Russian gov is not nice. Though it's kind of lucky that it has to do rather nice things to piss US gov off.
Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Oct 2014, at 01:27, [email protected] wrote: > > Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. CITIZENFOUR (Rich Jones) > 2. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] (Juan) > 3. Re: CITIZENFOUR (John Young) > 4. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] (Juan) > 5. Re: CITIZENFOUR (Colin Mahns) > 6. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] > (Cathal Garvey) > 7. Re: CITIZENFOUR (Michael C. Toren) > 8. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] (Juan) > 9. Re: CITIZENFOUR (odinn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:58:22 -0700 > From: Rich Jones <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: CITIZENFOUR > Message-ID: > <cadjyzxl0-5oq9vmfe45yubf_cycbkusxm+kdsni0c6fvpbu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for all CPunks. I think it was > probably the most important documentary film of all time. As Roger Ebert > said, "it’s as if Daniel Ellsberg had a friend with a movie camera who > filmed his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or if > the Watergate burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their crimes > and the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues “Citizenfour” deals > with are, arguably, a thousand times more potent than Vietnam or > Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we have been waiting for since > 2013. > > The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible boob Glenn > Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him give an extremely > disappointing talk earlier this year, but I don't think I quite understood > how useless this guy really is. He's constantly asking the wrong questions, > displays a technical ineptness (to the point of deliberate ignorance) that > obviously hampers the journalism, and at very step shows a very clear > desire to keep the document cache to himself for careerist purposes. At one > point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there being a Wikileaks-esque > document explorer, and Ed says that this would be the best outcome for the > documents, and Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk about his > publishing schedule. I still have immense respect for him, but I found it > very frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat the whole event in > news-cycle terms, while everybody around him is obviously thinking in > historical context. For instance, there is a moment when they are prepping > for Ed's first on-camera interview and he asks the reporters how much > background he should give about himself, and they give different answers. > Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically says > that isn't important, just be short so we get a good soundbite. > > More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to talk about > *power*. This is something Edward himself has addressed, but it isn't > really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, and the only time it's > mentioned in the film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking before a > European council of some sort, quite astutely comments that surveillance > and control are one and the same. I think the film should probably have > spent another hour or so investigating, naming and confronting those who > profit from that control. Other than a few choice C-SPAN snippets, the > enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for the pervading sense > paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves many questions unasked. > Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think the general > take-away message from both the reporting and to a slightly lesser extent > the film is that any "solution" will be token reform of policy and not > dismantlement of power structures. > > Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his girlfriend > back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected > happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. > > Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of it. (JY, you > should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be screenshotting and > analyzing all of the new document shots the film contains.) > > R > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20141024/47d4dd8d/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:32:52 -0300 > From: Juan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:06:54 +0200 > "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> W dniu 24.10.2014 o 09:47, Juan pisze: >>> >>> lol - what a stupid piece of shit you are >> >> I would like to have the moderator of this maillist look at the above >> comment and take appropriate action. Thx. > > > LMAO!!! - stupid scumbag threatens violence and then wants > censorship when he's treated like the scumbag he is? LMAO, > again. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:32:52 -0400 > From: John Young <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: CITIZENFOUR > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > Thanks for the comments. > > Screenshots most welcome. cryptome[at]earthlink.net or pointers. > > Greenwald's mercenary greed is why only 97% of Snowden docs > have been released. His and cohorts criminal behavior puts citizens > in harms way to protect the natsec apparatus including natsec media. > > > At 02:58 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote: >> Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for >> all CPunks. I think it was probably the most >> important documentary film of all time. As Roger >> Ebert said, "itâs as if Daniel Ellsberg had a >> friend with a movie camera who filmed his >> disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of >> the way. Or if the Watergate burglars had taken >> along a filmmaker who shot their crimes and the >> cover-up that followed. Except that the issues >> âCitizenfourâ deals with are, arguably, a >> thousand times more potent than Vietnam or >> Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we >> have been waiting for since 2013. >> >> The main revelation of the film, however, is >> what an incredible boob Glenn Greenwald is. I >> had some idea of this after seeing him give an >> extremely disappointing talk earlier this year, >> but I don't think I quite understood how useless >> this guy really is. He's constantly asking the >> wrong questions, displays a technical ineptness >> (to the point of deliberate ignorance) that >> obviously hampers the journalism, and at very >> step shows a very clear desire to keep the >> document cache to himself for careerist >> purposes. At one point Ewen MacAskill brings up >> the idea of there being a Wikileaks-esque >> document explorer, and Ed says that this would >> be the best outcome for the documents, and >> Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk >> about his publishing schedule. I still have >> immense respect for him, but I found it very >> frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat >> the whole event in news-cycle terms, while >> everybody around him is obviously thinking in >> historical context. For instance, there is a >> moment when they are prepping for Ed's first >> on-camera interview and he asks the reporters >> how much background he should give about >> himself, and they give different answers. >> Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and >> Greenwald basically says that isn't important, >> just be short so we get a good soundbite. >> >> More importantly, I think the film also misses >> an opportunity to talk about power. This is >> something Edward himself has addressed, but it >> isn't really covered in Greenwald's reporting or >> books, and the only time it's mentioned in the >> film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking >> before a European council of some sort, quite >> astutely comments that surveillance and control >> are one and the same. I think the film should >> probably have spent another hour or so >> investigating, naming and confronting those who >> profit from that control. Other than a few >> choice C-SPAN snippets, the enemy is completely >> faceless, which plays well for the pervading >> sense paranoia which envelops the film, but also >> leaves many questions unasked. Perhaps that's >> left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think >> the general take-away message from both the >> reporting and to a slightly lesser extent the >> film is that any "solution" will be token reform >> of policy and not dismantlement of power structures. >> >> Also, very nice of the Russian government to let >> Ed have his girlfriend back. I didn't know that >> had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected >> happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. >> >> Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you >> lot thought of it. (JY, you should throw a >> torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be >> screenshotting and analyzing all of the new document shots the film >> contains.) >> >> R > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20141024/b18bbd1f/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:38:05 -0300 > From: Juan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > isn't this cute > > > http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/10/24/climate-change-now-military-threat-says-pentagon/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:36:44 +0000 > From: Colin Mahns <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: CITIZENFOUR > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Should've warned about spoilers ;) > > Interesting to read your critiques of it Rich, looking forward to rereading > your email after seeing the film. > > Colin > >> On October 24, 2014 2:58:22 PM EDT, Rich Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for all CPunks. I think it >> was >> probably the most important documentary film of all time. As Roger >> Ebert >> said, "it’s as if Daniel Ellsberg had a friend with a movie camera who >> filmed his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or >> if >> the Watergate burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their >> crimes >> and the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues “Citizenfour” >> deals >> with are, arguably, a thousand times more potent than Vietnam or >> Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we have been waiting for >> since >> 2013. >> >> The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible boob >> Glenn >> Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him give an >> extremely >> disappointing talk earlier this year, but I don't think I quite >> understood >> how useless this guy really is. He's constantly asking the wrong >> questions, >> displays a technical ineptness (to the point of deliberate ignorance) >> that >> obviously hampers the journalism, and at very step shows a very clear >> desire to keep the document cache to himself for careerist purposes. At >> one >> point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there being a >> Wikileaks-esque >> document explorer, and Ed says that this would be the best outcome for >> the >> documents, and Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk about his >> publishing schedule. I still have immense respect for him, but I found >> it >> very frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat the whole event >> in >> news-cycle terms, while everybody around him is obviously thinking in >> historical context. For instance, there is a moment when they are >> prepping >> for Ed's first on-camera interview and he asks the reporters how much >> background he should give about himself, and they give different >> answers. >> Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically >> says >> that isn't important, just be short so we get a good soundbite. >> >> More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to talk >> about >> *power*. This is something Edward himself has addressed, but it isn't >> really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, and the only time >> it's >> mentioned in the film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking before a >> European council of some sort, quite astutely comments that >> surveillance >> and control are one and the same. I think the film should probably have >> spent another hour or so investigating, naming and confronting those >> who >> profit from that control. Other than a few choice C-SPAN snippets, the >> enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for the pervading sense >> paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves many questions >> unasked. >> Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think the >> general >> take-away message from both the reporting and to a slightly lesser >> extent >> the film is that any "solution" will be token reform of policy and not >> dismantlement of power structures. >> >> Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his girlfriend >> back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected >> happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. >> >> Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of it. (JY, >> you >> should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be screenshotting >> and >> analyzing all of the new document shots the film contains.) >> >> R > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20141024/c8127b8b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:20:45 +0100 > From: Cathal Garvey <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > The German military had a report years ago that found the same > conclusion about peak oil. Militaries are often asked to take long-view > stances on things like resources and geopolitics, and > climate/resource-depletion are the sorts of things that turn up. > > Not, that is, that I am a fan of militaries offering policy suggestions. :) > >> On 24/10/14 20:38, Juan wrote: >> >> >> isn't this cute >> >> >> http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/10/24/climate-change-now-military-threat-says-pentagon/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:49:00 -0700 > From: "Michael C. Toren" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: CITIZENFOUR > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:58:22AM -0700, Rich Jones wrote: >> At one point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there being a >> Wikileaks-esque document explorer, and Ed says that this would be the >> best outcome for the documents, and Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea >> to talk about his publishing schedule. > > I wasn't watching the scene with the intention of being able to recall it > fully afterwards, but I remember it rather differently. I recall Ed saying > releasing all of the documents Wikileaks-style would an ideal outcome, but > because it included information that should be legitimately redacted, he > instead wanted to filter the material through journalists who would make > that judgement call. Also, Greenwald said he was under a deadline, and I > think you'll agree it was in everyone's best interests to start to get the > information out as quickly as possible. > > But, I could be misremembering. > > -mct > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:20:22 -0300 > From: Juan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:20:45 +0100 > Cathal Garvey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The German military had a report years ago that found the same >> conclusion about peak oil. Militaries are often asked to take >> long-view stances on things like resources and geopolitics, and >> climate/resource-depletion are the sorts of things that turn up. > > I guess organizations like the US military are asked by its > corporate accomplices to do particular things, but there are > other things that they would do on their own anyway, without > being asked. Like looking for excuses to extend their global > criminal operations. > > As a side note of sorts, the german military is in a sense the > same military that got millions of its own people killed, > killed millions of people abroad, tried to conquer europe > twice...and failed. > > >> Not, that is, that I am a fan of militaries offering policy >> suggestions. :) > > What could possibly go wrong with that? =P > > >> >>> On 24/10/14 20:38, Juan wrote: >>> >>> >>> isn't this cute >>> >>> >>> http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/10/24/climate-change-now-military-threat-says-pentagon/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:27:00 +0000 > From: odinn <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CITIZENFOUR > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hello, > > John, for some reason your name reminds me of someone who I think was > the ninth person to walk on the moon? Same John Young? (long shot I > know) Just kidding though - you are the founder of Cryptome, right? > > Anyway, It's not my intent here to ruffle any feathers (on this > thread), but I did want to suggest (and I'm sure someone has already > thought of this) that people be able to search for their names or IDs > in (searchable) databases of leaked info. > > I think this came up in a thread on twitter some while back actually... > https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/344585372216487937 > > (That twitter thread was from a discussion in mid-2013[!] which > referenced MainCore and also (different than MainCore) a 'list of > targets' that Greenwald had mentioned, but regardless of if it's > MainCore or Greenwald's 'list of targets' or other such thing, I think > searchability is really important, which of course implies that really > all the data should be made available in some kind of format to allow > keyword searches.) > > - -Odinn > > > John Young wrote: >> Thanks for the comments. >> >> Screenshots most welcome. cryptome[at]earthlink.net or pointers. >> >> Greenwald's mercenary greed is why only 97% of Snowden docs have >> been released. His and cohorts criminal behavior puts citizens in >> harms way to protect the natsec apparatus including natsec media. >> >> >> At 02:58 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote: >>> Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for all CPunks. I >>> think it was probably the most important documentary film of all >>> time. As Roger Ebert said, "it’s as if Daniel Ellsberg had a >>> friend with a movie camera who filmed his disclosure of the >>> Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or if the Watergate >>> burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their crimes and >>> the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues >>> “Citizenfourâ€� deals with are, arguably, a thousand times more >>> potent than Vietnam or Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden >>> story we have been waiting for since 2013. >>> >>> The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible >>> boob Glenn Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him >>> give an extremely disappointing talk earlier this year, but I >>> don't think I quite understood how useless this guy really is. >>> He's constantly asking the wrong questions, displays a technical >>> ineptness (to the point of deliberate ignorance) that obviously >>> hampers the journalism, and at very step shows a very clear >>> desire to keep the document cache to himself for careerist >>> purposes. At one point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there >>> being a Wikileaks-esque document explorer, and Ed says that this >>> would be the best outcome for the documents, and Greenwald >>> quickly dismisses the idea to talk about his publishing schedule. >>> I still have immense respect for him, but I found it very >>> frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat the whole event >>> in news-cycle terms, while everybody around him is obviously >>> thinking in historical context. For instance, there is a moment >>> when they are prepping for Ed's first on-camera interview and he >>> asks the reporters how much background he should give about >>> himself, and they give different answers. Poitras asks for as >>> much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically says that isn't >>> important, just be short so we get a good soundbite. >>> >>> More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to >>> talk about power. This is something Edward himself has addressed, >>> but it isn't really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, >>> and the only time it's mentioned in the film is when Jacob >>> Appelbaum, while speaking before a European council of some sort, >>> quite astutely comments that surveillance and control are one and >>> the same. I think the film should probably have spent another >>> hour or so investigating, naming and confronting those who profit >>> from that control. Other than a few choice C-SPAN snippets, the >>> enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for the pervading >>> sense paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves many >>> questions unasked. Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the >>> viewer, but I think the general take-away message from both the >>> reporting and to a slightly lesser extent the film is that any >>> "solution" will be token reform of policy and not dismantlement >>> of power structures. >>> >>> Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his >>> girlfriend back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a >>> rather unexpected happy ending to a film which otherwise made me >>> want to cry desperately. >>> >>> Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of >>> it. (JY, you should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will >>> be screenshotting and analyzing all of the new document shots the >>> film contains.) >>> >>> R > > - -- > http://abis.io ~ > "a protocol concept to enable decentralization > and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" > https://keybase.io/odinn > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUSuBDAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C+CQIAImR/hNx/DOc+ijBL0TvHNnO > FgZ5/N3ZU7+kttHBnMTfRCTo2CQFqQLsHenynt+adKjDPiHND2cFdQ1ecBWfUvO3 > H0T73M3SC8Ay4e5Y3ygNk471v2eOEBDgyxFzUbkEXb67kWl6ht6RE6qpe0egiS4s > bpGHT+DwkEkEaXoy3okFnKotBf9xZdTzRJkIDSO5O/i2ZxWKc7fyy0JsFY9ZVKrO > J29Qv3rWfQ1L2rpOxRYsd23euE/GZTLKhRazxsPzSL04F81uXNFtvg/8WJs9sxN0 > LeJImrkm2UA0hganO/CxAnBJXUJN6gwQLrfdCitUK6wNduZPJXq2KGNioZF4hKI= > =4nJ+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > cypherpunks mailing list > [email protected] > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > > > ------------------------------ > > End of cypherpunks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 30 > *******************************************
