date:20161004



This should sum it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:07:52 -
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500
> >> "Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out
> >> > there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at
> >> > least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so.
> >>
> >>Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand
> >> for.
> >
> > It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not
> > ever.
> 
> Well, I'm not moderator but I'll try to mediate this, here.
> 
> I get what Juan is saying, and I understand what you are saying. Here
> is the disconnect:
> 
> It seems to me that Juan is looking at this entirely.. functionally.
> Functionally, the government suppresses information for its own
> interests. All of them do. He is disregarding the belief system of
> Americans, and the cultural identity and beliefs that this involves.
> What is American, is what America, as a whole, does. To be American
> is to enslave blacks, bomb brown folks, and generally make a great
> mess of things, and worse - to be proud of that mess.
> 
> You are using the term "American" quite differently. You're not using
> it functionally, you're using it, forgive the term.. mythologically.
> There is the cultural identity of "American" which sees itself as
> being about freedom, natural rights and so on. For you, these are
> ideals, that Americans strive for, and you acknowledge that in the
> past your country fell short of, and that you have (and perhaps
> always will have) more to do.
> 
> For you, it is totally possible for America to be UN-American. To
> Juan, this is a logical absurdity.

Thanks xorcist, but you got it wrong...again! =) 

Well, you got it half right actually. Yes, to be 'american' is
to morally support all sorts of outrageous attacks against
natural rights...in the name of natural rights (that's at least
done by the american jingos articulate enough to talk about
natural rights, prolly not something a scumbag like quinn can
do).

But it is possible for a piece of shit like quinn to be
un-american too. What did he do, like a good american? Ask for
censorship. Bue he could have been un-american instead and
could have been a decent defender of free speech.

But no, quinn is the quintessential fascist americunt and also a
torbot. And he's been consistently wanting to censor this list
(with a few accomplices from the tor-pentagon-projet) for a
while.

> 
> I think I got that about right. I've been fucken with this dude,
> exploring how he thinks for like two weeks now. 

So you actually haven't followed previous posts from that piece
of shit quinn and the other american tor gang members. 

> It's like some weird
> catharsis for me because I used to think quite similarly.

I don't think so. To use an analogy, since you like them so
much. It's like you told me that first you were a kkkristian,
then regained your senses and became anti-clerical, but THEN,
went BACK to sucking jesus cock and FINALLY learned the REAL
truth. 

> >
> > Moderator, please remove Juan from the list.
> >
> 
> I suspect you're beign ironical?

Not really. He's trolling, but if he had his way he would
'remove' me. He's one of the shitbags responsible for censorship
in the tor project.

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

2016-10-04 Thread jim bell

 From: Razer 
On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote:
>>     ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government'
>>     would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the
>>     american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The
>>     subjection has little to do with which point in space the
> >    subjects might be accidentaly occupying.

>I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least)
>are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US
>government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where
>they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in
>the US.

That's an interesting take on the matter, but I don't think you could find 
sufficient legal precedent to force this issue against the will of the 
(vacationing?) employee, or the will of  the stay-at-home corporation.  
Remember, I'm not even talking about an employee who wants to leak the 
information against the will of the corporation:  I'm speculating that the 
corporation WANTS some employee to leak it, but to do so using a means not 
obviously in violation of the requirements of the subpoena/court order.   Since 
a corporation generally is entitled to communicate information to its employees 
(who may not be in the U.S., or ever were in the U.S.), that's a powerful tool 
to launch the relevant information beyond the jurisdiction of the court.        
      Jim Bell

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

2016-10-04 Thread jim bell



 From: Shawn K. Quinn 
   
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +, jim bell wrote:
>> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside
>> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says
>> so.  The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction   I am
>> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these
>> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign
>> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the
>> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the
>> law.

>The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under
>US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of
>enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info
>from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún.
Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the 
court order somewhere within America, as opposed to an individual outside the 
jurisdiction of that court.  The thing could go as far as the company hiring a 
foreign attorney, communicating with him by Internet (or courier, etc), with 
the foreign attorney announcing the fact of the information.  It would be very 
difficult to formulate a theory that a company isn't entitled to communicate 
with an attorney who was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., or that the U.S. 
just happened to have legal power to prevent that attorney from speaking.  It 
would be quickly seen as a First Amendment issue, and would fail.
            Jim Bell

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

2016-10-04 Thread Shawn K. Quinn

On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500
> "Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there,
> > and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit
> > un-American, if not flagrantly so.
> 
>   Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for.

It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not
ever.

Moderator, please remove Juan from the list.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

>   You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much
>   to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the
>   party.

I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires fundamental
assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed upon?

And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your position.
You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions because they
were not consistent. This is little different than a religious person
dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege." They are incompatible
with your system of thought. So, in this way, you quite do put logic on a
pedestal.

If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. That is an accurate summation
of your position, and it is clear that the figurative speech of "putting
logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly.

>   Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with
>   discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not
>   actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the
>   legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who
>   'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend.

I didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they killed
the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is true, and if I
had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction.

>   Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an
>   arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is
>   'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't.

You accept what, exactly?

I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to consistent
statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that there are certain
truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent pairs of statements. And
yes, within the context of our discussion, I have favored inconsistency as
a balance to your focus on minutia, mere points of debate, and reliance on
ideological principles which I obviously do not hold, and which therefore
have nothing to do with the actual ideas that you started asking me
questions about.

The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in
simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear
proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke.

Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual situation.
What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the inconsistency.

It's also observable in more complex situations:  A person may
simultaneously "love" and "hate" another.

The apparent inconsistency points to, and indicates, the underlying
tensions of the situation as it really exists. In this way, there are REAL
contradictions. But lets get down right to physical reality with it, too:

A computer system with two sensors of arbitrarily high resolution and
accuracy, measuring the temperature of tank of water will, nevertheless
see inconsistent data from the two sensors. Measurement is an inherently
subjective activity.

Inconsistency and uncertainty is a fact of life, right down the the barest
components of physical reality.

The ability to deal with inconsistency without dismissal is, to me, vital
for 'valid proper thought' which is the goal of 'logic' as a discipline,
in my understanding.

>
>   So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from
>   maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can
>   figure the rest =)

Not preaching. I have no reason to believe that you'll get yourself into
any type of trouble, or doom for only thinking one way. I'm not trying to
save you from the evils of classical thought, nor classical liberalism.
I'm not interested in converting you, partly because I'm not interested in
converting anyone. Mostly, in your case, because I'm sure I wouldn't want
you in my circles. I'm just giving my perspective, and explaining what you
continually misrepresent and attack.

And I will point out that saying that I gave "false analogies" doesn't
make it so. I gave NO analogies in the bit about logic, and maths. An
analogy is to draw simile between two things. I didn't do that. I made
direct statements of fact. There are different branches of logic, as I've
described. There are different branches of geometry, as I described. There
are theorems which prove facts about the limits of logic, which while
stated informally, are in fact true.

If you're out of your depth, that's quite alright. You said before you're
not much for maths, so I didn't get into it, and instead tried to show
some of those limits playfully instead. But you're not the playful sort
either. So, I'll admit, I'm rather at a loss for how to convey these ideas
to you, except to say -- rather than merely "accepting" logic, perhaps you
really ought to consider studying it.

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500
"Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> 
> I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there,
> and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit
> un-American, if not flagrantly so.

Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for.



> 
>

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

2016-10-04 Thread Shawn K. Quinn

On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 20:07 -0700, Razer wrote:
> I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least)
> are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US
> government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter
> where they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation
> chartered in the US.

That's what I was going for. You said it better than I did...

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

2016-10-04 Thread Shawn K. Quinn

On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +, jim bell wrote:
> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside
> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says
> so.  The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdictionI am
> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these
> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign
> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the
> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the
> law.

The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under
US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of
enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info
from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún.

I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and
for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit
un-American, if not flagrantly so.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail



On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote:

>
>   ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government'
>   would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the
>   american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The
>   subjection has little to do with which point in space the
>   subjects might be accidentaly occupying.


I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least)
are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US
government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where
they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in
the US.

Rr

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:26:53 + (UTC)
> jim bell  wrote:
> 
>>
>> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside
>> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly
>> says so.
> 
> 
>>  The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
> 
>   A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has
>   no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in
>   territories 'belonging' to other mafias. 
> 
> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdictionI am
>> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these
>> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign
>> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the
>> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the
>> law.  
> 
> 
>   ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government'
>   would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the
>   american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The
>   subjection has little to do with which point in space the
>   subjects might be accidentaly occupying. 
> 
> 
>   If an american subject says something the government doesn't
>   like or that 'threatens' 'national' 'security' he will be
>   considered a 'traitor' and dealt with accordingly. Just ask
>   snowden, who is not standing on a territory claimed by the US
>   mafia-government. Or perhaps if an 'american' says something
>   the gov't doesn't like, he would be be treated like an 'enemy
>   combatant' or somesuch crazy jargon. 
> 
>   Oh, look here...
> 
> 
>   "Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" 
> 
> 
>   https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf
> 
>   
> http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-u-s-citizens-can-be-held-as-enemy-combatants/
>   
>   "Yes, U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the
>> relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of
>> such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law
>> anticipated this.  (In part, because American law doesn't usually
>> pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the
>> freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell
>> this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced
>> attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the
>> information LEGALLY, possibly outside America.Jim Bell
>>
>> From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding
>> fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have
>> jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case,
>> Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the
>> "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this
>> judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries.
>> American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the
>> years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows
>> foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal
>> courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of
>> nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for
>> many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow
>> foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in
>> foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v.
>> National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in
>> interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality"
>> is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says
>> otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free
>> encyclopedia"
>>
>>
>>   
>> |  
>> |   
>> |   
>> |   ||
>>
>>|
>>
>>   |
>> |  
>> |   |  
>> Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>|   |
>>
>>   |
>>
>>   |
>>
>>  ×   
>>
>>
>

Wikileaks 10th Anniversary

2016-10-04 Thread grarpamp

Thanks Wikileaks, Julian, leakers, et al,
for the journalism and the sunshine.
May another 10 years of secrets be set free.

[Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

On 10/04/2016 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote:

> Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources
http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android
>

I wonder if the execs who approved this or someone on Y!'s legal team
who advised them to comply is secretly on Google's payroll or plans to
'jump ship' into a BIG raise.

With links:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article105936487.html#emlnl=Evening_Newsletter

By Tim Johnson [email redacted]

Civil and human rights groups issued denunciations and some
cybersecurity experts urged their clients to stop using the popular
Yahoo Mail service after a news agency reported Tuesday that the
internet service provider had secretly scanned hundreds of millions of
clients’ emails at the behest of U.S. intelligence agencies.

The report by the Reuters news service said Yahoo complied with a
classified U.S. government directive last year that demanded that it
scan all incoming emails of its users for certain phrases. The report
said Yahoo’s engineers wrote a program that complied with the blanket
spying request.

“Enough is enough. It’s time to close your Yahoo account,” Graham
Cluley, a British cybersecurity expert, tweeted following the report.

The report was the second piece of challenging news in recent days for
the Sunnyvale, California, company as it attempts to finalize a $4.8
billion sale of its core business to Verizon. On Sept. 22, Yahoo
acknowledged that the passwords of 500 million Yahoo account holders had
been stolen.

Yahoo did not immediately respond to the Reuters report. A chief rival
for global email, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said it had not been
approached by the intelligence agencies.

“We’ve never received such a request, but if we did, our response would
be simple: ‘No way,’ ” Aaron Stein, a Google spokesman, said in a
statement posted online.

Another large tech firm, Twitter, also weighed in, but without
clarifying whether it had received a directive aimed at intercepting
communications.

“Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re
currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more
information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said
in a statement.

Civil and human rights groups directed their criticism not at Yahoo but
at the U.S. government, saying its request had undermined trust in the
internet.

“The government appears to have compelled Yahoo to conduct precisely the
type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was
intended to prohibit,” said Patrick Toomey, an attorney for the American
Civil Liberties Union. “It is deeply disappointing that Yahoo declined
to challenge this sweeping surveillance order, because customers are
counting on technology companies to stand up to novel spying demands in
court.”

The alleged Yahoo collaboration with intelligence agencies caused
turmoil in the upper ranks of the company, the Reuters report said, and
led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer
Alex Stamos.

Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer bypassed the company’s security team
and went to engineers to write the program to siphon off emails in real
time for the government, it added.

Stamos, who is now the chief security officer for Facebook, offered no
immediate comment on the report. The federal government also did not
comment.

Amnesty International, a London-based rights group, lamented what it
called the eroding privacy of internet users and efforts by the U.S.
government to “indiscriminately vacuum up the world’s data.”

“This is a clear sign that people can trust neither their government nor
their service providers to respect their privacy: Only end-to-end
encryption that keeps their communications away from prying eyes will
do,” said Amnesty’s Sherif Elsayed-Ali, the head of technology and human
rights.

Yahoo has gotten into hot water before for collaborating with government
requests – in China. More than a decade ago, it shared information with
the Chinese government that allowed for the jailing of two dissidents,
one of whom, Wang Xiaoning, spent a decade in jail. The other dissident,
Shi Tao, served a shorter sentence.

Yahoo’s partial sale to Verizon is already facing uncertainty over the
massive data breach, which took place in 2014. Yahoo apparently did not
inform Verizon of the breach, and news of it came out only last month
when Yahoo user data was offered for sale on the black market.

Legal advocates said they expected Congress to be uneasy over Tuesday’s
revelation.

“If Yahoo is indeed scanning the content of all of its customers’ emails
at the NSA’s behest, that would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment,”
said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York
University School of Law.

“It’s also a violation of customers’ privacy and trust. It’s disturbing
to learn that the NSA was secretly expanding its surveillance reach at
the very same

yahoo sux

2016-10-04 Thread jim bell

Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources 
http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Yahoo covertly built a program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information

2016-10-04 Thread Greg Newby

Spotted in Ars: 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-nsa-ordered-yahoo-to-build-secret-e-mail-search-tool/

Yahooâs CISO resigned in 2015 over secret e-mail search tool ordered by feds
Reuters: Yahoo "complied with a classified US government directive."

Cyrus Farivar - 10/4/2016, 1:59 PM


According to a new report by Reuters citing anonymous intelligence officials, 
in 2015, Yahoo covertly built a secret âcustom software program to search all 
of its customers' incoming emails for specific information.â

Reuters noted that Yahoo âcomplied with a classified US government directive, 
scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the 
National Security Agency or FBI, said two former employees and a third person 
apprised of the events.â It is not clear what data, if any, was handed over.

Further Reading
Yahoo exec goes mano a mano with NSA director over crypto backdoors
Presuming that the report is correct, it would represent essentially the 
digital equivalent of a general warrantâwhich is forbidden by the Fourth 
Amendment, as Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Andrew Crocker noted on 
Twitter.

The Fourth Amendment implications are staggering. Yahoo as agent of 
government scans all email, devoid of probable cause, particularity, etc 
pic.twitter.com/kx510PHH9n

â Andrew Crocker (@agcrocker) October 4, 2016

This seems to be the first known case of an American Internet company acting on 
behalf of the government to search messages in near real timeâprevious 
operations captured stored data or intercepted only a handful of target 
accounts.

As Reuters also reported, Yahoo's then-Chief Information Security Officer, Alex 
Stamos, resigned in protest once he found out about the secret program. Stamos 
now works at Facebook.

Yahoo did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:11:49 -
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> >
> > It's quite clear that your idiotic ramblings are anything
> > but accurate. But of course, since your goal is propaganda,
> > accuracy is something you don't want at all.
> 
> Thank you with going for the a-list troll move once again and
> ignoring and cutting things you can't refute.

mate, out of the 100% of stupid propaganda you write, I cut 90%
of it. No sane person can deal with your mental vomits. 

Besides since you are an anti-rationalist, why would you care
about any 'refutation'.

> And to be clear: not
> taking the time to respond to a point, is one thing. But RESPONDING
> by ignoring what was actually said, 

Actually, I respond to what you actually say, not to all the
garbage you put around it. I am so sorry that your scam
'artist' tricks get you nowhere, piece-of-shit.

> > xorcist bottom line? DON"T MESS WITH MY BUDDIES THE
> > ANGLO-AMERIKUNTS - WE HAVE THE PSYCHIARIC RIGHT TO RULE THE
> > WORLD.
> 
> lulz. You're ridiculous, which is why I enjoy saying ridiculous
> things in return, sweet tits.

And that sums it up. In reality, what you say to me is the very
exact garbage you put in all your posts. You type the mental
vomits that your brain creates. Like your proposal for a
'community' run cyber police state "little sister". Sick - but
rather useful as a clue to what you really are.

> 
> 
>

Re: "Tor is dead technology"



On 10/04/2016 09:39 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/03/2016 09:59 PM, Razer wrote:
>> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher',  also
>> said: "the government doesn’t use Tor."
> 
>> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568
> 
>> Comments?
> 
> "I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer
> to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups
> operating within central Iraq." - Chelsea Manning, March 2013

Pretty sure he meant for secure government communications but thanks for
that...

Rr
> 
> So as of 2009 or so, U.S. Army intelligence was still using TOR for
> its originally stated purpose.  I have not seen any indications that
> they have something better today; against its intended targets, TOR
> "just works."  TOR has a daily user base of 1-3/4 to 2 million, a fair
> sized crowd to hide in.  The likely alternative would be to
> impersonate a "normal" user via a fast VPN connection set up to spoof
> one's location and identity - and I am sure the intel services are all
> set up for that, where and as they have reasons to look perfectly
> normal vs. standing out as TOR users.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


0xA18AF1AD.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Re: "Tor is dead technology"

2016-10-04 Thread Steve Kinney

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/03/2016 09:59 PM, Razer wrote:
> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher',  also
> said: "the government doesn’t use Tor."
> 
> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568
> 
> Comments?

"I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer
to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups
operating within central Iraq." - Chelsea Manning, March 2013

So as of 2009 or so, U.S. Army intelligence was still using TOR for
its originally stated purpose.  I have not seen any indications that
they have something better today; against its intended targets, TOR
"just works."  TOR has a daily user base of 1-3/4 to 2 million, a fair
sized crowd to hide in.  The likely alternative would be to
impersonate a "normal" user via a fast VPN connection set up to spoof
one's location and identity - and I am sure the intel services are all
set up for that, where and as they have reasons to look perfectly
normal vs. standing out as TOR users.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX89s1AAoJEECU6c5XzmuqqhsH/RwOEpjq8YPBcVGZFmScsxFy
gS/QzjHwwtskYUoLOnUSJsERF9LA/2Gn+9LUKjP/X96LzIfsv5IYtSTCCvVktL26
U6RlPSECntw/s8rV2h8I9ChitMsU4s3LANQrNy+aGv7A5J8A4X0z6RReEGdQS8+J
vYEF2Ta94q56g0+aArijKg3wdCTsD8ABrRlH8qRsTbBsaAlMx58+MH4xZJtER5ed
jyF8YOD/LJj/GZS/a9F03sVTerNuuHz2+JGf56j8Iuz800Q7lLzX6hX842fdoZmh
IDPVA8rnQAjX7sUnodQK7/JtjxL7xHuSMzkHvPNVaFNtlMvWS682HmXjwTohG4g=
=mI2e
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

DefecTor ... meet DetecTor

"DetecTor is an open source project to implement client side SSL/TLS
MITM detection, compromised CA detection and server impersonation
detection, by making use of the Tor network."

http://detector.io/

Re: "Tor is dead technology"

> As X said, it DOES sort of tip the opponent off that you have something
> to hide, but whether they can identify 'you'... especially using
> something like Tails that spoofs your mac address and leaves no trace
> that you've ever done anything more than power up at a given time.
>
> So if you're in some internet cafe in Singapore with a hundred other
> people walking in and out using the connection, the IP of entrance to
> the tor network just doesn't do a lot to identify you unless perhaps
> you're already being surveilled.
>
> Over time, if under surveillance the opponent could find a correlation
> between your presence and tor's use. Again, that why I've said 'the more
> users the better'. If everyone in that Singapore cafe was using it. the
> opponent would still be drawing a blank about your identity.

Yeah, in this respect the difficulties of Tor are much like the
difficulties of deniable encryption. Using it at all is in a certain way
incriminating. Its one of the main reasons why I try to explore novel,
legitimate uses of Tor, quite apart from anonymity. It's ability to reach
beyond firewalls for hosting is quite novel; unfortunately there isn't
much legitimate purpose for this. Personally I don't have a problem with
exfiltrating/liberating data from corporate coffers, but it is generally
frowned upon more widely.

But I wonder if there is a market for such an Internet cafe. An internet
cafe that provides wifi for your device, and a few on-premises computers,
and tunnels all connections through Tor as a matter of policy. I'd
certainly hang out there, just as a matter of geek-chic if nothing else.
Could also serve as a kind of base-of-operations for wider public
education about cryptography, privacy, security, and so on.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

> It's worse than that :( In that I agree with much of what he says. Or at
> least, I get his perspective, as part of a working understanding. But
> he's clearly not interested in that :( So it goes.

Yeah. It's like I told a friend of mine once during a discussion.

"That is a lucid, cogent, well thought-out opinion." 
"But I disagree."

I have a working theory related to Christianity in this regard. I find
that in cultures not rooted in Christianity, people seem to be more
accepting of disagreements, and understand that disagreements are quite
natural and are to be respectfully explored, but that this should
represent no difficulty towards understanding.

Whereas, those from Christian cultures used to all the preaching and such
tend to develop the idea that there is only one way to think, and if you
think differently then, well YOU MUST BE CONVERTED!

This seems to break down somewhat, however, in regards to Russians; whom
while Orthodoxy is a deep cultural influence, also have very nuanced
linguistic forms like 'Da nyet' (yes no). It's use to express a somewhat
undecided negative answer in some contexts, or to contradict someone. Or
'da nyet navernoe' (yes no maybe) to express a negative answer, but which
is decidedly undecided. But the important point is the 'da nyet', while
usable to contradict someone, has no personal pronouns involved.

So, while in English one must say 'You are wrong.' or 'I disagree' .. in
Russian, and other languages too, the subtext becomes more "There is
disagreement" with the personal side taken out.

I suspect this is why, in English speaking countries, talking politics or
religion carries a certain social taboo in many situations, while in
Russia there seems to be a much greater expectation to talk about such
things with new people, in order to get to know them.

Just a little applied Chomskyism today, I suppose.

>
>> Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as
>> well;
>> I suppose that's 'on me' as they say.
>
> I'm rooting for a big crunch :)
>

Me too! I'm too big of a fan of symmetry to think otherwise.

Re: "Tor is dead technology"

On 10/04/2016 05:58 AM, John Newman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 06:59:57PM -0700, Razer wrote:
>> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher',  also said:
>> "the government doesn???t use Tor."
>>
>> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> I would think US governemnt actors, using tor, would be some of the
> only people that might have a reasonable expectation that it works...
> not because their traffic or metadata about their traffic can't be
> pwned to some extent, but because they work for or with some of
> the only people capable of such attacks (the NSA).
> 
> Tor is not secure against a GPA... but is the US/NSA the only "real"
> GPA that counts?
> 
> 
> John
> 

Or if the government is surveilling them it's for 'quality assurance'
and it doesn't matter anyway.

When I suggested that there might be two tors. One for them and one for
us, it elicited the 'government doesn't use it' response.

As X said, it DOES sort of tip the opponent off that you have something
to hide, but whether they can identify 'you'... especially using
something like Tails that spoofs your mac address and leaves no trace
that you've ever done anything more than power up at a given time.

So if you're in some internet cafe in Singapore with a hundred other
people walking in and out using the connection, the IP of entrance to
the tor network just doesn't do a lot to identify you unless perhaps
you're already being surveilled.

Over time, if under surveillance the opponent could find a correlation
between your presence and tor's use. Again, that why I've said 'the more
users the better'. If everyone in that Singapore cafe was using it. the
opponent would still be drawing a blank about your identity.

Rr

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.