even visited AP sites." > > > > Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They > > would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. > > I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the > > governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all > > the more reason we should disregard those governments' official > > desires. Jim Bell > > > > There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC: > > https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter > > ^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^ > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv > eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU > JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe > mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb > UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P > 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 > vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO > IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR > ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== > =KPje > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 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 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 13433 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carimachet at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 05:22:21 2015 From: carimachet at gmail.com (Cari Machet) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 15:22:21 +0200 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635EF05.3030709@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: sorry the video is of a friend of michael hastings that is a real person and talks about murder/war shit in the real he was in afghanistan with michael i think On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Cari Machet wrote: > also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and anarcho > capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any any any structure > impossing its structure on the people and fucking capitalism is a structure > so anarco capitalists should rename themselves > > the dude talks about that the community the community would not allow this > or that if someone stole your tv the community would not allow you to just > go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need an intermediary ... but > this is monolithic thinking ... which is a pit in theories ... they > strangle themselves with coffinesque solutions instead of being base theory > > ++++++++++ > > so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... gun for > hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness that the > murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people that perform these > actions are getting off on > > https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s > > i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other drug jim > so you dont have to listen to everything > > so some people get off on the murder > > but we have to already know that > > the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent or > that is what generally american people think anyway ... the japanese would > not give an unconditional surrender yet they had surrendered > > all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think they are > strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the psyche is > straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we have blood thirsty > fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on murder/war like it is a drug > ? until these mindsets are twisted out of themselves and drained of energy > clear theory of crowd sourced assassination for deterrent cannot fully > work... if it was like one or two crazy fucks that desired combat and > murder to get off then that would be one thing but this is like a lot of > fucks and even the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting > people > > there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out of all > of this > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry > wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> jim bell: >> > From: intelemetry >> > >> >> This video might help set the context: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market for >> >> Security | Robert P. Murphy ' >> > >> > - - Intelemetry >> > >> > I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any arguments >> > you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from his essay, itself >> > a response to his business partner, Robert Vroman, at: >> > https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.com/m >> urphy/murphy17.html >> >> > I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it >> > inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize just how >> > nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average American. >> > Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, say, >> > a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I don't >> > think we will have the millions of small donations that AP >> > requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No >> > individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the >> > difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would >> > be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the >> > donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government >> > would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish >> > anyone who even visited AP sites. >> >> I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of >> privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your >> solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is unpopular. >> This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's approach. >> >> I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding together >> and entering into private arbitration agreements with private defense >> contractors is more reasonable in preserving liberty and security. By >> entering into said private arbitration agreement with a private >> defense force, you also have aspects of private jurisprudence. The >> arbitration clause can have stipulations for certain scenarios and how >> they are dealt with (e.g., trials, fines, etc). >> >> Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination politics >> is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private arbitration >> agreements with private security forces wherein mobility has >> reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) seems more reasonable. >> >> I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK (e.g. >> agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case because he did >> his work on parallel structures while under the Soviet Union. >> >> The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state -- a >> robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies as >> opposed to direct overt warfare with the state. >> >> > My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize >> > just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average >> > American. I should point out why I view Murphy's comment as being >> > wacky, in itself. The "average American" is fairly familiar with >> > the deficiencies of the world's status quo. >> >> I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, but >> that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic warfare, >> neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda. >> >> But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the 20th >> century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions of >> governments. >> http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-millio >> n-people-over-the-last-century.html >> >> Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? >> I very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably >> couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose those >> "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, even >> simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him HOW a >> functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if necessary by >> killing whatever number of government employees were necessary to stop >> this, the "Democide". If those "average Americans" were reminded >> that the death of a government employee is no more unfortunate than >> the death of ordinary citizens, then wouldn't it be reasonable to >> conclude that to save 250 million ordinary citizens, it would >> certainly be acceptable to kill 25 million government employees, and >> certainly 2.5 million government employees? >> > The "average American" has been aware, during and since the 1960's, >> > that the citizens of many major governments have been under a >> > nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it as it is a >> > reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps it's made more >> > understandable by the fact that there has not seemed to be anything >> > we can do about it. Suppose, then, these "average Americans" were >> > told that a functioning AP system would make any nation's holding >> > of nuclear weapons absolutely impossible: They are in the control >> > of SOMEONE, or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such >> > people can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut >> > down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As many >> > government employees could be killed until that occurs. No limit >> > whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying that the >> > "Average American" would find AP "nutty and horrible"? I say, to >> > the contrary, that a _well-informed_ "average American", informed >> > of what I say AP could accomplish, would find Murphy himself and >> > his arguments "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the >> > world tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by >> > governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the >> > citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as nuclear >> > hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep a few >> > governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the world's citizens' >> > "natural state" to being owned and held hostage by governments, and >> > certainly not the opposite! >> > >> > " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty of, >> > say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP donation, I >> > don't think we will have the millions of small donations that AP >> > requires. The situation would be a prisoner's dilemma: No >> > individual donation of $10 or even $100 is going to make the >> > difference between a target being killed or not, and so there would >> > be no reason for the average person to use AP. The fact that the >> > donations could be made "safely" is not enough; the government >> > would surely institute eavesdropping measures and would punish >> > anyone who even visited AP sites." >> > >> > Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. "They >> > would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we MUST do it. >> > I would say, to the contrary of what he said, that if "they", the >> > governments, don't want us to do something SO MUCH, then that's all >> > the more reason we should disregard those governments' official >> > desires. Jim Bell >> > >> >> There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. PoC: >> >> https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter >> >> ^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^ >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNe8EAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+BowL+wYLaykOTh79cRFz50tduoKv >> eMY6e9jifMCiUrXbr45PLMLqvWiVQtOAjfyfM+EsVW4Cd1FcMaY1HUl95ldjNOjU >> JRTkLsgMSBubfnGMF9p1kRs2Tx3SIJ8MYmErcY+r6eE4YHkDyZqiEeCNUmSbEBGe >> mDnlIRXUZjPUYs8V4r718oI1UOgwVD6eu4iG+Kvg22Dwn3iSlAmMfjqr4rMyeFhb >> UkGXyXCgYTJVP91dtXAR5J4UwmJcm3MSDJg/f0us7xV+YXdtaeiwrxPyP5fd1N3P >> 8tqlJ5fAN/nWfONeTtpXHWzghT/KOKFcwC3lO2CCjistsD7JKGkulIE1vdFbjW58 >> vP8uXi2esbKOekJdiP2bf+zjVm97Iisn8washQ0WXtyzzixIdl29hnC7G45hfyfO >> IIAIVAbGBtWdNJPzMqRHFzzZPHPLk3Zbc4gV47iYhw/zBELXS7emIw1QGf9kkTKR >> ITrGXWmvmKNK87XIkyJJqT3+/hG38D3wOH8PpcE5fw== >> =KPje >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > > -- > Cari Machet > NYC 646-436-7795 > 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 > > 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. > > > -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 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 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 15545 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Sun Nov 1 12:38:37 2015 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 15:38:37 -0500 Subject: The United States of Air (novel) free ebook In-Reply-To: <20151101194527.GD1702@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20151101142117.GC1760@fedora-21-dvm> <20151101194527.GD1702@fedora-21-dvm> Message-ID: The Covert Comic, long online (covertcomic.com), suggests the need for an IC Comic, if for no other reason than to ridicule those who claim urgent need to castigate the IC, a noble consortium of 13 or more agencies of a classified number of dedicated secretkeepers working tirelessly to protect citizens of the United States of America from knowing what the IC and its ever growing number of overseers, contractors, universities, consultants, free-lancers and carefully coddled, groomed and briefed media reps like those exploiting Edward Snowden and the increasing gaggle of forever gagged whistleblowers and ex-spies, actually do, not just the glamorized spillage. Spying is funny, peculiar, odd, insane, vain, treacherous, vicious, all too human comedic. At 02:45 PM 11/1/2015, you wrote: >On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 02:41:11PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, J.M. Porup wrote: > > > The United States of Air is a satire that makes fun of mass > > > surveillance and the NSA. > > > > Surveillance isn't funny. > > It takes legendary comedic talent to acknowledge that and drive it home, > > everything else are humor-ops attempting to pass it off as non-serious. > > Hundreds of channels, filled with ops. Where's the signal (beef)? > >I agree. > >Maybe read the book before you judge it? > >Jens > > > > https://github.com/toholdaquill/united-states-of-air > > > http://podiobooks.com/title/the-united-states-of-air-a-satire/ From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 16:41:27 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:41:27 -0800 Subject: DJB: Advanced Code-based Cryptography Message-ID: http://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.06.05/slides-djb-20150605-a4.pdf no TXT auto-conversion as the graphics make this less useful. From carimachet at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 06:46:50 2015 From: carimachet at gmail.com (Cari Machet) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:46:50 +0200 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <56361345.4040905@openmailbox.org> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635EF05.3030709@openmailbox.org> <56361345.4040905@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: protection of community is a different mindset but yay you can have the blood thirsty murder lover fucker there too of course state dont like check points by community ... UK use to do shootings at community checkpoints and pretend they were a protestant or vis versa a catholic just to fuck with the community security effect all of this points to why i think there needs to be many theories developed around solution in all sectors of society not just one base theory to solve one issue then we are all good and we live in nirvana.... work on everything you can all the time work on mindset ... so restorative justice is like that it tears at the underlying mindset of getting off on murder and blood lust... mediation shit ...calling out people that take power instead of standing there mouth open drooling this is being taught now in primary schools On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:27 PM, intelemetry wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Cari Machet: > > also the dude is just replacing the state with capitalism and > > anarcho capitalism is bullshit anarchy is against any that is any > > any any structure impossing its structure on the people and fucking > > capitalism is a structure so anarco capitalists should rename > > themselves > > > > the dude talks about that the community the community would not > > allow this or that if someone stole your tv the community would not > > allow you to just go in the dudes hut and take it back - you need > > an intermediary ... but this is monolithic thinking ... which is a > > pit in theories ... they strangle themselves with coffinesque > > solutions instead of being base theory > > > > ++++++++++ > > > > so fucking blackwater has been doing this shit for a while now ... > > gun for hire and what i am not reading here is any consciousness > > that the murder/war zone is a fucking hopped up place the people > > that perform these actions are getting off on > > There are many private mercenaries that don't work for a state. > Organized crime and corporations use private security forces. In fact, > in situations where there is a state but law enforcement does not > exist gangs effectively perform this function. You adhere to a group > wherein your membership is an arbitration agreement that includes > protection in exchange for whatever it is you must do. > > In certain ethnic areas private law enforcement is carried out on an > ad-hoc, hierarchical community level wherein citizens don't trust the > police (e.g. "illegal" immigrant enclaves). This is not too far from a > privatization of defense. > > > > > https://youtu.be/zm5E10EhSp0?t=16m45s > > > > i found the place for you where he says combat is like no other > > drug jim so you dont have to listen to everything > > > > so some people get off on the murder > > > > but we have to already know that > > > > the idea behind dropping the bombs on japan was like this deterrent > > or that is what generally american people think anyway ... the > > japanese would not give an unconditional surrender yet they had > > surrendered > > > > all these mass murder desires need to be shifted out as i think > > they are strong entities in and of themselves apart from money the > > psyche is straight up blood lust blood thirsty fucks ... why we > > have blood thirsty fucks everywhere ??? why do people get off on > > murder/war like it is a drug ? until these mindsets are twisted out > > of themselves and drained of energy clear theory of crowd sourced > > assassination for deterrent cannot fully work... if it was like one > > or two crazy fucks that desired combat and murder to get off then > > that would be one thing but this is like a lot of fucks and even > > the fucking american psyche associations enjoy hurting people > > > > there are many fronts to work on all at the same time to shift out > > of all of this > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:52 PM, intelemetry > > wrote: > > > > jim bell: > >>>> From: intelemetry > >>>> > >>>>> This video might help set the context: > >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw 'The Market > >>>>> for Security | Robert P. Murphy ' > >>>> > >>>> - - Intelemetry > >>>> > >>>> I will explain to you why selecting Murphy to support any > >>>> arguments you have is misguided. Here is a paragraph from > >>>> his essay, itself a response to his business partner, Robert > >>>> Vroman, at: > >>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20060208094246/http://www.anti-state.co > m/m > > > >>>> > urphy/murphy17.html > >>>> I will first quote the whole paragraph, and then address it > >>>> inline: "Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell realize > >>>> just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the average > >>>> American. Especially if the government institutes a standing > >>>> penalty of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an > >>>> AP donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small > >>>> donations that AP requires. The situation would be a > >>>> prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even > >>>> $100 is going to make the difference between a target being > >>>> killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the > >>>> average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could > >>>> be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely > >>>> institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who > >>>> even visited AP sites. > > > > I selected Murphy because you mentioned Friedman's hard problem of > > privatizing defense without the presence of state actors. Your > > solution is crowdfunding assassinations of anybody who is > > unpopular. This does fit within the paradigm of Friedman's > > approach. > > > > I would argue that Murphy's approach of collectives banding > > together and entering into private arbitration agreements with > > private defense contractors is more reasonable in preserving > > liberty and security. By entering into said private arbitration > > agreement with a private defense force, you also have aspects of > > private jurisprudence. The arbitration clause can have stipulations > > for certain scenarios and how they are dealt with (e.g., trials, > > fines, etc). > > > > Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and assassination > > politics is dangerous in that regard when they are coupled. Private > > arbitration agreements with private security forces wherein > > mobility has reciprocal agreements (similar to current travel) > > seems more reasonable. > > > > I would suggest you consider the countereconomics work of SEK > > (e.g. agorism) and Vaclav Benda. Benda is an interesting case > > because he did his work on parallel structures while under the > > Soviet Union. > > > > The conclusion was that -- in the presence of an oppressive state > > -- a robust solution was an overlay of private and hidden societies > > as opposed to direct overt warfare with the state. > > > >>>> My replies inline: Simply put, I don't think Vroman or Bell > >>>> realize just how nutty and horrible the AP idea seems to the > >>>> average American. I should point out why I view Murphy's > >>>> comment as being wacky, in itself. The "average American" is > >>>> fairly familiar with the deficiencies of the world's status > >>>> quo. > > > > I think your assumptions regarding the average American are wrong, > > but that is my opinion. Don't underestimate the power of memetic > > warfare, neurolinguistic programming, and general propaganda. > > > > But he may not be aware that it has been estimated that in the > > 20th century, about 250 million people DIED, killed by the actions > > of governments. > > http://www.evil.news/2015-10-07-national-governments-murdered-262-mill > io > > > > > n-people-over-the-last-century.html > > Does Murphy impllicitly or explicitly say that is somehow "okay"? I > > very much doubt he'd say that was acceptable, and he probably > > couldn't argue much with the numbers themselves. But suppose > > those "average Americans" were FIRST fully informed of this fact, > > even simply as an estimate. THEN, suppose it was explained to him > > HOW a functioning AP system wouldn't allow that to happen, if > > necessary by killing whatever number of government employees were > > necessary to stop this, the "Democide". If those "average > > Americans" were reminded that the death of a government employee is > > no more unfortunate than the death of ordinary citizens, then > > wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that to save 250 million > > ordinary citizens, it would certainly be acceptable to kill 25 > > million government employees, and certainly 2.5 million government > > employees? > >>>> The "average American" has been aware, during and since the > >>>> 1960's, that the citizens of many major governments have been > >>>> under a nuclear terror. Now, it seems, we simply accept it > >>>> as it is a reality. As shocking as that may see, perhaps > >>>> it's made more understandable by the fact that there has not > >>>> seemed to be anything we can do about it. Suppose, then, > >>>> these "average Americans" were told that a functioning AP > >>>> system would make any nation's holding of nuclear weapons > >>>> absolutely impossible: They are in the control of SOMEONE, > >>>> or maybe hundreds and thousands of someones, and such people > >>>> can be targeted by AP until those weapons are finally shut > >>>> down, and dismantled, and permanently rendered safe. As > >>>> many government employees could be killed until that occurs. > >>>> No limit whatsoever. So, where does Bob Murphy get off saying > >>>> that the "Average American" would find AP "nutty and > >>>> horrible"? I say, to the contrary, that a _well-informed_ > >>>> "average American", informed of what I say AP could > >>>> accomplish, would find Murphy himself and his arguments > >>>> "nutty and horrible". Why should the citizens of the world > >>>> tolerate the killing of 250 million more people by > >>>> governments, beyond the 20th Century's toll? Why should the > >>>> citizens of the world tolerate continuing to be held as > >>>> nuclear hostages, targets of 2000 nuclear bombs, just to keep > >>>> a few governments in power? Clearly, Murphy views the > >>>> world's citizens' "natural state" to being owned and held > >>>> hostage by governments, and certainly not the opposite! > >>>> > >>>> " Especially if the government institutes a standing penalty > >>>> of, say, a mandatory twenty-five years for placing an AP > >>>> donation, I don't think we will have the millions of small > >>>> donations that AP requires. The situation would be a > >>>> prisoner's dilemma: No individual donation of $10 or even > >>>> $100 is going to make the difference between a target being > >>>> killed or not, and so there would be no reason for the > >>>> average person to use AP. The fact that the donations could > >>>> be made "safely" is not enough; the government would surely > >>>> institute eavesdropping measures and would punish anyone who > >>>> even visited AP sites." > >>>> > >>>> Murphy, here, is beginning to show his 'inner paranoid'. > >>>> "They would never let us do it!!!"Which, is one reasons we > >>>> MUST do it. I would say, to the contrary of what he said, > >>>> that if "they", the governments, don't want us to do > >>>> something SO MUCH, then that's all the more reason we should > >>>> disregard those governments' official desires. > >>>> Jim Bell > >>>> > > > > There are arguably technical countermeasures to his argument. E.g. > > PoC: > > > > https://github.com/Miserlou/HitStarter > > > > ^^ you might get a kick out of that ^^ > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNhNEAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+Bb8MAJ01J3GOJEs441T1YDsXVqWY > scEhGbu3HBqI8T3x0wD9FTbDQOnu3LLy9Z3mJFUcOaNc/xUpKtfkijzDS1CzbxbD > eBSaTlefokI9naGlnTSXh0Yy1s1zEp/ep/Ss8r14lOMryiRVTeDxGHI9LGTkKLS3 > Zht53ILI5OVXtDtkvsmJ8mtaUeNiXeTQVb3lv4xawnRP1bKbGa8EoyM0mQ+JWmE9 > 7ghLELP0j2XTJxqHQCXSdE7w+f91dTPs6u7HZKZr/Qln1YmLZbYig5MXpFzjS3z4 > K4iemi6J9O8lN2WdLw5YwqgUcVfbpmj9iISINknsXBsAXkyGDdHxb0OF9RNb2a+X > Fe61GpnKIm2JPBjfFXBdOo2XD9ptm+AjXlpINzupLzyVCWS3IVxaDwgDWUMsQnn8 > QA44wQCFuLSDpcn4FOyts3k9xddoV6bu6TNf2Enswam7+IY1qtLYadoMSpCLStPh > AR/IiqMIgp/0rSAJ2v5jCWUINNOPeyj1/pQ+IDHKWw== > =z90v > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 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 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 16895 bytes Desc: not available URL: From juan.g71 at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 12:10:10 2015 From: juan.g71 at gmail.com (Juan) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:10:10 -0300 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <935312752.388847.1446365520386.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <935312752.388847.1446365520386.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5636700f.471c8d0a.3cebe.fffff425@mx.google.com> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 08:12:00 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote: > > >    Now, that *might* work for relatively easy targets. Say, >  >   ordinary cops and soldiers. But what if some more important >  >   targets, say a couple of pentagon's 'generals' end up on the >  >   list? Who's going to finish them off? > Even most of the very important targets are probably not very well > protected, 24 hours per day.  But if they are inaccessible, their > employees could be targeted as well.   Yes, but for what purpose? It wouldn't have the same effect as targeting the important people? > And their employees will have > access to them. And they would betray their bosses? > > And what is the contractor > >    going to do with his money once the job is done? Deposit it on a > >     numbered account in switzerland? Buy an island? Donate it > >    to charity? Or? > Whatever he wants to do with it!   It's his money, of course. Well, yes =P - But what I was getting at is that it may be difficult or impossible for the guy to spend his money. Maybe it would be easy to 'launder' the money. Or maybe not. Given the current surveillance trends I think the second possibility is more likely possibility. >    Jim Bell > > > > > > > > From juan.g71 at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 12:52:17 2015 From: juan.g71 at gmail.com (Juan) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:52:17 -0300 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:16:15 -0700 coderman wrote: > On 11/1/15, Juan wrote: > > ... > > It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high > > ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree? > > no, this is movie plot thinking. Ha. That's a funny remark because I was just thinking that AP does sound like literary fiction so far. > > you need someone with access and opportunity. *And* willing to do it. See, two different things are getting mixed. One thing is a market for hitmen who theoretically can kill any target (hollywood-like...). IF the hitmen exist, then in principle you can hire them and get the job done. A rather different thing is the assumption that you can turn members of the official mafia into 'traitors' by offering them enough money. > > > > > You are saying that those targets will be taken down by > > 'traitors'? That can happen sometimes but I don't think it > > would be common. > > most traitors are traitors for money, not ideology. Evidence? Regardless, the issue is how many traitors you can buy. Even if 9 out of 10 do it for money, what matters is the absolute number of potential traitors, not the ratio. > > > Also notice that 'traitors' a la snowden don't > > do it for money. And he didn't kill anybody either (and > > he's no anarchist anyway) > > Snowden is not a typical traitor, as discussed. Right. And there isn't an AP system in place right now so I cant really compare. I take my mentioning him back. > > > > > Yet you are saying that a 'modern', big, very well > > funded government can be overthrown by buying off some of > > its members with a few million dollars? > > i don't think AP would destroy government - that's a separate > question. > > i do think AP would successfully murder even the most high profile > targets, though. From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 18:09:02 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:09:02 -0800 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5636C19D.5060801@riseup.net> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> <5636C19D.5060801@riseup.net> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, Mirimir wrote: > ... > I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even > sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders > would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise. my bid for my own life went unfulfilled, sadly. :/ https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/tx/d4f89ca19c9ce0e9bcf1fc47d8223e4bee07ad269323faca68ae1113fa867d16 / https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/address/1P6yannm6Rx9kkMH5LxmAsi1GdZ4JZG73T [ death prediction lottery RIP vfwavrwava at yandex.com ] ah well, maybe one day? From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 10:17:40 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:17:40 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Where is the OPM link in .7z format? - - intelemetry oshwm: > > > On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >> >> Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people on >> the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL account and >> published emails and documents found inside, many of them >> personal and sensitive. >> >> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word "documents." >> It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge tactic, and has since >> been as a tool to harass and intimidate people on the internet. >> Someone would threaten a woman with physical harm, or try to >> incite others to harm her, and publish her personal information >> as a way of saying "I know a lot about you—like where you live >> and work." Victims of doxing talk about the fear that this tactic >> instills. It's very effective, by which I mean that it's >> horrible. >> >> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker had a >> more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate Brennan; he >> simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal papers were dumped >> indiscriminately, fodder for an eager press. This doxing was a >> political act, and we're seeing this kind of thing more and >> more. >> >> Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal >> correspondence, documents, and information they would rather be >> private >> >> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this to >> Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for North Korea broke >> into the company's networks, stole a huge amount of corporate >> data, and published it. This included unreleased movies, >> financial information, company plans, and personal emails. The >> reputational damage to the company was enormous; the company >> estimated the cost at $41 million. >> >> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents from >> the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That same >> month, different hackers did the same thing to the infidelity >> website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers broke into the iCloud >> accounts of over 100 celebrities and published personal >> photographs, most containing some nudity. In 2013, Edward Snowden >> doxed the NSA. >> >> These aren't the first instances of politically motivated doxing, >> but there's a clear trend. As people realize what an effective >> attack this can be, and how an individual can use the tactic to >> do considerable damage to powerful people and institutions, we're >> going to see a lot more of it. >> >> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living in >> a world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated attacker will >> circumvent network security. Even worse, most internet security >> assumes it needs to defend against an opportunistic attacker who >> will attack the weakest network in order to get—for example—a >> pile of credit card numbers. The notion of a targeted attacker, >> who wants Sony or Ashley Madison or John Brennan because of what >> they stand for, is still new. And it's even harder to defend >> against. >> >> What this means is that we're going to see more political doxing >> in the future, against both people and institutions. It's going >> to be a factor in elections. It's going to be a factor in >> anti-corporate activism. More people will find their personal >> information exposed to the world: politicians, corporate >> executives, celebrities, divisive and outspoken individuals. >> >> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will. Some of >> them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of them will be >> inadvertent victims of a doxing attack aimed at a company where >> their information is stored, like those celebrities with iPhone >> accounts and every customer of Ashley Madison. Regardless of the >> method, lots of people will have to face the publication of >> personal correspondence, documents, and information they would >> rather be private. >> >> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively >> use against the powerful. It can be used for whistleblowing. It >> can be used as a vehicle for social change. And it can be used to >> embarrass, harass, and intimidate. Its popularity will rise and >> fall on this effectiveness, especially in a world where >> prosecuting the doxers is so difficult. >> >> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the >> right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But we're >> not, and those of us who are in the public eye have no choice but >> to rethink our online data shadows. >> > > Political figures in most countries have been using their personal > email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar' in order to > avoid information being subject to oversight, most probably because > its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very least not good for the > image of governments. > > When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in the > bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal life > that may happen. > > If people in power act properly in their professional dealings > then their is an argument against d0xing their personal information > but once they start to try to hide information then it's open > season on every aspect of their life. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNldEAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+TBML/RWpC/tyJmDWcqRb+XXgxGeD zCxaWgqgxSJaqzxe4YR2qwyRQBg5zqTSZA4vxLVPjaXUpQ+0cqFpDfhVxRXoJvk8 Ei40bNGhRXorjQBKkSyb9OCQeljzmK4a8Hbyjw7AtVZmHJtBlj/jzVr2xPpJC5lk KGKYInfi+hIIMstKHMjao1ZCU0F1nUJqRbisxDAIoZRoOozRFHUkmxNN4Pj75L0t egMfpdUrh657Vgdrc1pz8EEtr72lofCGjeQ+ZbSD4z++nrrbuMVicodPrV9I0Z0m ZJhY4gPazDnQa4JvgzJ9+lASoCwxaQz3eKM5pr/GpU3lWiJ+Xn2YG1K8A4PIu04F 8GfNjNtSu6dViaLl7fKoKkLicDL9wOIeFOsChUztYBflbYyjvoot+WKdOIXecs+0 /elzxQaTyIqPjrayRdVzX+8r1x4l+lB35ciQu/rh495qgXQVZq9fX+wWU26ECDXO obCzKZR+Gmr9ryvcImvaTmhfF04NvxEExas8mvcsaQ== =0yTd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 10:22:31 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:22:31 +0000 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365867.7060400@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 coderman: > for a US citizen: $7.9mm to $9.4mm > > for a Russian citizen: $40,000 to $2mm > > other legal precedent: ~$200,000-400,000 each earth human. > There's the quote (to paraphrase): "During the cold war, the Russians were hard to kill and easy to find. Now the "Muslims" are hard to find and easy to kill. I'd say price varies based on individual. > > for an AP target? should there be a "minimum kill price"? > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNlhnAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+KO0L+wb+7M+u/AViHYzLBjSCzq/W 2pOEYMRI66aRU9+ChQQ8sEntb5BGN5ndOXFwqbDYClUneWlhl/tKZMpQXVCNvWv0 Sa2/whzP5mcKwNQ/A/b1Uk33L2f8w9Jgs5DhGVK6YzLEWx3S5eEW4UqaiYjZomey GGAcwpRAoUPTTaOqZKrWYS//M7JRg4q5cN4XpjTvjIAsoAf5o8C7nKXZjuygBihR 5cUpkJorlb/RdZODkXztGyF6DMExr3GQgMWIM9viqptE0KEW3YB/SBukHFZ2VbhH ipAO2fQJusfMAKmpyNZa8DJU0XPncHK2iMVWPFpxWnwY4jURWeb/jU+FxYU2JYQU I613ORiY3R19VVnJN8heE2PFbNvYWRzUXb5jXzeXfz/Skq5wQQKs6qaO6pKqSymM KKMtKD47siqrSa5JG21H1SQdEmjiP5bm/i6MQHPRaNAJScSCjAkvjaJ35IYR+EkX Su0PwDHweqeF49jccWLDChPnj6Htho0y3ekBrLUJXQ== =9ULd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Rayzer at riseup.net Sun Nov 1 18:37:15 2015 From: Rayzer at riseup.net (Razer) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:37:15 -0800 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5636CC5B.1020504@riseup.net> On 11/01/2015 12:52 PM, coderman wrote: > rather different thing is the assumption that you can turn > members of the official mafia into 'traitors' by offering them > enough money. I dunno. The Italian mob worked with the OSS/CIA to set up an intel network in Italy and Europe during WWII in exchange for Lucky Luciano's release and exile. Pretty sure the Maf was also involved in Operation Gladio, a NATO 'stay-behind' anti-communist army tasked with destabilizing Italian (Belgian, other...) civil societies with various kinds of acts including terrorism, designed to convince people in those countries they'd be safer hanging with Western Industrial Capitalism than moving towards socialism. That's traitorous RR -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mirimir at riseup.net Sun Nov 1 17:51:25 2015 From: mirimir at riseup.net (Mirimir) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:51:25 -0700 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5636C19D.5060801@riseup.net> On 11/01/2015 01:52 PM, Juan wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:16:15 -0700 > coderman wrote: > >> On 11/1/15, Juan wrote: >>> ... >>> It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high >>> ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree? >> >> no, this is movie plot thinking. > > Ha. That's a funny remark because I was just thinking that AP > does sound like literary fiction so far. Well, the idea has been kicked around for 20 years, and little has come of it. Maybe that's because it's still unworkable. How are people going to bid anonymously? Is Tor good enough for that? A viable AP market would draw TLAs to Tor like dogs to shit. And they would cooperate. Also, how would bidders pay anonymously when targets were killed? There is no inherently anonymous payment system that's widely available. Maybe anonymized Bitcoin, after a few mixes through Tor, would make the nut. Or maybe creative carding. Maybe y'all reading this could manage it. But what about the clueless masses who might be motivated to bid? I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise. From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 16:00:13 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:00:13 -0500 Subject: The United States of Air (novel) free ebook In-Reply-To: <20151101194527.GD1702@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20151101142117.GC1760@fedora-21-dvm> <20151101194527.GD1702@fedora-21-dvm> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:45 PM, J.M. Porup wrote: > Maybe read the book before you judge it? Read what was said, nothing was said about it. From oshwm at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 11:23:05 2015 From: oshwm at openmailbox.org (oshwm) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:23:05 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote: > Where is the OPM link in .7z format? > Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving out links to data? As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:- Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources to conduct government business got what they deserved (leaked). Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not deserve their details to be leaked. Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be leaked (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc). The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal information because they become huge and irresistable targets for crackers. > - intelemetry > > oshwm: > > >> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >>> >>> Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people on >>> the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL account and >>> published emails and documents found inside, many of them >>> personal and sensitive. >>> >>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word "documents." >>> It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge tactic, and has since >>> been as a tool to harass and intimidate people on the internet. >>> Someone would threaten a woman with physical harm, or try to >>> incite others to harm her, and publish her personal information >>> as a way of saying "I know a lot about you—like where you live >>> and work." Victims of doxing talk about the fear that this tactic >>> instills. It's very effective, by which I mean that it's >>> horrible. >>> >>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker had a >>> more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate Brennan; he >>> simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal papers were dumped >>> indiscriminately, fodder for an eager press. This doxing was a >>> political act, and we're seeing this kind of thing more and >>> more. >>> >>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal >>> correspondence, documents, and information they would rather be >>> private >>> >>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this to >>> Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for North Korea broke >>> into the company's networks, stole a huge amount of corporate >>> data, and published it. This included unreleased movies, >>> financial information, company plans, and personal emails. The >>> reputational damage to the company was enormous; the company >>> estimated the cost at $41 million. >>> >>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents from >>> the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That same >>> month, different hackers did the same thing to the infidelity >>> website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers broke into the iCloud >>> accounts of over 100 celebrities and published personal >>> photographs, most containing some nudity. In 2013, Edward Snowden >>> doxed the NSA. >>> >>> These aren't the first instances of politically motivated doxing, >>> but there's a clear trend. As people realize what an effective >>> attack this can be, and how an individual can use the tactic to >>> do considerable damage to powerful people and institutions, we're >>> going to see a lot more of it. >>> >>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living in >>> a world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated attacker will >>> circumvent network security. Even worse, most internet security >>> assumes it needs to defend against an opportunistic attacker who >>> will attack the weakest network in order to get—for example—a >>> pile of credit card numbers. The notion of a targeted attacker, >>> who wants Sony or Ashley Madison or John Brennan because of what >>> they stand for, is still new. And it's even harder to defend >>> against. >>> >>> What this means is that we're going to see more political doxing >>> in the future, against both people and institutions. It's going >>> to be a factor in elections. It's going to be a factor in >>> anti-corporate activism. More people will find their personal >>> information exposed to the world: politicians, corporate >>> executives, celebrities, divisive and outspoken individuals. >>> >>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will. Some of >>> them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of them will be >>> inadvertent victims of a doxing attack aimed at a company where >>> their information is stored, like those celebrities with iPhone >>> accounts and every customer of Ashley Madison. Regardless of the >>> method, lots of people will have to face the publication of >>> personal correspondence, documents, and information they would >>> rather be private. >>> >>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can effectively >>> use against the powerful. It can be used for whistleblowing. It >>> can be used as a vehicle for social change. And it can be used to >>> embarrass, harass, and intimidate. Its popularity will rise and >>> fall on this effectiveness, especially in a world where >>> prosecuting the doxers is so difficult. >>> >>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the >>> right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But we're >>> not, and those of us who are in the public eye have no choice but >>> to rethink our online data shadows. >>> > >> Political figures in most countries have been using their personal >> email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar' in order to >> avoid information being subject to oversight, most probably because >> its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very least not good for the >> image of governments. > >> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in the >> bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal life >> that may happen. > >> If people in power act properly in their professional dealings >> then their is an argument against d0xing their personal information >> but once they start to try to hide information then it's open >> season on every aspect of their life. > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mirimir at riseup.net Sun Nov 1 18:25:31 2015 From: mirimir at riseup.net (Mirimir) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:25:31 -0700 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5636C99B.3060807@riseup.net> On 11/01/2015 02:25 AM, jim bell wrote: > While the first few collected rewards would probably be in the tens > of thousands of dollars range, after a few hundred are collected I > think the price could easily drop to the low thousands. Really? Let's say that there was a viable AP system. What would bids be like for top US officials? There are maybe a couple billion people who want them dead. Even at $1 each, that's a lot of money! Also, consider the potential for collateral damage. Let's say that I'm the captain of a Russian nuclear sub. The aggregate value of the US Congress might hit $100 billion, no? So what might I do? First, kill my crew, after making suitable arrangements. Then nuke Washington, and collect my winnings. Maybe drop out for a few years in some deep part of the Pacific. Then buy an island, and retire. From mirimir at riseup.net Sun Nov 1 18:27:41 2015 From: mirimir at riseup.net (Mirimir) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:27:41 -0700 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> <5636C19D.5060801@riseup.net> Message-ID: <5636CA1D.20707@riseup.net> On 11/01/2015 07:09 PM, coderman wrote: > On 11/1/15, Mirimir wrote: >> ... >> I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even >> sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders >> would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise. > > my bid for my own life went unfulfilled, sadly. :/ > https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/tx/d4f89ca19c9ce0e9bcf1fc47d8223e4bee07ad269323faca68ae1113fa867d16 > / https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/address/1P6yannm6Rx9kkMH5LxmAsi1GdZ4JZG73T > [ death prediction lottery RIP vfwavrwava at yandex.com ] > > > ah well, maybe one day? Maybe you didn't advertise it well enough ;) From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 11:33:04 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:33:04 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit. oshwm: > > > On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote: >> Where is the OPM link in .7z format? >> > > Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving out > links to data? > > As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:- > > Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources to > conduct government business got what they deserved (leaked). > > Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the > appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not deserve > their details to be leaked. > > Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and > preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be leaked > (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc). > > The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or > indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal > information because they become huge and irresistable targets for > crackers. > > >> - intelemetry >> >> oshwm: >> >> >>> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >>>> >>>> >>>> Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >>>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people >>>> on the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL >>>> account and published emails and documents found inside, many >>>> of them personal and sensitive. >>>> >>>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word >>>> "documents." It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge >>>> tactic, and has since been as a tool to harass and intimidate >>>> people on the internet. Someone would threaten a woman with >>>> physical harm, or try to incite others to harm her, and >>>> publish her personal information as a way of saying "I know a >>>> lot about you—like where you live and work." Victims of >>>> doxing talk about the fear that this tactic instills. It's >>>> very effective, by which I mean that it's horrible. >>>> >>>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker >>>> had a more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate >>>> Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal >>>> papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder for an eager >>>> press. This doxing was a political act, and we're seeing this >>>> kind of thing more and more. >>>> >>>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal >>>> correspondence, documents, and information they would rather >>>> be private >>>> >>>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this >>>> to Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for North >>>> Korea broke into the company's networks, stole a huge amount >>>> of corporate data, and published it. This included unreleased >>>> movies, financial information, company plans, and personal >>>> emails. The reputational damage to the company was enormous; >>>> the company estimated the cost at $41 million. >>>> >>>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents >>>> from the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That >>>> same month, different hackers did the same thing to the >>>> infidelity website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers broke >>>> into the iCloud accounts of over 100 celebrities and >>>> published personal photographs, most containing some nudity. >>>> In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA. >>>> >>>> These aren't the first instances of politically motivated >>>> doxing, but there's a clear trend. As people realize what an >>>> effective attack this can be, and how an individual can use >>>> the tactic to do considerable damage to powerful people and >>>> institutions, we're going to see a lot more of it. >>>> >>>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living >>>> in a world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated >>>> attacker will circumvent network security. Even worse, most >>>> internet security assumes it needs to defend against an >>>> opportunistic attacker who will attack the weakest network in >>>> order to get—for example—a pile of credit card numbers. The >>>> notion of a targeted attacker, who wants Sony or Ashley >>>> Madison or John Brennan because of what they stand for, is >>>> still new. And it's even harder to defend against. >>>> >>>> What this means is that we're going to see more political >>>> doxing in the future, against both people and institutions. >>>> It's going to be a factor in elections. It's going to be a >>>> factor in anti-corporate activism. More people will find >>>> their personal information exposed to the world: politicians, >>>> corporate executives, celebrities, divisive and outspoken >>>> individuals. >>>> >>>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will. >>>> Some of them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of >>>> them will be inadvertent victims of a doxing attack aimed at >>>> a company where their information is stored, like those >>>> celebrities with iPhone accounts and every customer of Ashley >>>> Madison. Regardless of the method, lots of people will have >>>> to face the publication of personal correspondence, >>>> documents, and information they would rather be private. >>>> >>>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can >>>> effectively use against the powerful. It can be used for >>>> whistleblowing. It can be used as a vehicle for social >>>> change. And it can be used to embarrass, harass, and >>>> intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this >>>> effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting the >>>> doxers is so difficult. >>>> >>>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the >>>> right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But >>>> we're not, and those of us who are in the public eye have no >>>> choice but to rethink our online data shadows. >>>> >> >>> Political figures in most countries have been using their >>> personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar' >>> in order to avoid information being subject to oversight, most >>> probably because its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very >>> least not good for the image of governments. >> >>> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in >>> the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal >>> life that may happen. >> >>> If people in power act properly in their professional dealings >>> then their is an argument against d0xing their personal >>> information but once they start to try to hide information then >>> it's open season on every aspect of their life. >> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNmjwAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+nW8MAIY0FdT9O08i/lEjTx6PuZIo kaPwFve8vsTbK4zSC5KDh9aBaLdTkMqmSl2sVAIyCtDXA/pfbhq2gbT4NzwEzOcy FldFdRlU6pQcKLEfyA5R+bnvRepB6htciJznGdnknTtd0p97F6eugkMF/ifV5XpC qicLWLucLPo4lRaLIIk6OXruaMGxnpQOwRMPMFFv4h2zxDMIbfNFsibRQJXnp0QL FaXKCQh5+v/YAYWUp0SmK5XaDxyK//8Y3FkPUa+bXwHP/w48txJ0ljZXxtsrsWAF qj/HO0wT4P6hlyiizmxFWJ6AxI3yx9c4RqaqG/kRvU6fp13yHqRfytBUGKQJqbyY zmjsGp6IyX8k0GChqp/57pwmuaUNwFo7mX4Be9HyDMh+kZQdDlcSpFjCbnPooR8j UE9KKpp4ggOpa5RO75sFtJamiW/bT6uBRdGrcvIP9JxXIV/ZAczQt2/Ev3Kok6Ib FC79SnjV11QGUj5qgM9zK9Z6L9S4dtLvBSZkOKQgCw== =FLPZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From juan.g71 at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 14:34:01 2015 From: juan.g71 at gmail.com (Juan) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:34:01 -0300 Subject: Shiny stuff and designer societies In-Reply-To: References: <150b0aeef50.276e.4d489027c0c4d0c1b1ca03a1f48f1ffb@misanthropia.org> <20151028231728.1A96CC00019@frontend1.nyi.internal> <150b1290920.276e.4d489027c0c4d0c1b1ca03a1f48f1ffb@misanthropia.org> <20151029013945.C7D9FC00012@frontend1.nyi.internal> <56327869.361f8c0a.efb1c.692d@mx.google.com> <5633e047.b3588c0a.28e5f.1db7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <563691c8.d3828c0a.96ed7.044b@mx.google.com> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 22:08:30 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: > > > What's worse, it'll redefine criminal! > > > > Of course. So, why should any sane person support such a > > system? > > > > Because it helps you. It doesn't help me. It's a criminal organization that only helps itself and its criminal partners. > Consistently applied and effective justice The state doesn't provide justice. > > I think it's important to create law that's conservative and very > morally and ethically neutral. OK. At this point you are pretty much some kind of bot. > > I think justice should not depend upon ethics very much at all. You don't know what justice is. > > > You can keep repeating absurd, mainstream propaganda without > > > > any regard to logic, but what's the point? What can you > > > > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > Complex agreements, abstaining from violence, huge organizations, > > > etc. These are valuable, aren't they? > > > > Abstaining from violence? States are the most violent > > organizations on the planet. > > > It's a fucking for virginity kind of thing. Yes, that's your position. A clear contradiction in terms. An absurdity. Nonsense. You are supposed to present some kind of rational argument here. Crass contradictions are just the opposite of rational argument. The game is totally and completely over and you lost big time. > > > > As to the complex arrangements > > that can exist in a society, you don't need the state to > > have them. > > > > True, but we have made it far easier by ways of state. False. > > > It's also debatable why huge organizations are 'valuable'. > > > > Economies of scale is one reason. The other is singular ginormous > efforts. The pyramids are an example, but also the space race, this > boat What are you talking about. Who gives a fuck about the pyramids or the space race? Oh you think people should be sacrificed for your retarded collective pet projects? > > Not just commerce; CERN is awesome! cern is a useless piece of shit - it's welfare for scammers who pretend to be 'scientists'. > Related; > I think we can produce a formal logic for politics. Really. > One could model the amount of coercion upon an actor, how much a tax > exemption would create incentives. > > I'm sorry for not having good examples. Don't worry. Your nonsense is horribly bad as it is... > > > > > We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct > > > behavior. > > > > What is the 'correct' behaviour? > > > > For the system's actors to behave as they should, as determined by the > system. Do you have anything else apart from blatant contradictions and cicular 'logic'? > > > In fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions. > > > > > > We've yet to find a system that works. > > > > Define 'works'. > > > > Does what it says on the tin. Whatever. Did I mention that your ramblings are pretty much a description of the 'system' we have now. I honestly don't know what you are complaining about. > > > > > > Come on Lodewijk. Why don't you do your homework? Learn > > > > the ABC of poltical theory. > > > > > > I tried doing homework, but the books were full of propaganda. > > > > Well yes, there are varying levels of propaganda in > > political philosophy. There are some sound principles too. > > > > You think people should be free, and things organized > > according to 'market principles' in some areas, but not in others. > > Problem is, being 'free' to follow arbitrary rules isn't > > exactly freedom. > > > > Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway. It means you can't be > "forced" to do something, but it's very rare for death not to be an > alternative choice. Reality narrows our choices most significantly, > but through law and enforcement we can change the "economic > landscape" and cause what once was the best choice ('deepest valley') > to become only meh, or very not good ('high ridge'). I guess freedom > is when you have no (clear) optimal choices, which isn't actually > preferable. "Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway" More meaningless rambling. Are you high or something? > > Mathematically it makes sense to have competition and free markets. LMAO. Mathematics is for counting stuff. > In > practice the actors do not obey perfectly, and cause a lot of reality. > Additionally, while a market is finding it's optimum (the best way to > do a certain thing) competition actually has significant cost. > Sometimes reality shifts faster than markets anneal, and we get stuck > with a lot of competition instead of expediting that energy to moving > towards the ideal solution. (also game theory) > > > > > Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it > > > better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"? > > > > Literally? A very good criminal monopoly would excel at > > being criminal. I don't think that's what you want? > > > > There you go using criminal as if it means something :) It means nothing to amoralist nutcases. > > Uhm, the ideal criminal monopoly, to me, would be criminal enough to > ensure it's own existence, and do things I like as well. Like > advancing humanity. lol... Shouldn't you learn the ABC and master BASIC LOGICAL THINKING before trying to 'advance humanity'? Are you fucking crazy? You can't grasp BASIC LOGIC and yet you want to 'advance humanity'?? > > > > I have the right because I can. Powers *are* rights. > > > > That's not what 'right(s)' means. Or rather that's the kind > > of 'rights' that governments rely upon. Arbitrary dictates backed > > by force. > > > Rights are defined by government, Are you completely retarded or what. a self restraint alike "I'll never > drink again". But I don't think that's very meaningful. Rights are > supposed to be impossible to violate. whatever you say. > If the government is incapable > of violating the right, then it's a right. But by that point it's > synonymous with a citizen's power. In practice "rights" are barriers, > not absolute restraints. > > Ugh, linguistics. You mean, you wrote pages of absurd ramblings? Yeah. > > You are misunderstanding what natural rights are. Natural > > rights are a more legalistic description of common sense > > morality. > > > > You can probably kill a few random people right now if you > > want. Say, use a car to run people over. But the fact that > > you *can* kill people means killing people is morally right? > > > > Same thing with natural rights. The fact that natural rights > > can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist. > > > > Natural rights are entirely different from rights. It is as you say, > a plea for encoding some specific morality into law. Claiming > something is a natural right seems to imply that it's been a right > since before the politics determined what is and isn't a right. I > think it's pretty meaningless, Because you are some kind of psycho. > but I deeply empathize with the > emotions involved. I don't think so. > > > Ask the mountains thought to have > > > spirits. > > > > That's a poetic license. > > > > Can't ignore a mountain's natural rights, man. Fuck you. > > > > I would point out (again) that 1) your understanding of > > natural rights isn't...right. 2) that even current states > > pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'. > > > > I think my understanding is still not aligned. What states pretend to > get their powers from 'natural rights'? Like I said, do your fucking homework. > > > > I think in practice it will be easier to make the system a > > > compelling opt-in. If you don't want to be in it, it is probably > > > not good enough. > > > > Oh that's a good point. So now you wearing your anarchist > > hat? =P > > > > It's my plan for world domination. I just make a system that's so nice > everyone will come running. You are nuts. NOW, I've had enough. From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 16:37:11 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:37:11 -0500 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> <56366FC0.30900@riseup.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:19 PM, coderman wrote: > his writing from prison is much more potent. it will be good for him? He'll have a fine talk show when he gets out. > (it is at least entertaining to me. and his commissary can always use From oshwm at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 11:43:01 2015 From: oshwm at openmailbox.org (oshwm) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:43:01 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <56366B45.8050708@openmailbox.org> On 01/11/15 19:33, intelemetry wrote: > It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit. > ha ha, I'm not sure government uses any corps that actually know what they're doing :D > oshwm: > > >> On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote: >>> Where is the OPM link in .7z format? >>> > >> Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving out >> links to data? > >> As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:- > >> Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources to >> conduct government business got what they deserved (leaked). > >> Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the >> appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not deserve >> their details to be leaked. > >> Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and >> preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be leaked >> (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc). > >> The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or >> indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal >> information because they become huge and irresistable targets for >> crackers. > > >>> - intelemetry >>> >>> oshwm: >>> >>> >>>> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >>>>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass people >>>>> on the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his AOL >>>>> account and published emails and documents found inside, many >>>>> of them personal and sensitive. >>>>> >>>>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word >>>>> "documents." It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge >>>>> tactic, and has since been as a tool to harass and intimidate >>>>> people on the internet. Someone would threaten a woman with >>>>> physical harm, or try to incite others to harm her, and >>>>> publish her personal information as a way of saying "I know a >>>>> lot about you—like where you live and work." Victims of >>>>> doxing talk about the fear that this tactic instills. It's >>>>> very effective, by which I mean that it's horrible. >>>>> >>>>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the attacker >>>>> had a more political motive. He wasn't out to intimidate >>>>> Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. His personal >>>>> papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder for an eager >>>>> press. This doxing was a political act, and we're seeing this >>>>> kind of thing more and more. >>>>> >>>>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of personal >>>>> correspondence, documents, and information they would rather >>>>> be private >>>>> >>>>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did this >>>>> to Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for North >>>>> Korea broke into the company's networks, stole a huge amount >>>>> of corporate data, and published it. This included unreleased >>>>> movies, financial information, company plans, and personal >>>>> emails. The reputational damage to the company was enormous; >>>>> the company estimated the cost at $41 million. >>>>> >>>>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents >>>>> from the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. That >>>>> same month, different hackers did the same thing to the >>>>> infidelity website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers broke >>>>> into the iCloud accounts of over 100 celebrities and >>>>> published personal photographs, most containing some nudity. >>>>> In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA. >>>>> >>>>> These aren't the first instances of politically motivated >>>>> doxing, but there's a clear trend. As people realize what an >>>>> effective attack this can be, and how an individual can use >>>>> the tactic to do considerable damage to powerful people and >>>>> institutions, we're going to see a lot more of it. >>>>> >>>>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're living >>>>> in a world where a sufficiently skilled and motivated >>>>> attacker will circumvent network security. Even worse, most >>>>> internet security assumes it needs to defend against an >>>>> opportunistic attacker who will attack the weakest network in >>>>> order to get—for example—a pile of credit card numbers. The >>>>> notion of a targeted attacker, who wants Sony or Ashley >>>>> Madison or John Brennan because of what they stand for, is >>>>> still new. And it's even harder to defend against. >>>>> >>>>> What this means is that we're going to see more political >>>>> doxing in the future, against both people and institutions. >>>>> It's going to be a factor in elections. It's going to be a >>>>> factor in anti-corporate activism. More people will find >>>>> their personal information exposed to the world: politicians, >>>>> corporate executives, celebrities, divisive and outspoken >>>>> individuals. >>>>> >>>>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them will. >>>>> Some of them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. Some of >>>>> them will be inadvertent victims of a doxing attack aimed at >>>>> a company where their information is stored, like those >>>>> celebrities with iPhone accounts and every customer of Ashley >>>>> Madison. Regardless of the method, lots of people will have >>>>> to face the publication of personal correspondence, >>>>> documents, and information they would rather be private. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can >>>>> effectively use against the powerful. It can be used for >>>>> whistleblowing. It can be used as a vehicle for social >>>>> change. And it can be used to embarrass, harass, and >>>>> intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this >>>>> effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting the >>>>> doxers is so difficult. >>>>> >>>>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have the >>>>> right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. But >>>>> we're not, and those of us who are in the public eye have no >>>>> choice but to rethink our online data shadows. >>>>> >>> >>>> Political figures in most countries have been using their >>>> personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the radar' >>>> in order to avoid information being subject to oversight, most >>>> probably because its illegal, unconstitutional or at the very >>>> least not good for the image of governments. >>> >>>> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics in >>>> the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their personal >>>> life that may happen. >>> >>>> If people in power act properly in their professional dealings >>>> then their is an argument against d0xing their personal >>>> information but once they start to try to hide information then >>>> it's open season on every aspect of their life. >>> >>> >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From intelemetry at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 12:14:27 2015 From: intelemetry at openmailbox.org (intelemetry) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:14:27 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <56366B45.8050708@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> <56366B45.8050708@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <563672A3.9060600@openmailbox.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 My question here is regarding the covert exfil of the hack. Check out somebody like darktrace: https://www.darktrace.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Behavior_Anomaly_Detection That egress would be a monumental NOC IDS trigger, especially for an anomaly detection system. Have to imagine the database is big. Especially if you do anomaly detection on the SIEM collecting things like DNS, flow, etc. Probably a pivot into the Oracle database. The coupling between PeopleSoft and the backend is weird. The question is whether this is everybody because agencies sponsor clearance and may or may not partition their own records on the backend. Something doesn't make sense here. If they can catch the white house non-classified penetration with low traffic and no exfil the OPM hack seems like it should have been detected easily. Moreover, there are automatic kill-chains in a lot of this infrastructure: == begin white house == http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/russian-hackers-read-obamas-unclass ified-emails-officials-say.html?_r=0 http://fortune.com/2015/04/07/russians-hacked-white-house/ == end white house == http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do/information-technology/cybe rsecurity/tradecraft/cyber-kill-chain.html http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/deconstructing-the-cyber-ki ll-chain/a/d-id/1317542 I have to imagine they have a switch with inline and span analytics and IDS/IPS, anomaly detection, and logging from multiple telemetry sources. Grabbing that data from that network and running remotely seems like a hefty attack without compromising the actual reporting devices. Which has been done: http://www.phenoelit.org/stuff/CiscoInTheSkyWithDiamonds.pdf ^^ virtual networking It would be interesting to know how much is virtual networking out there these days in the government. - - intelemetry oshwm: > > > On 01/11/15 19:33, intelemetry wrote: >> It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit. >> > > ha ha, I'm not sure government uses any corps that actually know > what they're doing :D > >> oshwm: >> >> >>> On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote: >>>> Where is the OPM link in .7z format? >>>> >> >>> Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving >>> out links to data? >> >>> As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:- >> >>> Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources >>> to conduct government business got what they deserved >>> (leaked). >> >>> Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the >>> appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not >>> deserve their details to be leaked. >> >>> Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and >>> preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be >>> leaked (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc). >> >>> The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or >>> indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal >>> information because they become huge and irresistable targets >>> for crackers. >> >> >>>> - intelemetry >>>> >>>> oshwm: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >>>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >>>>>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass >>>>>> people on the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his >>>>>> AOL account and published emails and documents found >>>>>> inside, many of them personal and sensitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word >>>>>> "documents." It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge >>>>>> tactic, and has since been as a tool to harass and >>>>>> intimidate people on the internet. Someone would threaten >>>>>> a woman with physical harm, or try to incite others to >>>>>> harm her, and publish her personal information as a way >>>>>> of saying "I know a lot about you—like where you live and >>>>>> work." Victims of doxing talk about the fear that this >>>>>> tactic instills. It's very effective, by which I mean >>>>>> that it's horrible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the >>>>>> attacker had a more political motive. He wasn't out to >>>>>> intimidate Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. >>>>>> His personal papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder >>>>>> for an eager press. This doxing was a political act, and >>>>>> we're seeing this kind of thing more and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of >>>>>> personal correspondence, documents, and information they >>>>>> would rather be private >>>>>> >>>>>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did >>>>>> this to Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for >>>>>> North Korea broke into the company's networks, stole a >>>>>> huge amount of corporate data, and published it. This >>>>>> included unreleased movies, financial information, >>>>>> company plans, and personal emails. The reputational >>>>>> damage to the company was enormous; the company estimated >>>>>> the cost at $41 million. >>>>>> >>>>>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents >>>>>> from the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. >>>>>> That same month, different hackers did the same thing to >>>>>> the infidelity website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers >>>>>> broke into the iCloud accounts of over 100 celebrities >>>>>> and published personal photographs, most containing some >>>>>> nudity. In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA. >>>>>> >>>>>> These aren't the first instances of politically >>>>>> motivated doxing, but there's a clear trend. As people >>>>>> realize what an effective attack this can be, and how an >>>>>> individual can use the tactic to do considerable damage >>>>>> to powerful people and institutions, we're going to see a >>>>>> lot more of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're >>>>>> living in a world where a sufficiently skilled and >>>>>> motivated attacker will circumvent network security. Even >>>>>> worse, most internet security assumes it needs to defend >>>>>> against an opportunistic attacker who will attack the >>>>>> weakest network in order to get—for example—a pile of >>>>>> credit card numbers. The notion of a targeted attacker, >>>>>> who wants Sony or Ashley Madison or John Brennan because >>>>>> of what they stand for, is still new. And it's even >>>>>> harder to defend against. >>>>>> >>>>>> What this means is that we're going to see more >>>>>> political doxing in the future, against both people and >>>>>> institutions. It's going to be a factor in elections. >>>>>> It's going to be a factor in anti-corporate activism. >>>>>> More people will find their personal information exposed >>>>>> to the world: politicians, corporate executives, >>>>>> celebrities, divisive and outspoken individuals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them >>>>>> will. Some of them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. >>>>>> Some of them will be inadvertent victims of a doxing >>>>>> attack aimed at a company where their information is >>>>>> stored, like those celebrities with iPhone accounts and >>>>>> every customer of Ashley Madison. Regardless of the >>>>>> method, lots of people will have to face the publication >>>>>> of personal correspondence, documents, and information >>>>>> they would rather be private. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can >>>>>> effectively use against the powerful. It can be used for >>>>>> whistleblowing. It can be used as a vehicle for social >>>>>> change. And it can be used to embarrass, harass, and >>>>>> intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this >>>>>> effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting >>>>>> the doxers is so difficult. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have >>>>>> the right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. >>>>>> But we're not, and those of us who are in the public eye >>>>>> have no choice but to rethink our online data shadows. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Political figures in most countries have been using their >>>>> personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the >>>>> radar' in order to avoid information being subject to >>>>> oversight, most probably because its illegal, >>>>> unconstitutional or at the very least not good for the >>>>> image of governments. >>>> >>>>> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics >>>>> in the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their >>>>> personal life that may happen. >>>> >>>>> If people in power act properly in their professional >>>>> dealings then their is an argument against d0xing their >>>>> personal information but once they start to try to hide >>>>> information then it's open season on every aspect of their >>>>> life. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJWNnKjAAoJEEN278Ja4tg+RRcL/2OjYhzQPR42GddWdgg5OJjn EZ4BnXPug9wJlAjXpAufpF4dOX8EzYLtFbwdn6lcxJpxie6R2v6OBVHnU+dw8srW 0iKqUs2VT/zebBw+mt809od97pQz3MCPjbFgMrNGiPY1nOArQvzj7XanHF91QOcd hKrrwmWkIR+hjMAErUgtw0an2RoXSW9hxSjQkKY1vt44TnGxBLWCOECQLtBm5+8D fCK9T1vsl+6aqqOa8iEIHMQV8YEl/Q/P3XY3ilbwPtFDZdwKmAatRhvAMDRQkKn5 DGTdDURlSWUe/lt5iswQTPKMv2lf2FIqlAQpSgfNuVKN9fNdzPjhAbBwo2MmsSss tNLiMLcI3CVKWLieVOIN674piVoscLZKaemYGYFU4l02iVpG9NphFbPrxIuwwxaZ MCWeiMi/Llp7+cKqlkeFINOteYntswV/XAp1zw/v7cPZaIsFgwi62PKTNhDltuFE oB1YSoV+X58a/Yjsv54/M5beMsNsjjLbkH95oqSzuw== =Mz0p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From oshwm at openmailbox.org Sun Nov 1 12:30:13 2015 From: oshwm at openmailbox.org (oshwm) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 20:30:13 +0000 Subject: information imbalance - The Rise of Plitical Doxing [ bonus points for contrast with AP! :] In-Reply-To: <563672A3.9060600@openmailbox.org> References: <5635DB13.7040508@openmailbox.org> <56365744.60709@openmailbox.org> <56366699.2040700@openmailbox.org> <563668F0.4070908@openmailbox.org> <56366B45.8050708@openmailbox.org> <563672A3.9060600@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <56367655.9040005@openmailbox.org> A lot of reading there for me to be able to answer intelligently but I see what you're saying - how to walk out of the door with all that data on a Lady Gaga CD :D On 01/11/15 20:14, intelemetry wrote: > My question here is regarding the covert exfil of the hack. > > Check out somebody like darktrace: https://www.darktrace.com/ > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Behavior_Anomaly_Detection > > That egress would be a monumental NOC IDS trigger, especially for an > anomaly detection system. Have to imagine the database is big. > Especially if you do anomaly detection on the SIEM collecting things > like DNS, flow, etc. > > Probably a pivot into the Oracle database. The coupling between > PeopleSoft and the backend is weird. > > The question is whether this is everybody because agencies sponsor > clearance and may or may not partition their own records on the backend. > > Something doesn't make sense here. If they can catch the white house > non-classified penetration with low traffic and no exfil the OPM hack > seems like it should have been detected easily. Moreover, there are > automatic kill-chains in a lot of this infrastructure: > > > == begin white house == > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/russian-hackers-read-obamas-unclass > ified-emails-officials-say.html?_r=0 > > http://fortune.com/2015/04/07/russians-hacked-white-house/ > == end white house == > > > http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do/information-technology/cybe > rsecurity/tradecraft/cyber-kill-chain.html > > http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/deconstructing-the-cyber-ki > ll-chain/a/d-id/1317542 > > I have to imagine they have a switch with inline and span analytics > and IDS/IPS, anomaly detection, and logging from multiple telemetry > sources. Grabbing that data from that network and running remotely > seems like a hefty attack without compromising the actual reporting > devices. Which has been done: > > http://www.phenoelit.org/stuff/CiscoInTheSkyWithDiamonds.pdf > > ^^ virtual networking > > It would be interesting to know how much is virtual networking out > there these days in the government. > > - intelemetry > > oshwm: > > >> On 01/11/15 19:33, intelemetry wrote: >>> It proves peoplesoft is a piece of shit. >>> > >> ha ha, I'm not sure government uses any corps that actually know >> what they're doing :D > >>> oshwm: >>> >>> >>>> On 01/11/15 18:17, intelemetry wrote: >>>>> Where is the OPM link in .7z format? >>>>> >>> >>>> Didn't Barrett Brown end up in Solitary Confinement for giving >>>> out links to data? >>> >>>> As for the real question, my ethical argument still stands:- >>> >>>> Those people in the OPM leak who were using personal resources >>>> to conduct government business got what they deserved >>>> (leaked). >>> >>>> Those who were being honest and kept business dealing to the >>>> appropriate and democratically accountable systems did not >>>> deserve their details to be leaked. >>> >>>> Then there is another group who work to deceive the public and >>>> preserve the state at any cost, those also deserve to be >>>> leaked (NSA, CIA, FBI etc etc). >>> >>>> The hack on OPM also proves another thing that Governments (or >>>> indeed anyone) should not create large databases of personal >>>> information because they become huge and irresistable targets >>>> for crackers. >>> >>> >>>>> - intelemetry >>>>> >>>>> oshwm: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 01/11/15 03:53, coderman wrote: >>>>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-rise-of-political-doxing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> > Last week, CIA director John O. Brennan became the latest victim >>>>>>> of what's become a popular way to embarrass and harass >>>>>>> people on the internet. A hacker allegedly broke into his >>>>>>> AOL account and published emails and documents found >>>>>>> inside, many of them personal and sensitive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's called doxing—sometimes doxxing—from the word >>>>>>> "documents." It emerged in the 1990s as a hacker revenge >>>>>>> tactic, and has since been as a tool to harass and >>>>>>> intimidate people on the internet. Someone would threaten >>>>>>> a woman with physical harm, or try to incite others to >>>>>>> harm her, and publish her personal information as a way >>>>>>> of saying "I know a lot about you—like where you live and >>>>>>> work." Victims of doxing talk about the fear that this >>>>>>> tactic instills. It's very effective, by which I mean >>>>>>> that it's horrible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brennan's doxing was slightly different. Here, the >>>>>>> attacker had a more political motive. He wasn't out to >>>>>>> intimidate Brennan; he simply wanted to embarrass him. >>>>>>> His personal papers were dumped indiscriminately, fodder >>>>>>> for an eager press. This doxing was a political act, and >>>>>>> we're seeing this kind of thing more and more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lots of people will have to face the publication of >>>>>>> personal correspondence, documents, and information they >>>>>>> would rather be private >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Last year, the government of North Korea allegedly did >>>>>>> this to Sony. Hackers the FBI believes were working for >>>>>>> North Korea broke into the company's networks, stole a >>>>>>> huge amount of corporate data, and published it. This >>>>>>> included unreleased movies, financial information, >>>>>>> company plans, and personal emails. The reputational >>>>>>> damage to the company was enormous; the company estimated >>>>>>> the cost at $41 million. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In July, hackers stole and published sensitive documents >>>>>>> from the cyberweapons arms manufacturer Hacking Team. >>>>>>> That same month, different hackers did the same thing to >>>>>>> the infidelity website Ashley Madison. In 2014, hackers >>>>>>> broke into the iCloud accounts of over 100 celebrities >>>>>>> and published personal photographs, most containing some >>>>>>> nudity. In 2013, Edward Snowden doxed the NSA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These aren't the first instances of politically >>>>>>> motivated doxing, but there's a clear trend. As people >>>>>>> realize what an effective attack this can be, and how an >>>>>>> individual can use the tactic to do considerable damage >>>>>>> to powerful people and institutions, we're going to see a >>>>>>> lot more of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the internet, attack is easier than defense. We're >>>>>>> living in a world where a sufficiently skilled and >>>>>>> motivated attacker will circumvent network security. Even >>>>>>> worse, most internet security assumes it needs to defend >>>>>>> against an opportunistic attacker who will attack the >>>>>>> weakest network in order to get—for example—a pile of >>>>>>> credit card numbers. The notion of a targeted attacker, >>>>>>> who wants Sony or Ashley Madison or John Brennan because >>>>>>> of what they stand for, is still new. And it's even >>>>>>> harder to defend against. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What this means is that we're going to see more >>>>>>> political doxing in the future, against both people and >>>>>>> institutions. It's going to be a factor in elections. >>>>>>> It's going to be a factor in anti-corporate activism. >>>>>>> More people will find their personal information exposed >>>>>>> to the world: politicians, corporate executives, >>>>>>> celebrities, divisive and outspoken individuals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course they won't all be doxed, but some of them >>>>>>> will. Some of them will be doxed directly, like Brennan. >>>>>>> Some of them will be inadvertent victims of a doxing >>>>>>> attack aimed at a company where their information is >>>>>>> stored, like those celebrities with iPhone accounts and >>>>>>> every customer of Ashley Madison. Regardless of the >>>>>>> method, lots of people will have to face the publication >>>>>>> of personal correspondence, documents, and information >>>>>>> they would rather be private. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the end, doxing is a tactic that the powerless can >>>>>>> effectively use against the powerful. It can be used for >>>>>>> whistleblowing. It can be used as a vehicle for social >>>>>>> change. And it can be used to embarrass, harass, and >>>>>>> intimidate. Its popularity will rise and fall on this >>>>>>> effectiveness, especially in a world where prosecuting >>>>>>> the doxers is so difficult. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's no good solution for this right now. We all have >>>>>>> the right to privacy, and we should be free from doxing. >>>>>>> But we're not, and those of us who are in the public eye >>>>>>> have no choice but to rethink our online data shadows. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Political figures in most countries have been using their >>>>>> personal email accounts to conduct business 'under the >>>>>> radar' in order to avoid information being subject to >>>>>> oversight, most probably because its illegal, >>>>>> unconstitutional or at the very least not good for the >>>>>> image of governments. >>>>> >>>>>> When they started to do this, they threw the book on ethics >>>>>> in the bin and opened themselves up to any abuse of their >>>>>> personal life that may happen. >>>>> >>>>>> If people in power act properly in their professional >>>>>> dealings then their is an argument against d0xing their >>>>>> personal information but once they start to try to hide >>>>>> information then it's open season on every aspect of their >>>>>> life. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mirimir at riseup.net Sun Nov 1 19:55:54 2015 From: mirimir at riseup.net (Mirimir) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:55:54 -0700 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: <5636D4AD.1070707@gothic.com.au> References: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5636C99B.3060807@riseup.net> <5636D4AD.1070707@gothic.com.au> Message-ID: <5636DECA.6010709@riseup.net> On 11/01/2015 08:12 PM, goran at gothic.com.au wrote: > And you reckon that there'll be an island to retire to in such case? > > Goran Maybe so, maybe no. Maybe New Zealand? The southern hemisphere would probably escape the worst fallout, because inter-hemispheric mixing is relatively slow. Short-lived stuff would decay before it got there. > On 02/11/2015 13:25, Mirimir wrote: >> On 11/01/2015 02:25 AM, jim bell wrote: >> >> >> >>> While the first few collected rewards would probably be in the tens >>> of thousands of dollars range, after a few hundred are collected I >>> think the price could easily drop to the low thousands. >> >> Really? Let's say that there was a viable AP system. What would bids be >> like for top US officials? There are maybe a couple billion people who >> want them dead. Even at $1 each, that's a lot of money! >> >> Also, consider the potential for collateral damage. Let's say that I'm >> the captain of a Russian nuclear sub. The aggregate value of the US >> Congress might hit $100 billion, no? So what might I do? First, kill my >> crew, after making suitable arrangements. Then nuke Washington, and >> collect my winnings. Maybe drop out for a few years in some deep part of >> the Pacific. Then buy an island, and retire. >> >> >> >> > > From l at odewijk.nl Sun Nov 1 13:08:30 2015 From: l at odewijk.nl (=?UTF-8?Q?Lodewijk_andr=C3=A9_de_la_porte?=) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 22:08:30 +0100 Subject: Shiny stuff and designer societies In-Reply-To: <5633e047.b3588c0a.28e5f.1db7@mx.google.com> References: <150b0aeef50.276e.4d489027c0c4d0c1b1ca03a1f48f1ffb@misanthropia.org> <20151028231728.1A96CC00019@frontend1.nyi.internal> <150b1290920.276e.4d489027c0c4d0c1b1ca03a1f48f1ffb@misanthropia.org> <20151029013945.C7D9FC00012@frontend1.nyi.internal> <56327869.361f8c0a.efb1c.692d@mx.google.com> <5633e047.b3588c0a.28e5f.1db7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I rather like this calmer tone. It makes it much easier to think about what you're saying. 2015-10-30 22:32 GMT+01:00 Juan : > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:23:39 +0100 > Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: > > > > So a criminal monopoly is going to define what 'justice' is, > > > and enforce it, too. > > > > > > > What's worse, it'll redefine criminal! > > Of course. So, why should any sane person support such a > system? > Because it helps you. Consistently applied and effective justice reduces the crime rates. By defining crime to be behaviors that are: * Game theory wise bad - like driving (very) fast being good for you, bad for everyone else. Or contract enforcement - having serious enforcement even for less valuable contracts is very hard (=expensive) to do. The edge of acceptable is sought, and usually differs significantly per person. (Asbestos processing company CEO saying it's a good thing workers are unaware of the dangers, it makes for greater profit, and therefore prevents informing the workers. Past the line? Maybe, but it was legal and didn't cause public retaliation*) * Fragile but preferable - no petty theft (like jackets) makes it much easier to be in shared spaces, but any enforcement is more expensive than the jacket stolen. It's very hard to prevent petty theft. But also shoplifting, being honest about products (Volkswagen's lies might've forced other manufacturers to perform fraud), etc * Simply too unkind - fraud, murder, serious harassment (although the border is hard to place), theft of freedom (rape is both harassment and theft of freedom), (not all but many ways of) causing pain or injury, etc I think it's important to create law that's conservative and very morally and ethically neutral. For me that's the difference between being a force for evil and a force for good. I ran into a fascinating example yesterday, a group of women was mad a friend for leaving without saying she would (which is a strange thing to do, why not say bye?), and for leaving with a guy although she has a boyfriend. I don't know her boyfriend arrangement, or how they're doing, but seemingly that made no difference in the first place. They were forming a loyal monogamy cartel! They did not respect their friend's ethical/moral choice. But I can't say it was entirely unreasonable, if she claimed to be exclusive to the guy it's probably very unkind. To clarify; this was a case of micro-oppression. Their friends were clearly intend on excluding her and otherwise sanctioning her for her behavior, although her behavior was, well, her conscious choice. They could've decided not to care about her, and they wouldn't be upset about her leaving. But they cared and sanctioned instead. If you don't like a person you should attempt to disconnect and isolate first, I think. I think justice should not depend upon ethics very much at all. If it does it should incorporate the ethics of those involved into it's judgement, but if you do this justice will become arbitrary complex and faults are likely. (faulty justice is severe unkindness) * justice increases the cost of retaliation - this is one of the biggest disadvantages. An eye for several eyes might seem pretty reasonable as for retaliation, but we punish this severely everywhere now. (I'd prefer not wasting an eye) (real world: you may not stop NAM - a Dutch natural gas company - from draining so much gas beneath the earth underneath your feet that the earth gives way and fills the void with your house, because the gas draining is legal, because it's hard to estimate the risk of pumping the gas, and because it's very profitable (maybe worth more than the house anyway)) > You can keep repeating absurd, mainstream propaganda without > > > any regard to logic, but what's the point? What can you > > > achieve? > > > > > > > Complex agreements, abstaining from violence, huge organizations, etc. > > These are valuable, aren't they? > > Abstaining from violence? States are the most violent > organizations on the planet. It's a fucking for virginity kind of thing. And it's because our states are so well matched - you need only be comfortably more armstrong than the other wrestlers. (why that means you need to be able to nuke the entire enemy a few times over, even after considering countermeasures, well, uhm, we all make mistakes. Either that or the propaganda lies about the countermeasures' effectiveness! So, is the USGOV incompetent or shrewd? ) > As to the complex arrangements > that can exist in a society, you don't need the state to > have them. > True, but we have made it far easier by ways of state. Certain arrangements are impossible without an allmighty third party. For example, you will never expend 100 euro's to retrieve 50. So, a promise of paying 50 euro's is not a very good promise if there's no cheaper way of enforcing that payment. This is often possible, through reputation or the like, but not always, and it's always difficult (=costs). Having a third party say "I'll suffer any expense, and I sure can, to ensure the enforcement of this promise, and will be sure punish the violator severely", means the total enforcement cost becomes 0 - not even a fool will challenge an adversary that truly means that. That entity needn't be the state, but it's better the more disproportionately powerful it is. Also because of vagueness. In "maybe more powerful" situations a test of power is sometimes required. And if there's more than two powerful parties they will weaken oneself with such a test. (what doesn't kill you wounds you still) > It's also debatable why huge organizations are 'valuable'. > Economies of scale is one reason. The other is singular ginormous efforts. The pyramids are an example, but also the space race, this boat , terraforming projects, and huge softwares too. And soon astroid mining, space solar, eradication of certain diseases, etc, etc, etc, etc Not just commerce; CERN is awesome! (but big is also scary) > > Ideally, there's a political game that is able to generate > > "appropriate" political choices. It's not a republic, a trade union, > > tribal understandings, etc, etc, per se, but there's always something. > > > > Without this system we are screwed anyway. > > > That's vague. What system are you alluding to, and who is 'we'? > It's tricky. I meant that, one way or another, we arrive at "political" decisions. One could say that the parts involved in arriving at that decision are a system. If the system sucks, we're screwed. It's much better to have a system that generates "appropriate" choices. Sometimes the right choice is undefined, but a choice must be made still. For example; a carbon emission auctioning system, which is the right choice given Capitalism, Game Theory and something bad increasing with carbon emission, is not implementable without filling out an essential parameter, how bad do we accept things to get? Like, maybe I'm okay trading an "idyllic truly empty desert" for "cesspool of all things poisonous" if we profit a lot from it. ( if value of desert < value of cesspool + value of profit.) CNGOV decided that was a good trade, and I (strongly) agree. The BBC did not. (lake here ) (game theory and fluctuating public opinion makes natural protection not a good thing to leave to markets) > If we do have that system > > we *should* use it. > > Statism? That system is designed to benefit special interests. > Unless you belong to some special faction, it won't do you any > good. > I meant, if we have a good way to generate general interest choices (or, idk, "appropriate" interest choices) then we should use it. I think the "special interest" should be humanity as a whole, averaged with SUM(PERSON_i) > > And we can use it to determine the absolute widest boundaries of what > > is permitted, boundaries which you may not wander out of. > > Determine, how? > Through the political system. It depends on the system of course. Related; I think we can produce a formal logic for politics. It can model the effects of a policy choice, and project them into a single dimension. The single dimension is "desirability" or "euro's", it's supposed to be the same thing anyway. It'll be very challenging to do that formal logic properly. I don't think it's useful in every situation. Mapping is easy for economic situations, but very hard for emotions. Particularly challenging would be, say, family law. When is it reasonable to split a family? When Suffering_family < Suffering_society? Not if you prefer to leave people alone, then it's Suffering_family + neutrality_bias < Suffering_society. Also, both Suffering_family and Suffering_society will be the results of combining a very large amount of factors. One could model the amount of coercion upon an actor, how much a tax exemption would create incentives. I'm sorry for not having good examples. My understanding of formal logic is not that great, and I haven't actually tried to model a government's considerations. I think formal logic is the successor of "legalese", harder to speak and read, but once the mapping and relating is done the reasoning is absolute. Much easier to find mistakes, be precise, and much harder to make mistakes regarding governance. (note: formal logics dealing with fuzziness are even much harder to write/read, but will be a definite must) > > We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior. > > What is the 'correct' behaviour? > For the system's actors to behave as they should, as determined by the system. In a republic a politician is intended to act in the best interest of its supporters. Businesses can at times provide great enough incentive to causes them to act otherwise. > > In fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions. > > > > We've yet to find a system that works. > > Define 'works'. > Does what it says on the tin. > > > Come on Lodewijk. Why don't you do your homework? Learn the > > > ABC of poltical theory. > > > > I tried doing homework, but the books were full of propaganda. > > Well yes, there are varying levels of propaganda in political > philosophy. There are some sound principles too. > > You think people should be free, and things organized according > to 'market principles' in some areas, but not in others. > Problem is, being 'free' to follow arbitrary rules isn't > exactly freedom. > Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway. It means you can't be "forced" to do something, but it's very rare for death not to be an alternative choice. Reality narrows our choices most significantly, but through law and enforcement we can change the "economic landscape" and cause what once was the best choice ('deepest valley') to become only meh, or very not good ('high ridge'). I guess freedom is when you have no (clear) optimal choices, which isn't actually preferable. But I think we understand people so badly that it's better to make them responsible for their own mistakes, rather than sometimes make a wrong choice for them. As our understanding of "the human condition" grows, so does our ability to make choices that are actually better according to certain measures (certain measures because nihilism informs clearly that nothing truly matters). Perhaps freedom is being allowed to choose the measure. Mathematically it makes sense to have competition and free markets. In practice the actors do not obey perfectly, and cause a lot of reality. Additionally, while a market is finding it's optimum (the best way to do a certain thing) competition actually has significant cost. Sometimes reality shifts faster than markets anneal, and we get stuck with a lot of competition instead of expediting that energy to moving towards the ideal solution. (also game theory) > > Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it > > better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"? > > Literally? A very good criminal monopoly would excel at being > criminal. I don't think that's what you want? > There you go using criminal as if it means something :) Uhm, the ideal criminal monopoly, to me, would be criminal enough to ensure it's own existence, and do things I like as well. Like advancing humanity. (competing with the aliens that might already be underway, or finding a way for them to want to join our superior political system so we may advance together against yet more aliens that might not exist, and then to delay the heat death of the universe, I suppose) > > > > But, there is no nations. > > > > > > Ah, so your monopoly of crime is going to tyranize the whole > > > planet. Cute. > > > > > > > The system spans the globe, the crimes are all the peoples'. > > > Whatever. A world state is a pretty bad idea. > Depends on what it does. It sure beats having competing governments. Racism, inflation and excessive military power are what you get, not much more afaik. (and replication of efforts) > > I have the right because I can. Powers *are* rights. > > That's not what 'right(s)' means. Or rather that's the kind of > 'rights' that governments rely upon. Arbitrary dictates backed > by force. Rights are defined by government, a self restraint alike "I'll never drink again". But I don't think that's very meaningful. Rights are supposed to be impossible to violate. If the government is incapable of violating the right, then it's a right. But by that point it's synonymous with a citizen's power. In practice "rights" are barriers, not absolute restraints. Ugh, linguistics. You are misunderstanding what natural rights are. Natural > rights are a more legalistic description of common sense > morality. > > You can probably kill a few random people right now if you > want. Say, use a car to run people over. But the fact that you > *can* kill people means killing people is morally right? > > Same thing with natural rights. The fact that natural rights > can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist. > Natural rights are entirely different from rights. It is as you say, a plea for encoding some specific morality into law. Claiming something is a natural right seems to imply that it's been a right since before the politics determined what is and isn't a right. I think it's pretty meaningless, but I deeply empathize with the emotions involved. I could hear myself screaming that my natural rights are being violated. (as a futile plea after I give up hope) > > Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other > > animals we do whatever we want to. > > We are not talking about political philosophy applied > to non-human animals right now. > I think if humans have natural rights, then why don't animals? Maybe you think they do, maybe you think they don't. But the same goes for humans, some people think something should be a right, some people don't. But for justice to be applied consistently we need there to be a clearly defined set of rules, so we should agree upon that set of rules. We're not very good at it :( > > Ask the mountains thought to have > > spirits. > > That's a poetic license. > Can't ignore a mountain's natural rights, man. > > Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of > > strength. > > > > Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this. > > Well, at least you are sincere... > Thanks! > I would point out (again) that 1) your understanding of > natural rights isn't...right. 2) that even current states > pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'. > I think my understanding is still not aligned. What states pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'? I thought it used to be "God played lottery and my name came up" for kings, queens and pharaohs. And at some point that line could just be omitted because of legacy/buy-in. I think when a (messenger of) the state comes up and goes "you better pay your tax or I'll whip your ass" then that's, well, where they get their power, and natural rights don't really come into the whipping. > It's called 'representative government' and it's allegedly > based on 'consent'. Look it up =P Pretty sure it's more about whipping. If it really was consent I could send a letter to the king informing him I've had enough of his shit and I'll just fend for myself in the western sahara, or on a boat or something, but I think they'll still come get me if I break the law ((most) Dutch law applies to citizens abroad). > > I think in practice it will be easier to make the system a compelling > > opt-in. If you don't want to be in it, it is probably not good > > enough. > > Oh that's a good point. So now you wearing your anarchist hat? > =P > It's my plan for world domination. I just make a system that's so nice everyone will come running. Probably easier than whipping everyone into obedience. It could even be no-conflict with the governments, running two systems in parallel until either gets attention starved. > > It's a 'necessary evil'? (doubly retarded since you don't > > > believe in 'evil' eh? ) > > > > I honestly do not know. > > > > This is a very complex issue spanning all industries. I think the > > patent system is a steaming pile of mercantile shit. The core idea is > > not so crazy though - idea's can be stolen, so they must be property. > > But you don't lose the idea when it gets stolen. > > > > It ruins the creative industries - we've made our fantasies protected > > property, subject not to the potential for art but the will of > > businessmen. Countless stories go untold. The stories that do get > > told are smudged with corporate inserts and ruinous inserted > > political messages. (look for racism/feminist inserts, they're > > everywhere and they usually fail to actually be unracist or feminist) > > Yep. > Thanks for showing me the word mercantile. It's like a newspeak thinkbarrier is lifted. > I don't see where this goes. Perhaps a powers = rights argument? > > It's a reductio ad absurdum of the "power = rights" argument. > > "might makes right" is sarcasm, not a literal statement. > Ah, yes. The syntactic similarity of right and rights. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 26451 bytes Desc: not available URL: From coderman at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 23:38:21 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:38:21 -0800 Subject: FOIPA adventures In-Reply-To: References: <000701d0bcb7$94118e80$bc34ab80$@co.uk> Message-ID: new queries regarding classification guides; seeking to collect the whole set! Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Attorney General within the DoJ per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22194/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Secretary of Homeland Security within the Department per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22195/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Agency for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22196/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Secretary of State within the Department per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22197/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Secretary of Defense per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22198/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Executive Office of the President per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please include Classification Guides produced on behalf of The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor), The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, The Director of National Drug Control Policy, The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Chair or Co-Chairs, President's Intelligence Advisory Board within scope of this request for count of all Classification Guides produced on behalf of the Executive Office of the President. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22199/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Secretary of Energy within the Department per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22200/ Count of the number of Classification Guides produced by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) on behalf of the Director of National Intelligence within the Department per Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority. Please provide a count of classification guides in use by the Department for the years 2010 through 2015, inclusive, as available. Thank you! - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/guidedincrements-22201/ best regards, From grarpamp at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 20:49:41 2015 From: grarpamp at gmail.com (grarpamp) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:49:41 -0500 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: <5636C19D.5060801@riseup.net> References: <563552F7.7000103@openmailbox.org> <1618172215.394932.1446357637717.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <5635be08.53528c0a.6a953.ffffc32a@mx.google.com> <5635c7f4.c548370a.33e6a.10f6@mx.google.com> <563679ef.44e88c0a.4bc59.fffff577@mx.google.com> <5636C19D.5060801@riseup.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Mirimir wrote: > would draw TLAs to Tor like dogs to shit. And they would cooperate. > > Also, how would bidders pay anonymously when targets were killed? There > But I am certain that many bidders > would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise. Is not the goal of AP to take out the mark, or at least to estimate the perceived value in doing so. So whatever happens before or after that to the bidder and contractor is irrelavent, they evaluated their risks and endeavoured to conduct a mutually beneficial transaction. If their evaluation of risk was not sound, that's their problem. But for the transactions that do execute, the mark is still dead and both goals have been met. As Jim alluded, there is often a free speech component to any non-executed prediction. And a market can be any number of markets containing any number of offers, including 1 offer in each of 10 markets. Some markets will see user traffic, others will be shutdown. Maybe some will be purely p2p with reputation of makers and takers floating in signed metadata. A side goal of AP is to put enough money into it such that people do research, develop and deply a suitable marketplace that will withstand investigation. Right now there are at least 10 viable darknet markets offering a variety of sex, drugs, money, contraband, kopimi, and guns... and business is booming by all accounts. Actions up to and including murder aren't that much distant from those in terms of what politicians claim to be repulsed at and "at war" with. In fact, the penalties for those now are often more than for being a party to killing someone. From ryacko at gmail.com Mon Nov 2 01:22:30 2015 From: ryacko at gmail.com (Ryan Carboni) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:22:30 -0800 Subject: The BlackList Message-ID: > On 11/01/2015 01:52 PM, Juan wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:16:15 -0700 > > coderman wrote: > > > >> On 11/1/15, Juan wrote: > >>> ... > >>> It seems (kinda obvious) to me that to get rid of 'high > >>> ranking' targets you need a 'professional' service, agree? > >> > >> no, this is movie plot thinking. > > > > Ha. That's a funny remark because I was just thinking that AP > > does sound like literary fiction so far. > > Well, the idea has been kicked around for 20 years, and little has come > of it. Maybe that's because it's still unworkable. How are people going > to bid anonymously? Is Tor good enough for that? A viable AP market > would draw TLAs to Tor like dogs to shit. And they would cooperate. > > Also, how would bidders pay anonymously when targets were killed? There > is no inherently anonymous payment system that's widely available. Maybe > anonymized Bitcoin, after a few mixes through Tor, would make the nut. > Or maybe creative carding. Maybe y'all reading this could manage it. But > what about the clueless masses who might be motivated to bid? > > I don't know whether AP would take down governments. Hell, I'm not even > sure whether that would be prudent. But I am certain that many bidders > would go down, through cluelessness or system compromise. The theory, I thought, was a simple prediction market. Based on actuarial statistics by Social Security, people usually have less than a 1% chance of dying per year (Fidel Castro seems to have a 0% chance), so guessing the right death year is pretty "lucky". The person who guesses correctly would receive the pot of money. The real problem is that the prediction market will be regulated out of existence. You have any idea how regulated the resale of life insurance contracts are? That and, how do you trust the prediction market? It has to be a company with a mailing address, otherwise one could just run away with the money. Personally, I believe a good prediction market would be one limited to predicting deaths and the overthrow of governments. From zen at freedbms.net Sun Nov 1 20:34:49 2015 From: zen at freedbms.net (Zenaan Harkness) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:34:49 +0000 Subject: Value of Earth Human Life In-Reply-To: References: <2016477829.396270.1446369912828.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/15, grarpamp wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:25 AM, jim bell wrote: >> over in just a few months, with the government(s) yelling, "We >> surrender!". > Establishing contracts for people to just take the day off and plead > not guilty to get a real hearing and possible trial for their stupid $150 > revenue traffic ticket. There's nothing to lose by doing so. > Right now the system is counting *entirely* on frictionless pleading > guilty and paying out via credit card. The potential impact of well > blogged reports of successes here is enormous. > > Paying people to hand out pamphlets about same on court steps. Fantastic! Now we're talking mainstream-able, market-able. I can see most people will -not- race out and promote AP, but the little bounties for "common sense system enslavement bucking" is salable by most people to each other. > And that's just educational possibilities at no cost to them. > Once people see how the system works, and that they > can win as a collective, things start changing. It's about > getting the ball rolling and people up off their asses, little > bounties here and there. And with a single-click option to "pay it forward to the next guy/gal", if it's "only" $150, some people would pay it forward, thereby doubling the effectiveness of the initial contribution. Others might double it up, adding their own bounty as well as paying it forward, cause they like it so much. Z From coderman at gmail.com Mon Nov 2 05:56:45 2015 From: coderman at gmail.com (coderman) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:56:45 -0800 Subject: FOIPA adventures In-Reply-To: References: <000701d0bcb7$94118e80$bc34ab80$@co.uk> Message-ID: interesting response, first time ever a request has been deemed "less complicated" ! :) "We have a large backlog, our current administrative workload is 1,497 open requests. Included among these open cases are requests which are less complex than others, such as your request. " - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/brightzenith-21350/ From Rayzer at riseup.net Mon Nov 2 08:08:19 2015 From: Rayzer at riseup.net (Razer) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:08:19 -0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Meet_the_U.S._Defense_Firm_Supplying_Iran=e2=80=99s_Inter?= =?UTF-8?Q?net?= Message-ID: <56378A73.6050308@riseup.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 16503 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Rayzer at riseup.net Mon Nov 2 08:21:47 2015 From: Rayzer at riseup.net (Razer) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:21:47 -0800 Subject: The BlackList In-Reply-To: References: <5635b6e3.0e138c0a.148ca.ffffc02f@mx.google.com> <935312752.388847.1446365520386.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5636700f.471c8d0a.3cebe.fffff425@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56378D9B.7010007@riseup.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1194 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Rayzer at riseup.net Mon Nov 2 11:20:47 2015 From: Rayzer at riseup.net (Razer) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:20:47 -0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Meet_the_U.S._Defense_Firm_Supplying_Iran=e2=80=99s_I?= =?UTF-8?Q?nternet?= In-Reply-To: <20151102172536.GA2762@sivokote.iziade.m$> References: <56378A73.6050308@riseup.net> <20151102172536.GA2762@sivokote.iziade.m$> Message-ID: <5637B78F.1010901@riseup.net> On 11/02/2015 09:25 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:08:19AM -0800, Razer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Add 1000 troll points for html only. Yeah well, I use Tbird and I cleaned up the copy/paste as well as I could... You should have seen the formfield/social button mess. RR Ps. I checked for