Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/13/2018 03:14 PM, juan wrote: > On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:17:45 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > > >> >> Ummm, no :) There are still many extreme .onion sites. Mainly "hard >> candy". A quick scan yielded eight that were up when I checked: > > > Well, I'd say most of your links show that the content is hardly > extreme. Seriously, WTF? You say "hardly extreme"? Did you actually look at all of those "hard candy" sites? If you don't consider some of that extreme, I wonder about your criteria ;) But whatever. I'm not going to post examples to the list :)
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:17:45 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > > Ummm, no :) There are still many extreme .onion sites. Mainly "hard > candy". A quick scan yielded eight that were up when I checked: Well, I'd say most of your links show that the content is hardly extreme. Four versions of the **censored** hidden wiki, a couple of discussion boards with barely any content as far as I can tell, one of the 'hacking' forum has 0 posts in all categories, another apparently requires an email address (...), and sites trying to sell ordinary porn for bitcoins, so more than likely outright scams. And there are a couple of sites that seem to link to 'ilegal' content onclearnet! So although the boards are a 'hidden' service their content isn't actually hosted on tor. Rather suspicious I'd say. So I'll stick to my general view : tor has an extensive record of failure, and if the govt wants a honeypot, then some sites have to last for a while to provide the illusion that 'tor works'.
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/11/2018 02:05 PM, juan wrote: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:43:07 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > >> On 08/09/2018 08:42 PM, juan wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:01:46 -0700 >>> Mirimir wrote: >>> >>> >> >> So? Well, if they [mix networks] are not being implemented, they're not >> very useful. > > >> Sure, there are better options. But they're not currently implemented at >> useful scale. How can you use a mix network that exists only as an >> academic paper, and perhaps some tens of people testing it? > > Oh my bad. I misread and thought you said they were not being > implemented because they could not possibly be useful. Since you had said > that tor was 'good enough' for AP, I assumed that you further added that slow > mix networks were not really needed, so no demand and no supply. > > > But you are saying that a critical mass of users is required, which is > of course true, and something I never denied...So not sure how that comment > of yours is 'helpful'? =) OK, I'm glad. We at least agree that better anonymity networks are needed. In particular, higher-latency mix networks with padding. And I think that we agree that lack of demand has stalled implementation, even though there have been proposals. And so, I'm going to drop the rest of the discussion about this, because I'm tired of it ;) I was serious about Riffle, though :) >> One of the major Russian marketplaces is (or was) on I2P. >> Also lots of porn and CP, predictably. > > By now I'm starting to suspect that your definition of 'child porn' is > that of the puritan, jew-kristian, american government? Any girl under 18 > wearing a bikini is 'child porn'? And even going by such 'definition' I don't > think there's "lots of CP' on i2p or tor. > > Furthermore, you can find that sort of 'CP' on clearnet... Ummm, no :) There are still many extreme .onion sites. Mainly "hard candy". A quick scan yielded eight that were up when I checked: Child a Priori - because children always come first http://7vd5mehclc2zw4sw.onion/ Dark Scandals [pwned cam whores] http://darksdsp6iexyidx.onion/ Hijab FUCK Girls http://hijabxq3ctj6oufk.onion/ Little Cute Girls http://girlsk34dlwyaqex.onion/ Loli Lust http://lolimknaduomuzdr.onion Sea Kitten Palace [gore, torture and Disney] http://wtwfzc6ty2s6x4po.onion/ Teen Deepthroat http://qa4t6wjhl4gzl5in.onion/ videos for Bitcoin Youngest Girls http://hq4etj553otlzb5m.onion/ Even so, the collections on Freenet are far more extensive. >>> "in the past you could find links on reddit to .onion sites that kinda >>> looked 'uncensored'. Those sites do not exist anymore. But feel free to >>> prove me wrong and POST EVIDENCE, that is, links to content that the >>> 'authorities' would like to remove but can't. " >> >> OK, let me see. I don't spend much time on .onion sites. Many sites did >> disappear over the past year or two. > > Many sites disappear EVERY year or two. That is, they don't LAST more > than a year or two. And that's always been so. > > And actually it's probably getting worse because there isn't any > upgrate to tor whereas you can expect the traffic analyisis capabilities of > the enemy to be upgraded all the time. OK, so I have spent a few hours rooting around for .onion sites. There are multiple forks of The Hidden Wiki, plus a hard candy fork: The Hidden Wiki [semi censored version] http://zqktlwi465r2mxfw.onion/wiki/Main_Page.php The Uncensored Hidden Wiki [but no hard candy] http://2zmcyrryihrpdzka.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://uhwikih256ynt57t.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://uhwikihjqzr5tyll.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Central Park [including some hard candy] http://boysopidonajtogl.onion/ Then there are a few search engines: Ahima [search, fast, doesn't return many dead sites] http://msydqstlz2kzerdg.onion/ not Evil [search, returns many dead sites, some marked as dead] http://hss3uro2hsxfogfq.onion/ OnionLand Search Engine [heavily censored] http://3bbaaaccczcbdddz.onion Also some discussion sites: Galaxy3 [general discussion] http://galaxy3m2mn5iqtn.onion/ Hidden Answers [very diverse] http://answerstedhctbek.onion The Hub [dark marketplace stuff] http://thehub7xbw4dc5r2.onion/ I did find a few cracking/hacking sites: 0day [hacking forum, also clearnet] http://qzbkwswfv5k2oj5d.onion/ AN0NYM0US'z F0RUM [hacking forum] http://rhe4faeuhjs4ldc5.onion/ Codex [cracking forum] http://codexqutu7ytbguw.onion/ Torum ["cyber security" forum] http://gf2juatsqdph6x2h.onion/ But most of the old standards are gone, such as Dark0de, Mazafaka and Trojanforge. And "not Evil" returns numerous dead cracking/hacking .onion URLs. So anyway, it's my guess that most of the cracking/hacking sites, and lots of other weird shit, were on shared .onion hosting that's been taken down. And conversely, it's arguable that the surviving hard candy sites are self hosted. Survival of the fittest, you know.
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:43:07 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 08/09/2018 08:42 PM, juan wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:01:46 -0700 > > Mirimir wrote: > > > > > > So? Well, if they [mix networks] are not being implemented, they're not > very useful. > >>> > Sure, there are better options. But they're not currently implemented at > useful scale. How can you use a mix network that exists only as an > academic paper, and perhaps some tens of people testing it? Oh my bad. I misread and thought you said they were not being implemented because they could not possibly be useful. Since you had said that tor was 'good enough' for AP, I assumed that you further added that slow mix networks were not really needed, so no demand and no supply. But you are saying that a critical mass of users is required, which is of course true, and something I never denied...So not sure how that comment of yours is 'helpful'? =) To recap : me : Better tools are needed. you ; but they don't exist! me : well yes? THat's why they are needed...? > OK, that helps maybe a little. But you've been online for many years, > and I'm sure that you have friends and associates. So organize some > cutting-edge mix network. Ha. I have tried to sell(metaphorically speaking) more secure channels to friends and wasn't too succesful. They don't believe it's worthwhile because in the grand scheme of things we are fucked anyway, they say. At any rate, that has little to do with my comments about tor and what sort of comms are needed for AP. > Maybe Riffle, developed by Young Hyun Kwon.[1] > Or whatever you think better. And damn, I'll even help, if you like :) > > 1) > https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/99859/927718269-MIT.pdf?sequence=1 Thanks. Let me see... > > > > > > And yet you seem to be very uncritical of a flagship project of the US > > military like tor. > > Maybe to you I seem insufficiently critical. But maybe ask Tor devs ;) When I was on tor-talk I saw little if any criticism. But meh... > > >> Or in this case, I2P. > > > > From what I've seen of i2p content(or complete lack of it) it's a lot > > worse than tor. Which is saying a lot... > > That's because I2P has very few clearnet exits, so all you see is stuff > hosted on I2P. Yes, that's what I looked at and that's the basic data to look at. What sort of content is hosted inside i2p. > One of the major Russian marketplaces is (or was) on I2P. > Also lots of porn and CP, predictably. By now I'm starting to suspect that your definition of 'child porn' is that of the puritan, jew-kristian, american government? Any girl under 18 wearing a bikini is 'child porn'? And even going by such 'definition' I don't think there's "lots of CP' on i2p or tor. Furthermore, you can find that sort of 'CP' on clearnet... > > >> For decentralized storage generally, I like IPFS. > >> For example, a year or > >> two ago I put "Fast Data Transfer via Tor" on IPFS.[0] And even though > >> I'm not currently running any IPFS nodes, it's still there. Because > >> enough people pinned it. If I hadn't disclosed that, it would be > >> nontrivial for adversaries to link it to me. > >> > >> 0) https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUDV2KHrAgs84oUc7z9zQmZ3whx1NB6YDPv8ZRuf4dutN/ > > > > > > Hm. OK. Looking at IPFS...So it's a lot newer than tor and freenet! NEW > > AND IMPROVED. Meaning, untested. And they have a 'filecoin' and 200 > > millions through an ICO... > > So whatever. It's the thing now, for kids. But it does seem to work > pretty well. there's also maidsafe and storj which are well funded too (or at least maidsafe is) and they are not going anywhwere as far as I can tell (though admitedly I haven't looked into them). Anyway, I might take a look at ipfs though for starters the reference client uses fucking go from fucking google...Not encouraging at all. > >> > >> Really? Gotta a link for that? > > > > > > you never heard of gnutella...? > > Sure, but didn't know that it was still up. Is it? ...you can find out for yourself? =) But yeah, although it has (a lot) less users than in the good old days it still works. > > I mean, damn, I can't find any music on TPB! That sucks. I haven't had much trouble getting some stuff off tpb but I don't use it too much so... > > If augur's interface is a shitty website accessed through tor, then I'm > > going to be skeptical about its success. And lo and behold, augur's web > > interface uses JAVASHIT, number one security hole for 'web applications'. > > The root issue isn't where Augur's website runs. The issue is trading > Ethereum anonymously. I expect all parts of the system need to be secured... > > If you want to run a full node you need to download some 200gb, but
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 00:20:43 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: >> >> Hm. That may be a good point. I didn't assume a big 'democratic' >> majority was needed, but I was still thinking of some sizable percentage. >> But maybe 1% would be enough - or even less. > Remember the statistic I like to use: The Federal governemnt collects 3 > trillion dollars in taxes per year. If those taxpayers pay an additional 1% > of that value, or $30 billion, in money towards and AP fund, and if the > average cost per death is $100,000, then that's 300,000 deaths per year. Yep, if a relatively big number of people make small contributions, lots of funds can be raised. Arguably an AP protocol would make that sort of cooperation easier/more effective. > > > Say, 1% of the adult population of the US is ~2 million people. If 2 > >million people decide to act in a coordinated fashion against the govt they > >may force the govt to leave them alone. > > Another statistic: > https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/ > "The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes > (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined > (30.2 percent)." > > Some fraction of those 1% get their money due to the existence and operation > of the Federal government, but many do not. I think many of them resent the > amount of money they are paying to maintain an inefficient government. I'm pretty sure that the richer people are, the more conservative and supportive of the totalitarian status quo they become. As a matter of fact there quite a few obscenely rich people, some of them even pretend to be 'libertarians' but in practice they work for the NSA. Regardless, AP may work if funded by poor libertarians (not rich corporatists) > > >> I'm not aware that there is a "critical mass" for people supporting AP. > >> Do you have a different figure than my "1%"? > > > I don't. So I guess what I should say is : there's no critical mass of > >libertarians doing anything meaningful, but if there was, then AP may be a > >good & efficient tool. > > I've always thought so, but then again I'm not an unbiased observer! Heh =P > > > > > Notice that the few libertarians who do act against the govt end up in > jail like Ulbrichtor you. > > It is unfortunate that Ulbricht could not incorporate an AP-type protection > system into Silk Road. These dark markets tend to be purely defensive, > employing rather good secrecy. Why not dedicate 1% of their gross market > into a fund to kill anyone who attacks them? That would be fun. And it could either work, or backfire and make them a higher priority target... > > > > To be fair, european and asian governments (like say japan and korea) are > accomplices of the US govt, play the same imperial games and are guilty as > well, so you won't find many anarchists among their subjects either. > It wouldn't take many! Perhaps. We'll have to wait and see... > × > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/09/2018 08:42 PM, juan wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:01:46 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > > So? Well, if they [mix networks] are not being implemented, they're not very useful. >>> >>> not useful for what? >> >> Huh? Are you retarded? Sure, you and your friends can setup some super >> duper mix network, but it won't do you any fucking good. Because, you >> know, you're the only people using it. And once an adversary gets >> access, you're totally screwed. > > Sure, but now you jumped to something else. What about keeping track of > the topic at hand? > > Topic : there are no secure mix networks because people (stupidly) use > more 'convenient' stuff. And while the faster, less secure stuff does have > its use cases, so do the other systems. > > So what's retarded here is your line of thinking "there are no better > options cause they are not useful' Sure, there are better options. But they're not currently implemented at useful scale. How can you use a mix network that exists only as an academic paper, and perhaps some tens of people testing it? >> And unless you actually >> mobilize some support and participation for whatever you want. I haven't >> heard much of that from you. > > > It should be self evident that explaining that tor is mostly useful to > watch jewtube has the implicit goal of 'mobilizing support' for better > alternatives. > > also notice that I am not an agent of the US military, but an > independent individual from a banana republic - so my resources to 'mobilize > support' are somewhat limited. OK, that helps maybe a little. But you've been online for many years, and I'm sure that you have friends and associates. So organize some cutting-edge mix network. Maybe Riffle, developed by Young Hyun Kwon.[1] Or whatever you think better. And damn, I'll even help, if you like :) 1) https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/99859/927718269-MIT.pdf?sequence=1 >>> oh, that's nice =) (just in the highly unlikely case that you are >>> trying to mock me, bear in mind that the joke is on you =) ). >> >> No mocking involved. I do agree. And you know, I really don't love those >> Americunt fascists either. Even though I'm living there now. > > > And yet you seem to be very uncritical of a flagship project of the US > military like tor. Maybe to you I seem insufficiently critical. But maybe ask Tor devs ;) But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below. >>> >>> Keep trolling. So decentralized storage is 20 years out of date whereas >>> using php to serve files behind a low quality proxy is the 'technology' of >>> the next americunt century. >> >> No, Freenet is 20 years out of date. Because it makes _no_ attempt to >> obscure IP addresses of peers. As far as I know, there is no protocol >> for decentralized storage that does obscure IP addresses of peers. > > uh, so everything is 20 years out of date? > >> And so you need to use some overlay network. Such as VPNs and/or Tor. > > OK. So if you add a proxy before freenet then freenet is better than > php in a centralized webserver? Almost certainly, because it's distributed. But in my experience, the Freenet community doesn't like people using proxies. >> Or in this case, I2P. > > From what I've seen of i2p content(or complete lack of it) it's a lot > worse than tor. Which is saying a lot... That's because I2P has very few clearnet exits, so all you see is stuff hosted on I2P. One of the major Russian marketplaces is (or was) on I2P. Also lots of porn and CP, predictably. >> Because there's no need to reach clearnet stuff. >> However, I2P also has its issues. It's a lot smaller than Tor. And every >> participant must be a router, analogous to a Tor relay. Which means that >> participants attract more attention, and may get their IPs blacklisted. > > > That's how a decentralized network works? If you are a peer you may > attract attention. Not sure what kind of 'workaround' can be for that. If you > use an 'overlay' then you will 'attract attention' for using an overlay, etc. What's nice about Tor is that relay operators attract the most attention. And it's my impression that they're generally not up to any iffy shit. Or at least, they shouldn't be, if they're smart. So people up to iffy shit just run clients. And that doesn't attract as much attention. Especially if they use bridges that aren't published. Or create their own bridge, on some random VPS. >> For decentralized storage generally, I like IPFS. >> For example, a year or >> two ago I put "Fast Data Transfer via Tor" on IPFS.[0] And even though >> I'm not currently running any IPFS nodes, it's still there. Because >> enough people pinned it. If I hadn't disclosed that, it would be >> nontrivial for adversaries to link it to me. >> >> 0) https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUDV2KHrAgs84oUc7z9zQmZ3whx1NB6YDPv8ZRuf4dutN/ > > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:01:46 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > >> > >> So? Well, if they [mix networks] are not being implemented, they're not > >> very useful. > > > > not useful for what? > > Huh? Are you retarded? Sure, you and your friends can setup some super > duper mix network, but it won't do you any fucking good. Because, you > know, you're the only people using it. And once an adversary gets > access, you're totally screwed. Sure, but now you jumped to something else. What about keeping track of the topic at hand? Topic : there are no secure mix networks because people (stupidly) use more 'convenient' stuff. And while the faster, less secure stuff does have its use cases, so do the other systems. So what's retarded here is your line of thinking "there are no better options cause they are not useful' > > >> You > >> can fume all you want about some ideal that ought to exist. But that > >> alone doesn't really help much. > > > > you mean, discussing the 'technical details' doesn't 'help' whereas US > > military propaganda 'helps'? Well, of course, that's true, depending on > > what is being 'helped'... > > Sure, "discussing the 'technical details'" helps. But not if you're just > bitching about what's wrong with existing stuff. lol - in other words, there's a laundry list of criticism that you are fully unable to counter so you call it 'bitching'. > And unless you actually > mobilize some support and participation for whatever you want. I haven't > heard much of that from you. It should be self evident that explaining that tor is mostly useful to watch jewtube has the implicit goal of 'mobilizing support' for better alternatives. also notice that I am not an agent of the US military, but an independent individual from a banana republic - so my resources to 'mobilize support' are somewhat limited. > > > > oh, that's nice =) (just in the highly unlikely case that you are > > trying to mock me, bear in mind that the joke is on you =) ). > > No mocking involved. I do agree. And you know, I really don't love those > Americunt fascists either. Even though I'm living there now. And yet you seem to be very uncritical of a flagship project of the US military like tor. > > >> But that's not the only reason. There's also the > >> latency vs usability tradeoff. > > > > Which I think I acknowledged... > > Yes, you did. Barely. And them you hand-waved it away ;) Bullshit. Just in case my position isn't clear. You want to watch jewtube videos or control drones to murder children use tor, a 'low latency' network. You want some half decent anonimity? Use something else. This being the cpunks mailing list, not the tor mailing list, or other outlet for US military propaganda, it seems to me that your constant 'bitching' about 'usability' is misplaced. > > >> Or even if it is, maybe you ought to be > >> promoting them? > > > > And what am I doing here? > > So far, you've promoted Freenet. Which is arguably _worse_ than Tor. It's not my intention to promote freenet, and I barely promoted it. What needs to be done is getting rid of the tor scum =) > > >> But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below. > > > > Keep trolling. So decentralized storage is 20 years out of date whereas > > using php to serve files behind a low quality proxy is the 'technology' of > > the next americunt century. > > No, Freenet is 20 years out of date. Because it makes _no_ attempt to > obscure IP addresses of peers. As far as I know, there is no protocol > for decentralized storage that does obscure IP addresses of peers. uh, so everything is 20 years out of date? > And so you need to use some overlay network. Such as VPNs and/or Tor. OK. So if you add a proxy before freenet then freenet is better than php in a centralized webserver? > > Or in this case, I2P. From what I've seen of i2p content(or complete lack of it) it's a lot worse than tor. Which is saying a lot... > Because there's no need to reach clearnet stuff. > However, I2P also has its issues. It's a lot smaller than Tor. And every > participant must be a router, analogous to a Tor relay. Which means that > participants attract more attention, and may get their IPs blacklisted. That's how a decentralized network works? If you are a peer you may attract attention. Not sure what kind of 'workaround' can be for that. If you use an 'overlay' then you will 'attract attention' for using an overlay, etc. > > For decentralized storage generally, I like IPFS. > For example, a year or > two ago I put "Fast Data Transfer via Tor" on IPFS.[0] And even though > I'm not currently running any IPFS nodes, it's still there. Because > enough people pinned it. If I hadn't disclosed that, it would be >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/09/2018 01:09 PM, juan wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:25:12 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > >> On 08/08/2018 11:01 PM, juan wrote: >>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:44:53 -0700 >>> Mirimir wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, I vaguely recall proposed higher-latency mix networks that would be usable for browsing, remote management, etc. But I haven't heard that any are actually getting implemented. >>> >>> so? >> >> So? Well, if they're not being implemented, they're not very useful. > > not useful for what? Huh? Are you retarded? Sure, you and your friends can setup some super duper mix network, but it won't do you any fucking good. Because, you know, you're the only people using it. And once an adversary gets access, you're totally screwed. >> You >> can fume all you want about some ideal that ought to exist. But that >> alone doesn't really help much. > > you mean, discussing the 'technical details' doesn't 'help' whereas US > military propaganda 'helps'? Well, of course, that's true, depending on what > is being 'helped'... Sure, "discussing the 'technical details'" helps. But not if you're just bitching about what's wrong with existing stuff. And unless you actually mobilize some support and participation for whatever you want. I haven't heard much of that from you. >> And yeah, I know that they're not being implemented because those >> Americunt fascists are so damn good at propaganda. I do tend to agree >> with you about that. > > oh, that's nice =) (just in the highly unlikely case that you are > trying to mock me, bear in mind that the joke is on you =) ). No mocking involved. I do agree. And you know, I really don't love those Americunt fascists either. Even though I'm living there now. >> But that's not the only reason. There's also the >> latency vs usability tradeoff. > > Which I think I acknowledged... Yes, you did. Barely. And them you hand-waved it away ;) >> Or even if it is, maybe you ought to be >> promoting them? > > And what am I doing here? So far, you've promoted Freenet. Which is arguably _worse_ than Tor. >> But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below. > > Keep trolling. So decentralized storage is 20 years out of date whereas > using php to serve files behind a low quality proxy is the 'technology' of > the next americunt century. No, Freenet is 20 years out of date. Because it makes _no_ attempt to obscure IP addresses of peers. As far as I know, there is no protocol for decentralized storage that does obscure IP addresses of peers. And so you need to use some overlay network. Such as VPNs and/or Tor. Or in this case, I2P. Because there's no need to reach clearnet stuff. However, I2P also has its issues. It's a lot smaller than Tor. And every participant must be a router, analogous to a Tor relay. Which means that participants attract more attention, and may get their IPs blacklisted. For decentralized storage generally, I like IPFS. For example, a year or two ago I put "Fast Data Transfer via Tor" on IPFS.[0] And even though I'm not currently running any IPFS nodes, it's still there. Because enough people pinned it. If I hadn't disclosed that, it would be nontrivial for adversaries to link it to me. 0) https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUDV2KHrAgs84oUc7z9zQmZ3whx1NB6YDPv8ZRuf4dutN/ > by the way, freenet is 18 years old and your employer the tor > corporation is 15 years old. So I guess tor is 'almost' ~20 years out of > date? > > > And you know, there's even older stuff than freenet, like the p2p > networks based on gnutella and they are of course superior to bittorrent, let > alone to 'web based' 'solutions'. Really? Gotta a link for that? I've been wondering where to get some current music at a decent price. I will _not_ use Spotify! >>> Not sure if you are keeping track of the 'issue' here. As far as I'm >>> concerned the 'issue' is not BROWSING THE FUCKING WEB but doing >>> 'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff' >> >> Huh? Just what the fuck else is "'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff'" then? > > > We were talking about assasination politics. And you barefacedly > declared that tor was 'good enough' for end users, 'good enough' for hidden > services, and 'good enough' for killing trump. So here the 'crypto anarchy > stuff' is AP. > > Now, are you trolling or what? You can't remember the topic of the > discussion from one message to the next? Or? OK, so how are you planning to use Augur or whatever without revealing your IP address? And actually, if I said that Tor would work with Augur, I was wrong. Because Ethereum wallets use UDP, which Tor doesn't handle. So you're left with nested VPN chains. Unless someone forks to I2P. But that too seems iffy, given how small I2P is. >> There >> are web sites. There's email. There are various more-or-less P2P >> messaging systems. There's SSH for managing servers. >> >> I agree that email and messaging would better resist
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:25:12 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 08/08/2018 11:01 PM, juan wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:44:53 -0700 > > Mirimir wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Anyway, I vaguely recall proposed higher-latency mix networks that would > >> be usable for browsing, remote management, etc. But I haven't heard that > >> any are actually getting implemented. > > > > so? > > So? Well, if they're not being implemented, they're not very useful. not useful for what? > You > can fume all you want about some ideal that ought to exist. But that > alone doesn't really help much. you mean, discussing the 'technical details' doesn't 'help' whereas US military propaganda 'helps'? Well, of course, that's true, depending on what is being 'helped'... > > And yeah, I know that they're not being implemented because those > Americunt fascists are so damn good at propaganda. I do tend to agree > with you about that. oh, that's nice =) (just in the highly unlikely case that you are trying to mock me, bear in mind that the joke is on you =) ). > But that's not the only reason. There's also the > latency vs usability tradeoff. Which I think I acknowledged... > Or even if it is, maybe you ought to be > promoting them? And what am I doing here? > > But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below. Keep trolling. So decentralized storage is 20 years out of date whereas using php to serve files behind a low quality proxy is the 'technology' of the next americunt century. by the way, freenet is 18 years old and your employer the tor corporation is 15 years old. So I guess tor is 'almost' ~20 years out of date? And you know, there's even older stuff than freenet, like the p2p networks based on gnutella and they are of course superior to bittorrent, let alone to 'web based' 'solutions'. > > > Not sure if you are keeping track of the 'issue' here. As far as I'm > > concerned the 'issue' is not BROWSING THE FUCKING WEB but doing > > 'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff' > > Huh? Just what the fuck else is "'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff'" then? We were talking about assasination politics. And you barefacedly declared that tor was 'good enough' for end users, 'good enough' for hidden services, and 'good enough' for killing trump. So here the 'crypto anarchy stuff' is AP. Now, are you trolling or what? You can't remember the topic of the discussion from one message to the next? Or? > There > are web sites. There's email. There are various more-or-less P2P > messaging systems. There's SSH for managing servers. > > I agree that email and messaging would better resist compromise if they > used higher-latency mix networks. Even very high-latency ones, with lots > of padding. Not just email, but any protocol that doesn't require 'instant' messages. Which I imagine includes AP. > But SSH via nested VPN chains plus Tor is painful enough as > it is. I can't imagine waiting minutes between typing and remote action. > > >> What have I missed? > > > > good thing that at least you are asking. Now try to answer your > > question. > > Well, I was hoping for some constructive discussion. But that's hard > with you. But whatever, we are what we are. You are expecting me to provide something that doesn't exist and can't exist? And since nobody can provide a fast and secure network, you just keep parroting tor propganda? Well I guess that's your job description? > > >> Yes, basically. Tor was developed by the US military. But that's not > >> likely why privacy activists embraced it. > > > > yes it is - 'privacy' 'activists' 'embraced' it because the fucking US > > military promoted it. > > > > again, here's a link for you > > > > http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=816 > > > > that's commie 'anarchist' appelbaum who got US$ 100k per year to > > promote a tool used by the US govt to promote coups in the middle east. > > Indeed. Tor was announced on _this list_ :) ...not entirely sure what your remark means? Anyway, hopefully the reason why tor is so 'popular' is clear enough by now. But I guess you are still ignoring the reason for tor to exist. It is for americunt nazis to promote 'democracy' in 'repressive' regimes. > > And seriously, are you following the published literature on overlay > networks? No. I'm following tor propaganda by you and grarpamp in lists like this one. > > > > yes, ask all the people who are in jail thanks to tor. Or dead. > > Yeah, yeah. But nothing's perfect. And consider how many more would be > jailed or dead if they _hadn't_ used Tor. Less people. You don't do stupidly risky things if you know you are getting caught. You do them when you drink the koolaid from the US military like Ulbricht did. >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/08/2018 11:01 PM, juan wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:44:53 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > > >> >> Anyway, I vaguely recall proposed higher-latency mix networks that would >> be usable for browsing, remote management, etc. But I haven't heard that >> any are actually getting implemented. > > so? So? Well, if they're not being implemented, they're not very useful. You can fume all you want about some ideal that ought to exist. But that alone doesn't really help much. And yeah, I know that they're not being implemented because those Americunt fascists are so damn good at propaganda. I do tend to agree with you about that. But that's not the only reason. There's also the latency vs usability tradeoff. Or even if it is, maybe you ought to be promoting them? But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below. > Not sure if you are keeping track of the 'issue' here. As far as I'm > concerned the 'issue' is not BROWSING THE FUCKING WEB but doing > 'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff' Huh? Just what the fuck else is "'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff'" then? There are web sites. There's email. There are various more-or-less P2P messaging systems. There's SSH for managing servers. I agree that email and messaging would better resist compromise if they used higher-latency mix networks. Even very high-latency ones, with lots of padding. But SSH via nested VPN chains plus Tor is painful enough as it is. I can't imagine waiting minutes between typing and remote action. >> What have I missed? > > good thing that at least you are asking. Now try to answer your > question. Well, I was hoping for some constructive discussion. But that's hard with you. But whatever, we are what we are. >> Yes, basically. Tor was developed by the US military. But that's not >> likely why privacy activists embraced it. > > yes it is - 'privacy' 'activists' 'embraced' it because the fucking US > military promoted it. > > again, here's a link for you > > http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=816 > > that's commie 'anarchist' appelbaum who got US$ 100k per year to > promote a tool used by the US govt to promote coups in the middle east. Indeed. Tor was announced on _this list_ :) And seriously, are you following the published literature on overlay networks? I was, but I'm maybe 2-3 years out of date. So if any y'all know about something that's getting traction, or seriously ought to be, please do point to it. >> It became popular because it >> provided a better mix of security and usability. > > > yes, ask all the people who are in jail thanks to tor. Or dead. Yeah, yeah. But nothing's perfect. And consider how many more would be jailed or dead if they _hadn't_ used Tor. Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix networks. >>> >>> >>> That's how they work as far as I understand them. So saying it's a >>> problem really misses the point. >> >> What's a problem is _too much_ overhead. > > > you are just bullshiting and hand waving. No, I'm not. Go read the fucking papers, if you don't believe me. >> That is, total traffic grows >> more or less exponentially with the number of users. > > >> Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. >>> >>> Yep. And the 'culture' behind it. Allow retards to stream super ultra >>> SHD videos. But I wouldn't like to blame the victims too much, so of course >>> the problem is the assholes at the top who dictate how 'technology' is >>> developed. >> >> Open-source software is hardly driven by "assholes at the top". > > > what - are you referring to the fact that tor is open source? So > fucking what. It is developed and controlled by military scum like syverson > and the little tor mafia. Who by now must have gotten 10 MILLION DOLLARS for > their 'work'. So what? Is poverty your ideal or something? >> Trust me, dude. Stay away from Freenet. Sure, you think Tor is pwned. >> But Freenet is so pwned that I'd never use it ;) Except through Tor ;) >> It's a joke. > > yes I agree. What you say is a joke. > > You are confirming from the nth time that you are if not a paid agent, > an 'amateur' one. > > >> As soon as an adversary joins your network, they can trace >> data movement. So they can show that your node has handled pieces of >> illegal files, identified by hash. > > uh yeah, that's how freenet works. You have encripted pieces of stuff > that can be anything. That's where you're wrong. If an adversary is in your Freenet network, they see all those encrypted pieces of stuff. And if they're running a suitably modified version of the Freenet software, they know which of those pieces are part of which files. Because they can fetch each file of interest, and decompose
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 08:44:53PM -0700, Mirimir wrote: > On 08/08/2018 11:21 AM, juan wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 20:42:37 -0700 > > Mirimir wrote: > >> But even so, people who want anonymity, some of them > >> doing illegal stuff, _will_ end up using Tor. So why not help them use > >> it more safely? > > > > Oh, but I do. Whenver I have the chance, I tell darm markets > > operators to not post their contact information on facebook. > > Is that the best you can do? Frankly, educating folks to not put their personal contact details on Facebook is quite a useful thing - there are some pretty uneducated folks out there. Also, letting pepes know that Tor is essentially the NSA/CIA network is also, presumably, useful education material to those who are otherwise swamp-indoctrinated.
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:44:53 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > > Anyway, I vaguely recall proposed higher-latency mix networks that would > be usable for browsing, remote management, etc. But I haven't heard that > any are actually getting implemented. so? Not sure if you are keeping track of the 'issue' here. As far as I'm concerned the 'issue' is not BROWSING THE FUCKING WEB but doing 'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff' > > What have I missed? good thing that at least you are asking. Now try to answer your question. > Yes, basically. Tor was developed by the US military. But that's not > likely why privacy activists embraced it. yes it is - 'privacy' 'activists' 'embraced' it because the fucking US military promoted it. again, here's a link for you http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=816 that's commie 'anarchist' appelbaum who got US$ 100k per year to promote a tool used by the US govt to promote coups in the middle east. > It became popular because it > provided a better mix of security and usability. yes, ask all the people who are in jail thanks to tor. Or dead. > >> Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have > >> scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get > >> pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix > >> networks. > > > > > > That's how they work as far as I understand them. So saying it's a > > problem really misses the point. > > What's a problem is _too much_ overhead. you are just bullshiting and hand waving. > That is, total traffic grows > more or less exponentially with the number of users. > > >> Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. > > > > Yep. And the 'culture' behind it. Allow retards to stream super ultra > > SHD videos. But I wouldn't like to blame the victims too much, so of course > > the problem is the assholes at the top who dictate how 'technology' is > > developed. > > Open-source software is hardly driven by "assholes at the top". what - are you referring to the fact that tor is open source? So fucking what. It is developed and controlled by military scum like syverson and the little tor mafia. Who by now must have gotten 10 MILLION DOLLARS for their 'work'. > Trust me, dude. Stay away from Freenet. Sure, you think Tor is pwned. > But Freenet is so pwned that I'd never use it ;) Except through Tor ;) > It's a joke. yes I agree. What you say is a joke. You are confirming from the nth time that you are if not a paid agent, an 'amateur' one. > As soon as an adversary joins your network, they can trace > data movement. So they can show that your node has handled pieces of > illegal files, identified by hash. uh yeah, that's how freenet works. You have encripted pieces of stuff that can be anything. > And even though they can't really > prove that you accessed those files, they can say in court that they > can, and you'll be hard pressed to convince a jury otherwise. that may be how your nazi legal system works - you can be charged with anything and convicted without proof. That's not freenet's fault. anyway, it's quite funny that you robotically ignore all of tor's problems and are barefaced enough to badmouth the competition > I keep repeating that Tor is what we have now for working ~anonymously > online because it just fucking is! Sure, there's JonDoNym, but it's a > tiny network, and not many people use it. And it's not really that > friendly to anonymity, in any case. I2P is interesting, I admit, but > it's mainly a closed system. There are some clearnet exits, but the rest > of I2P doesn't like them. are you drunk or something? Again WHO gives a fuck about 'browsing the web'? Why would cypherpunks be interested in 'anonymously' reading the jew york times? Which is something you can do with any free vpn anyway. > > So it's not that I'm saying Tor is the best, or whatever. It's literally > that there's nothing else that's widely enough used to provide any real > anonymity. Or at least, that I know of. > > So again, what super anonymous overlay networks have I missed? I'm all > ears :) maybe taking too much psychoactive substances isn't good for you. go back and try to grasp what the topic of the discussion is. > > >> But even so, people who want anonymity, some of them > >> doing illegal stuff, _will_ end up using Tor. So why not help them use > >> it more safely? > > > > > > Oh, but I do. Whenver I have the chance, I tell darm markets operators > > to not post their contact information on facebook. > > Is that the best you can do? yes. I can directly tell you to go fuck yourself. That's actually better.
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/08/2018 11:21 AM, juan wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 20:42:37 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > >> On 08/07/2018 06:14 PM, juan wrote: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:49:54 -0700 >>> Mirimir wrote: >>> >>> > for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think > should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming > super full SHD video for retards? That's the question. >>> >>> And the answer is : some sort of 'high latency' mixing network. And >>> interestingly enough such a network doesn't seem to exist, although it >>> seems to me it would require less resources than something like tor. And >>> nobody seems to be worried about having or not having that kind of >>> network, which strikes me as odd... >> >> Well, as I'm sure you know, high-latency mix networks -- Cypherpunk and >> Mixmaster remailers.[0] -- predate Tor. > > > Right. In other words, the state of anonymous comms in the last 20 > years has gone a long wayBACKWARDS. I suppose. But to me it just seems that users voted with their activity. Sure, high-latency remailer mix networks are arguably more secure against traffic analysis. But they're not very useful for anything except email and Usenet posting. They're not even workable for reading Usenet anonymously. So basically, Tor came along as the Web took over. So more and more people started running Tor relays, and fewer and fewer ran remailers, or even used them. Anyway, I vaguely recall proposed higher-latency mix networks that would be usable for browsing, remote management, etc. But I haven't heard that any are actually getting implemented. What have I missed? >> That's how I used the original >> cypherpunks list, way back when. A few years ago, I played with them a >> little. I got QuickSilver Lite running in Wine.[1] Basically, all email >> goes to alt.anonymous.messages, you download everything, and then your >> client finds stuff that you can decrypt. > > Yes, that's a 'brute force' technique that works. Steve Kinney > mentioned it as well. > > > >> Some resources were (are?) >> available as .onion services. I probably have notes somewhere, if you're >> interested. >> >> I'm not sure why that all died. It _was_ bloody complicated, even with >> QuickSilver Lite. > > Well, a few guesses : > > 1) not enough people thought it was important enough because > surveillance wasn't as bad as it is today > > 2) ...so the tradeoff security/usability didn't seem worthwhile > > 3) those systems were displaced by worse, 'fast' solutions provided by > the US military. Yes, basically. Tor was developed by the US military. But that's not likely why privacy activists embraced it. It became popular because it provided a better mix of security and usability. >> Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have >> scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get >> pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix >> networks. > > > That's how they work as far as I understand them. So saying it's a > problem really misses the point. What's a problem is _too much_ overhead. That is, total traffic grows more or less exponentially with the number of users. >> Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. > > Yep. And the 'culture' behind it. Allow retards to stream super ultra > SHD videos. But I wouldn't like to blame the victims too much, so of course > the problem is the assholes at the top who dictate how 'technology' is > developed. Open-source software is hardly driven by "assholes at the top". >> Although I recall >> seeing a crude hack that pulled stuff from alt.anonymous.messages, and >> massaged it into a web page. >> I guess that you say that there is none, and we should all just organize our local cells. >>> >>> What I was trying to say is that, if the use case is 'criminal >>> activity', then using a 'low latency' network like tor which provides >>> centralized 'hidden' services is a not a good idea. It's more like a recipe >>> for disaster. >> >> Well, if you exclude low-latency networks, you're pretty much left with >> nothing to use. > > > THat is not true. Although I don't know how robust it is, I think > freenet comes closer to being a mix network of sorts, and it's a > decentralized storage by design. See? Unlike the garbage produced by the > pentagon nazis in which 'hidden' services are a hack, freenet was designed > with censorship resistance as a key property. Trust me, dude. Stay away from Freenet. Sure, you think Tor is pwned. But Freenet is so pwned that I'd never use it ;) Except through Tor ;) It's a joke. As soon as an adversary joins your network, they can trace data movement. So they can show that your node has handled pieces of illegal files, identified by hash. And even though they can't really prove that you accessed those files, they can
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 20:42:37 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 08/07/2018 06:14 PM, juan wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:49:54 -0700 > > Mirimir wrote: > > > > > >> > >>> for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think > >>> should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming > >>> super full SHD video for retards? > >> > >> That's the question. > > > > And the answer is : some sort of 'high latency' mixing network. And > > interestingly enough such a network doesn't seem to exist, although it > > seems to me it would require less resources than something like tor. And > > nobody seems to be worried about having or not having that kind of > > network, which strikes me as odd... > > Well, as I'm sure you know, high-latency mix networks -- Cypherpunk and > Mixmaster remailers.[0] -- predate Tor. Right. In other words, the state of anonymous comms in the last 20 years has gone a long wayBACKWARDS. > That's how I used the original > cypherpunks list, way back when. A few years ago, I played with them a > little. I got QuickSilver Lite running in Wine.[1] Basically, all email > goes to alt.anonymous.messages, you download everything, and then your > client finds stuff that you can decrypt. Yes, that's a 'brute force' technique that works. Steve Kinney mentioned it as well. > Some resources were (are?) > available as .onion services. I probably have notes somewhere, if you're > interested. > > I'm not sure why that all died. It _was_ bloody complicated, even with > QuickSilver Lite. Well, a few guesses : 1) not enough people thought it was important enough because surveillance wasn't as bad as it is today 2) ...so the tradeoff security/usability didn't seem worthwhile 3) those systems were displaced by worse, 'fast' solutions provided by the US military. > Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have > scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get > pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix > networks. That's how they work as far as I understand them. So saying it's a problem really misses the point. > > Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. Yep. And the 'culture' behind it. Allow retards to stream super ultra SHD videos. But I wouldn't like to blame the victims too much, so of course the problem is the assholes at the top who dictate how 'technology' is developed. > Although I recall > seeing a crude hack that pulled stuff from alt.anonymous.messages, and > massaged it into a web page. > > >> I guess that you say that there is none, and we > >> should all just organize our local cells. > > > > What I was trying to say is that, if the use case is 'criminal > > activity', then using a 'low latency' network like tor which provides > > centralized 'hidden' services is a not a good idea. It's more like a recipe > > for disaster. > > Well, if you exclude low-latency networks, you're pretty much left with > nothing to use. THat is not true. Although I don't know how robust it is, I think freenet comes closer to being a mix network of sorts, and it's a decentralized storage by design. See? Unlike the garbage produced by the pentagon nazis in which 'hidden' services are a hack, freenet was designed with censorship resistance as a key property. But another point is, if at the moment there only are fast, low quality networks, then what's needed is...something else. You keep repeating we only have tor - why? My answer is that you are just a tor propagandist which in turns makes you as US military propagandist. That's what the EVIDENCE points to. > But even so, people who want anonymity, some of them > doing illegal stuff, _will_ end up using Tor. So why not help them use > it more safely? Oh, but I do. Whenver I have the chance, I tell darm markets operators to not post their contact information on facebook. > > 0) https://remailer.paranoici.org/clist.html > 1) https://www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Monday, August 6, 2018, 3:59:14 PM PDT, juan wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 20:06:38 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: >> If the public is shown good evidence that government can be taken down, >>they will decide that government SHOULD be taken down. > WHY will they do that? To take down the govt is a purely moral decision as >your use of 'should' indicates. And the govenment SHOULD be taken down, AP or >no AP. Except that ordinary people don't believe it should. Remember, I'm not saying that "they will decide" by a 51% margin. 1% of the people participating should be sufficient. >> Do you have a solution better than AP? > a solution for the political problem is a 'critical mass' of libertarians opposing the government or seceding. And I mean REAL libertarians. Not the ayn rand, big business worshiping, american type. I'm not aware that there is a "critical mass" for people supporting AP. Do you have a different figure than my "1%"? >> If you don't, you need to explain why people will choose the status quo >>over an AP solution. > talking about 'people' is pretty much meaningless without explaing which >particular people you are referrign to. But overall 'adult' people have been >subjected to enough indoctrination and coercion so as to render them useless >in a fight against the state. That is, if they are not outright state agents >or state cronies, like all economic interests are. And a sizeable amount of >people benefit from statism. 1% should be sufficient. > Think about americans for instance. Ordinary americans benefit from the fact that the US govt and corporations rape the whole world. Why would they support AP? Perhaps, but "the rest of the world" can also bet on the lifetime of American government employees. Even a small but wealthy country could take down the American government, although its own government will eventually be taken down as well. Jim Bell
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 8:47:46 PM PDT, Kurt Buff wrote: >And, USPS might (or might not) destroy the data, but they don't mention whether or not they pass it all on the some TLA or other as well as passing on to LEO's on-demand. Wouldn't put it past them... >Kurt I thought about this in late 2013, I think when they busted the original Silk Road. I wondered, what precautions a seller on such a black-net market would want to take. They have a big advantage, they can toss their mailings into just about any mailbox, and use different phony return-addresses (actually genuine addresses, but randomly-selected) with each mailing. But, I concluded they'd want to make their mailings have dozens of different looks, to ensure that even a recorded scan of all mailings could not easily be used to notice similarities. Different colors, different shapes, different fonts. Jim Bell
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:21 PM, jim bell wrote: > https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/us/postal-service-confirms-photographing-all-us-mail.html > > "But Mr. Donahoe said that the images had been used “a couple of times” by > law enforcement to trace letters in criminal cases, including one involving > ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg > of New York. The images of letters and packages are generally stored for a > week to 30 days and then destroyed, he told the A.P." > [end of quote from article] > > > About that article. > > I think it's curious that they claim to "destroy' the images after "a week > to 30 days". If there are about 1 billion mailed items each year, and it > takes 50 kilobytes to store an image (wild ass guess, and assuming some > compression), that would amount to 50 terabytes of data: A bit more than 4 > of the largest-capacity of hard drives currently sold. > > > https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage/wd-gold-enterprise-class-hard-drive.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwhqXbBRAREiwAucoo-yp9zBDxr1hrojtP7nXAw8Trmtx4-9N8m5DAecI3hqQeTEyGeHWYjBoCg_IQAvD_BwE > > Think about it. If YOU had access to this data, would YOU erase it, if the > storage only cost about $2000 per year? > > Jim Bell It's going to be about an order of magnitude more than that - not because of the size of the images, but because they're going to OCR and index all of it, but I'm sure they're already OCRing already, because automation. The images are pretty useless without it the indexing. But still - let's say that you're off by three orders of magnitude, and it costs $2m/year to store it, that's chump change for a very good surveillance system, and if you do network graphs and frequency analyses, etc, well, now you're cooking with gas. And, USPS might (or might not) destroy the data, but they don't mention whether or not they pass it all on the some TLA or other as well as passing on to LEO's on-demand. Wouldn't put it past them... Kurt
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/07/2018 06:14 PM, juan wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:49:54 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > > >> >>> for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think >>> should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming >>> super full SHD video for retards? >> >> That's the question. > > And the answer is : some sort of 'high latency' mixing network. And > interestingly enough such a network doesn't seem to exist, although it seems > to me it would require less resources than something like tor. And nobody > seems to be worried about having or not having that kind of network, which > strikes me as odd... Well, as I'm sure you know, high-latency mix networks -- Cypherpunk and Mixmaster remailers.[0] -- predate Tor. That's how I used the original cypherpunks list, way back when. A few years ago, I played with them a little. I got QuickSilver Lite running in Wine.[1] Basically, all email goes to alt.anonymous.messages, you download everything, and then your client finds stuff that you can decrypt. Some resources were (are?) available as .onion services. I probably have notes somewhere, if you're interested. I'm not sure why that all died. It _was_ bloody complicated, even with QuickSilver Lite. Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix networks. Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. Although I recall seeing a crude hack that pulled stuff from alt.anonymous.messages, and massaged it into a web page. >> I guess that you say that there is none, and we >> should all just organize our local cells. > > What I was trying to say is that, if the use case is 'criminal > activity', then using a 'low latency' network like tor which provides > centralized 'hidden' services is a not a good idea. It's more like a recipe > for disaster. Well, if you exclude low-latency networks, you're pretty much left with nothing to use. But even so, people who want anonymity, some of them doing illegal stuff, _will_ end up using Tor. So why not help them use it more safely? 0) https://remailer.paranoici.org/clist.html 1) https://www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
Original message From: Mirimir Date: 8/7/18 5:49 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not On 08/07/2018 05:04 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:21:12 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > >https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/us/postal-service-confirms-photographing-all-us-mail.html >Sad but true Pictures? The postal service admitted they have ways of scanning written mail content, en masse, quite some time ago. Rr >> On 08/06/2018 02:03 PM, juan wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:36:18 -0700 >>> Mirimir wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I bet that you use nothing. I mean, damn, you're using a Gmail account. >>> >>> yes, and I use it to order drugs via tor - after all many 'hidden' >>> services admins use their gmail accounts. That's how they get caught. >> >> Very funny :) >> >> But OK, let's say that Tor is Americunt honeypot. I mean, I have my >> doubts. But actually, the main reason why I don't order drugs from >> .onion marketplaces is not wanting to disclose my postal address. That's >> what earned DPR his first visit from the feds, after all. Fake IDs. > > > as a side note of sorts > > https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/us/postal-service-confirms-photographing-all-us-mail.html Sad but true. >> Anyway, Tor is out of consideration. What would you have people use for >> any sort of anonymity? JonDonym? I2P? Cruising public WiFi hotspots? > > > it obviously depends on what kind of 'anonimity'. Browse the web for > ordinary stuff while not being tracked by advertisers? a vpn. Or two. Or tor. lol > for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think > should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming > super full SHD video for retards? That's the question. I guess that you say that there is none, and we should all just organize our local cells. And maybe you're right. >> What? >> >> Or is it nothing? And if nothing, how useful is that? >> >> Or maybe you have some really cool thing, but you won't share it? >> >>>> So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:49:54 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > > > for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think > > should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming > > super full SHD video for retards? > > That's the question. And the answer is : some sort of 'high latency' mixing network. And interestingly enough such a network doesn't seem to exist, although it seems to me it would require less resources than something like tor. And nobody seems to be worried about having or not having that kind of network, which strikes me as odd... > I guess that you say that there is none, and we > should all just organize our local cells. What I was trying to say is that, if the use case is 'criminal activity', then using a 'low latency' network like tor which provides centralized 'hidden' services is a not a good idea. It's more like a recipe for disaster. > And maybe you're right. > > >> What? > >> > >> Or is it nothing? And if nothing, how useful is that? > >> > >> Or maybe you have some really cool thing, but you won't share it? > >> > So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever. > > > >>> > >>> > > > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/07/2018 05:04 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:21:12 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > >> On 08/06/2018 02:03 PM, juan wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:36:18 -0700 >>> Mirimir wrote: >>> >>> I bet that you use nothing. I mean, damn, you're using a Gmail account. >>> >>> yes, and I use it to order drugs via tor - after all many 'hidden' >>> services admins use their gmail accounts. That's how they get caught. >> >> Very funny :) >> >> But OK, let's say that Tor is Americunt honeypot. I mean, I have my >> doubts. But actually, the main reason why I don't order drugs from >> .onion marketplaces is not wanting to disclose my postal address. That's >> what earned DPR his first visit from the feds, after all. Fake IDs. > > > as a side note of sorts > > https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/us/postal-service-confirms-photographing-all-us-mail.html Sad but true. >> Anyway, Tor is out of consideration. What would you have people use for >> any sort of anonymity? JonDonym? I2P? Cruising public WiFi hotspots? > > > it obviously depends on what kind of 'anonimity'. Browse the web for > ordinary stuff while not being tracked by advertisers? a vpn. Or two. Or tor. lol > for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think > should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming > super full SHD video for retards? That's the question. I guess that you say that there is none, and we should all just organize our local cells. And maybe you're right. >> What? >> >> Or is it nothing? And if nothing, how useful is that? >> >> Or maybe you have some really cool thing, but you won't share it? >> So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever. >>> >>> > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, 5:05:46 PM PDT, juan wrote: as a side note of sorts https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/us/postal-service-confirms-photographing-all-us-mail.html × "But Mr. Donahoe said that the images had been used “a couple of times” by law enforcement to trace letters in criminal cases, including one involving ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. The images of letters and packages are generally stored for a week to 30 days and then destroyed, he told the A.P." [end of quote from article] About that article. I think it's curious that they claim to "destroy' the images after "a week to 30 days". If there are about 1 billion mailed items each year, and it takes 50 kilobytes to store an image (wild ass guess, and assuming some compression), that would amount to 50 terabytes of data: A bit more than 4 of the largest-capacity of hard drives currently sold. https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage/wd-gold-enterprise-class-hard-drive.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwhqXbBRAREiwAucoo-yp9zBDxr1hrojtP7nXAw8Trmtx4-9N8m5DAecI3hqQeTEyGeHWYjBoCg_IQAvD_BwE Think about it. If YOU had access to this data, would YOU erase it, if the storage only cost about $2000 per year? Jim Bell
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:21:12 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 08/06/2018 02:03 PM, juan wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:36:18 -0700 > > Mirimir wrote: > > > > > >> I bet that you use nothing. I mean, damn, you're using a Gmail account. > > > > yes, and I use it to order drugs via tor - after all many 'hidden' > > services admins use their gmail accounts. That's how they get caught. > > Very funny :) > > But OK, let's say that Tor is Americunt honeypot. I mean, I have my > doubts. But actually, the main reason why I don't order drugs from > .onion marketplaces is not wanting to disclose my postal address. That's > what earned DPR his first visit from the feds, after all. Fake IDs. as a side note of sorts https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/us/postal-service-confirms-photographing-all-us-mail.html > > Anyway, Tor is out of consideration. What would you have people use for > any sort of anonymity? JonDonym? I2P? Cruising public WiFi hotspots? it obviously depends on what kind of 'anonimity'. Browse the web for ordinary stuff while not being tracked by advertisers? a vpn. Or two. Or tor. for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming super full SHD video for retards? > > What? > > Or is it nothing? And if nothing, how useful is that? > > Or maybe you have some really cool thing, but you won't share it? > > >> So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever. > >> > >> > > > >
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
According to reputable sources only about 10% of the American colonists actively took part in the Revolution. Most sat on the sidelines even though their futures were most uncertain and they new their lives would be forever changed. Those who opposed the revolt, the Tories, were forced to emergrate to Canada, after their side lost. On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 7:26 PM Douglas Lucas wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/06/18 13:06, jim bell wrote: > > I've long believed that AP will "work" if only a few thousand > > well-targeted government employees are killed. > > It's basically a race: If the public is shown good evidence that > > government can be taken down, they will decide that government SHOULD be > > taken down. > > Would not the public also need to be shown evidence that there exists an > alternate system they can switch to which is better? Commoners I know > backpedal slowly when anyone unusual mentions overthrowing GovCorp. They > quickly realize it would interfere with their scheduled playdates with > their television sets. They are not friends of anyone who is highly > different. I think the millions of masses will only go along with > replacing the government when there exists an alternative that is > already providing benefits they can receive. Otherwise, inertia. > > Doug >
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
Hi, On 08/06/18 13:06, jim bell wrote: > I've long believed that AP will "work" if only a few thousand > well-targeted government employees are killed. > It's basically a race: If the public is shown good evidence that > government can be taken down, they will decide that government SHOULD be > taken down. Would not the public also need to be shown evidence that there exists an alternate system they can switch to which is better? Commoners I know backpedal slowly when anyone unusual mentions overthrowing GovCorp. They quickly realize it would interfere with their scheduled playdates with their television sets. They are not friends of anyone who is highly different. I think the millions of masses will only go along with replacing the government when there exists an alternative that is already providing benefits they can receive. Otherwise, inertia. Doug
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 20:06:38 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > If the public is shown good evidence that government can be taken down, they > will decide that government SHOULD be taken down. WHY will they do that? To take down the govt is a purely moral decision as your use of 'should' indicates. And the govenment SHOULD be taken down, AP or no AP. Except that ordinary people don't believe it should. > Do you have a solution better than AP? a solution for the political problem is a 'critical mass' of libertarians opposing the government or seceding. And I mean REAL libertarians. Not the ayn rand, big business worshiping, american type. > If you don't, you need to explain why people will choose the status quo over > an AP solution. talking about 'people' is pretty much meaningless without explaing which particular people you are referrign to. But overall 'adult' people have been subjected to enough indoctrination and coercion so as to render them useless in a fight against the state. That is, if they are not outright state agents or state cronies, like all economic interests are. And a sizeable amount of people benefit from statism. Think about americans for instance. Ordinary americans benefit from the fact that the US govt and corporations rape the whole world. Why would they support AP? > Jim Bell > > > > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/06/2018 02:03 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:36:18 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > > >> I bet that you use nothing. I mean, damn, you're using a Gmail account. > > yes, and I use it to order drugs via tor - after all many 'hidden' > services admins use their gmail accounts. That's how they get caught. Very funny :) But OK, let's say that Tor is Americunt honeypot. I mean, I have my doubts. But actually, the main reason why I don't order drugs from .onion marketplaces is not wanting to disclose my postal address. That's what earned DPR his first visit from the feds, after all. Fake IDs. Anyway, Tor is out of consideration. What would you have people use for any sort of anonymity? JonDonym? I2P? Cruising public WiFi hotspots? What? Or is it nothing? And if nothing, how useful is that? Or maybe you have some really cool thing, but you won't share it? >> So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever. >> >> > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:36:18 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > I bet that you use nothing. I mean, damn, you're using a Gmail account. yes, and I use it to order drugs via tor - after all many 'hidden' services admins use their gmail accounts. That's how they get caught. > So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever. > >
Re: the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/06/2018 01:21 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:30:50 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: >> But seriously, if Tor is just Americunt honeypot, what do _you_ use for >> anonymity? > > whatever I use, or don't use, has exactly FUCK to do with any half > sensible analysis of the US military tor network. So why do you even ask? And > whatever I use, or don't, you think I would comment on it here? I bet that you use nothing. I mean, damn, you're using a Gmail account. So maybe living in Argentina is your only protection. Whatever.
the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:30:50 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 08/06/2018 12:07 PM, juan wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:14:11 -0700 > > Mirimir wrote: > > > >> That's a good point about bettors needing good enough anonymity to avoid > >> arrest. Even so, evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums > >> suggests that Tor is good enough for users. > > > > > > what evidence are you talking about > > The apparent lack of user prosecutions not explained by .onion > compromises. Last year, I researched the issue carefully, and I didn't > find any.[0] But maybe I missed something. Can you point to examples? No, I don't have access to the records of the american stasi, interpol and the like. And of course I don't assume that using the nsa search engine gives any trustable information. Plus, your 'legal' system is explicitly based on secret laws and secret procedures, so even if there was some real information out there, you can't access it. > > wow - so did you get a bonus from the pentagon? Is that why you started > > posting pentagon propandad in this list again? > > Don't I wish ;) you seem to have some trouble understanding what 'evidence' means. I'll give you one example. The stuff you post is evidence that you are a tor propagandist. That's REAL evidence. Fact : you are an 'anonymous' poster who posts tor propaganda. (And that EVIDENCE is a good starting point to guess that you are paid to do so.) > > so why do you keep parroting pentagon propaganda if you know how it > > works? > > So can you point to counterexamples? counterexamples of what? Again why do you parrot pentagon propaganda if you are aware of the secret laws that your legal system is based on? That has fuck to do with any counterexample. > And if we can't trust _anything_ findable on the Internet, then I guess > we're just screwed ;) yes - at any rate it should be obvious that if you think you are going to get 'military grade' 'anonimity' 'good enough' to kill trump and cronies, courtesy of the pentagon, then you are, at the very best, completely delusional. > But seriously, if Tor is just Americunt honeypot, what do _you_ use for > anonymity? whatever I use, or don't use, has exactly FUCK to do with any half sensible analysis of the US military tor network. So why do you even ask? And whatever I use, or don't, you think I would comment on it here? so now, let's look at some REAL EVIDENCE regarding the US military network tor. 1) people using it end up in jail, in jail for life, or suicided in a jail in thailand. 2) none of the non-criminal operations like selling drugs or distributing so called 'child porn' last more than a year, at best. Maybe the NSA can find them in a month, a week or a day, but if they found them too quickly they would reveal their game. 3) tor has had countless 'bugs' but never a 'backdoor' 4) even supreme scum syverson TELLS YOU that tor doesnt work https://www.ohmygodel.com/publications/usersrouted-ccs13.pdf and that deals with ordinary users, not even 'hidden' aka revealed services. 5) backbone surveillance has been documented for a long while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A and you do NOT KNOW what their systems for traffic analysis look like and can do. But there are some hints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarusInsight 5) here's what the US military use tor for http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=816 "the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum" arab spring = US military coup of course. and you do know what happened to agent applebaum when he deviated somewhat from the US military party line. See? What happened to appelbaum is more FUCKING EVIDENCE about the nature of the people running tor. 6) in the past you could find links on reddit to .onion sites that kinda looked 'uncensored'. Those sites do not exist anymore. But feel free to prove me wrong and POST EVIDENCE, that is, links to content that the 'authorities' would like to remove but can't. I might add some more evidence later.
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
My comments inline: On Sunday, August 5, 2018, 9:36:18 PM PDT, Steve Kinney wrote: >Listen up you punks... >I will assume that readers already know how "Assasination Politics" >a.k.a. AP works. If not, look it up: I consider it a brilliant idea. >But like many brilliant ideas, one can find structural flaws if one >looks closely enough. Here's my set: Remember, my AP essay was written in 1995-96, before Ethereum, Augur, Bitcoin (and the other coins, including anonymous coins like Zcash), TOR, etc. >1) AP treats anonymity on the networks as a 'primitive', that is, a >Platonic ideal: One either has anonymity or not, and if one does, >nobody can remove it regardless of resources brought to bear. Ideally, that would be the case. But donor-anonymity, especially for donors who donate a dollar or so, might not be important. >I see anonymity on the networks as nearly always relative and nearly >never absolute. To achieve absolute anonymity, an individual must >commit "the perfect crime" by connecting to the networks once, briefly, >by physically breaking in at an access point not personally associated >with him or herself. Typically, that's the case. But how far this can be achieved will probably depend on how Ethereum/Augur is being implemented. >If not seen coming or going (a tricky prospect in 'civilized' countries these days), and all digital fingerprints left behind present a generic, non-traceable profile, success: Unbreakable anonymity. But any lesser feat of operational cyber-warfare leaves some smaller or larger probability that the message in question will be attributed to the right person. Maybe you are thinking that "government" will have enough time to not merely stop AP, but in fact survive. >I say "message" rather than "messages" because each instance of 100% anonymous network access presents a fresh challenge. Re-using the same access point and/or techniques could potentially create an identifiable profile. "Really anonymous" network access presents as a job for well trained intelligence officers and/or assets, not John and Jane Q. Public looking to fund the removal of a politician they don't like. I've long believed that AP will "work" if only a few thousand well-targeted government employees are killed.It's basically a race: If the public is shown good evidence that government can be taken down, they will decide that government SHOULD be taken down. >Designers and operators of anonymizing overlay networks generally agree, their tools do not by themselves provide "life safety" grade protection against an adversary with global network surveillance capability. True. But with millions of donors, and potentially thousands of killers, that may not make much of a difference. >Within the borders of a given State with a highly funded intelligence establishment, such global adversaries already exist. If AP rears its very interesting head, the first response from the community targeted for termination would include command directives and blank checks to turn the AP process inside out. Thus would exploitable gaps in network surveillance close up fast. >AP depends on the ready availability of anonymity to thousands or millions bettors, and dozens or hundreds of professional assassins. I don't think that anonymity to bettors is particularly necessary, especially if the bets are small. "They" can't drag 100,000 people into a courtroom to try them for the same crime. "Participation in any 'lottery of the doomed' (RIP Spain Rodriguez - and Trashman, agent of the 6th International) would immediately become a Federal felony with stiff minimum mandatory sentences." Buying illegal drugs from Silk Road and its successors was similarly illegal, yet they lasted for years, until and including today. In addition, such black markets weren't (and are presumably not yet) protected by an AP-type system. If 1% of the gross margin of the current version of a Silk Road operation was dedicated to pay assassins of anyone who prosecutes judges such a case, I suspect that will become impregnable. > The unavailability of absolute anonymity for assassins, or even half-assed anonymity for John and Jane Q. Public, would at best seriously degrade the whole program. Again, it's a question of time. A working, efficient AP-type system could take down governments much faster than governments could react to that event. An analogy: Any fire department would eventually put out just about any house fire. But that doesn't mean that the house would remain habitable. >2) Large numbers make fools of us all. AP appears to presume that abusive politicians. and the cartels of billionaires who elect and direct them, can not out-spend 'honest' participants in AP by orders of magnitude at need. Well... they can. And if required, they will. How would that work? I like to point out that the Federal government taxes at least 3 trillion dollars per year. If
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/06/2018 12:17 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:14:11 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > > >> Adequate anonymity for assassins is a much harder problem. However, >> evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums also suggests >> that Tor would be good enough. > > wow - so did you get a bonus from the pentagon? Is that why you started > posting pentagon propandad in this list again? Don't I wish ;) But seriously, if Tor is just Americunt honeypot, what do _you_ use for anonymity?
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/06/2018 12:17 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:14:11 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: >> it seems that virtually all busts involved >> serious OPSEC fails. > > oh sorry, got it, when you say "evidence' you mean "the pentagon-tor > propaganda I parrot" > > >> But of course it's possible that public evidence is >> all parallel construction bullshit. And that the NSA nailed them all. > > > so why do you keep parroting pentagon propaganda if you know how it > works? So can you point to counterexamples? And if we can't trust _anything_ findable on the Internet, then I guess we're just screwed ;)
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/06/2018 12:07 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:14:11 -0700 > Mirimir wrote: > >> That's a good point about bettors needing good enough anonymity to avoid >> arrest. Even so, evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums >> suggests that Tor is good enough for users. > > > what evidence are you talking about The apparent lack of user prosecutions not explained by .onion compromises. Last year, I researched the issue carefully, and I didn't find any.[0] But maybe I missed something. Can you point to examples? 0) https://www.ivpn.net/privacy-guides/online-privacy-through-opsec-and-compartmentalization-part-2
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:14:11 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > Adequate anonymity for assassins is a much harder problem. However, > evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums also suggests > that Tor would be good enough. wow - so did you get a bonus from the pentagon? Is that why you started posting pentagon propandad in this list again? > If coupled with good OPSEC. At least, > based on public evidence, what evidence > it seems that virtually all busts involved > serious OPSEC fails. oh sorry, got it, when you say "evidence' you mean "the pentagon-tor propaganda I parrot" > But of course it's possible that public evidence is > all parallel construction bullshit. And that the NSA nailed them all. so why do you keep parroting pentagon propaganda if you know how it works? > Right, there could be lots of AP lotteries. And so no way to control > targeting of whatever class of individuals, and of one lottery by > others. Even so, the wealthy _already_ live in anarchy. In that the > rules don't apply to them. that's not what anarchy means. > States are just their tools. so they are the #1 statists.
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:14:11 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > That's a good point about bettors needing good enough anonymity to avoid > arrest. Even so, evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums > suggests that Tor is good enough for users. what evidence are you talking about
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/06/2018 12:14 PM, Mirimir wrote: > On 08/05/2018 09:35 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: >> Listen up you punks... > > Thanks for that. Overall, it's a great analysis, and I mostly agree. > > > >> I see anonymity on the networks as nearly always relative and nearly >> never absolute. To achieve absolute anonymity, an individual must >> commit "the perfect crime" by connecting to the networks once, briefly, >> by physically breaking in at an access point not personally associated >> with him or herself. > > Yes, I totally agree. There is no "absolute anonymity". > > > >> AP depends on the ready availability of anonymity to thousands or >> millions bettors, and dozens or hundreds of professional assassins. >> Participation in any 'lottery of the doomed' (RIP Spain Rodriguez - and >> Trashman, agent of the 6th International) would immediately become a >> Federal felony with stiff minimum mandatory sentences. The >> unavailability of absolute anonymity for assassins, or even half-assed >> anonymity for John and Jane Q. Public, would at best seriously degrade >> the whole program. > > That's a good point about bettors needing good enough anonymity to avoid > arrest. Even so, evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums > suggests that Tor is good enough for users. Where users have been > busted, it's generally followed .onion compromise, with adversaries > dropping phone-home malware. And even then, it was mainly Windows users > who got nailed. Whonix users, on the other hand, would have been safe. > Especially if they hit Tor through nested VPN chains. I don't think today's criminal uses of the TOR network provide an adequate model of circumstances in a world where someone has implemented the AP protocol against ruling class interests. Then, funding and motivation for breaking network anonymity would be effectively unlimited. We should also expect to see unprecedented international cooperation in network surveillance, since the networks cross most borders and so do the interests of most potential AP target persons and their enterprises. In the event that AP lotteries prove difficult to roll up quickly through existing surveillance and law enforcement techniques, we should also expect to see TOR, I2P, etc. outlawed, and signals intelligence assets dedicated to interrupting traffic and shutting down relays. Fun's fun and intelligence services have their own uses for these networks, but none of those uses would compare in importance to keeping the people our intelligence services ultimately work for alive. > Busts of some .onion sites and users have involved Tor compromise. Most > notably, exploitation of the relay-early bug by CMU researchers, who > shared their data with the FBI. And once the .onion sites were pwned, > more users got nailed. For example, Playpen. > > So anyway, I'm not convinced that it's hopeless for bettors. But privacy > advocates would need to better spread the word about good OPSEC. I don't think "hopless" conditions would be necessary to deter most potential contributors from participating in AP lotteries as funders. Propagandists routinely use handfuls of worst case examples to promote fantasy threat models, creating a perception of imminent personal danger across very wide audiences. > Adequate anonymity for assassins is a much harder problem. However, > evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums also suggests > that Tor would be good enough. If coupled with good OPSEC. At least, > based on public evidence, it seems that virtually all busts involved > serious OPSEC fails. But of course it's possible that public evidence is > all parallel construction bullshit. And that the NSA nailed them all. > > There's also the issue that assassins aren't necessarily skilled at > network OPSEC. And vice versa. I mean, I'm for sure no assassin :) So > there would certainly be fails. But even so, survival of assassins is > arguably not a prerequisite for workable AP, as long as there's an > adequate pool. And especially if assassins don't expect to survive. Ideologically motivated assassins who don't expect to survive look for funding before, not after doing the deed; and they normally select their own targets. So I would consider a reasonable expectation of surviving to collect the bounty as an essential motive for assassins to participate in AP. Except maybe when they participate just to raise funds for their own privately motivated "do and die" projects. :D >> 2) Large numbers make fools of us all. AP appears to presume that >> abusive politicians. and the cartels of billionaires who elect and >> direct them, can not out-spend 'honest' participants in AP by orders of >> magnitude at need. Well... they can. And if required, they will. > > Yeah, this has always concerned me. And I don't see a solution. > >> 3) As a general conclusion, I think that for AP to work as intended and >> usher in an age of NAP based Anarchist society - an objective no
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
On 08/05/2018 09:35 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: > Listen up you punks... Thanks for that. Overall, it's a great analysis, and I mostly agree. > I see anonymity on the networks as nearly always relative and nearly > never absolute. To achieve absolute anonymity, an individual must > commit "the perfect crime" by connecting to the networks once, briefly, > by physically breaking in at an access point not personally associated > with him or herself. Yes, I totally agree. There is no "absolute anonymity". > AP depends on the ready availability of anonymity to thousands or > millions bettors, and dozens or hundreds of professional assassins. > Participation in any 'lottery of the doomed' (RIP Spain Rodriguez - and > Trashman, agent of the 6th International) would immediately become a > Federal felony with stiff minimum mandatory sentences. The > unavailability of absolute anonymity for assassins, or even half-assed > anonymity for John and Jane Q. Public, would at best seriously degrade > the whole program. That's a good point about bettors needing good enough anonymity to avoid arrest. Even so, evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums suggests that Tor is good enough for users. Where users have been busted, it's generally followed .onion compromise, with adversaries dropping phone-home malware. And even then, it was mainly Windows users who got nailed. Whonix users, on the other hand, would have been safe. Especially if they hit Tor through nested VPN chains. Busts of some .onion sites and users have involved Tor compromise. Most notably, exploitation of the relay-early bug by CMU researchers, who shared their data with the FBI. And once the .onion sites were pwned, more users got nailed. For example, Playpen. So anyway, I'm not convinced that it's hopeless for bettors. But privacy advocates would need to better spread the word about good OPSEC. Adequate anonymity for assassins is a much harder problem. However, evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums also suggests that Tor would be good enough. If coupled with good OPSEC. At least, based on public evidence, it seems that virtually all busts involved serious OPSEC fails. But of course it's possible that public evidence is all parallel construction bullshit. And that the NSA nailed them all. There's also the issue that assassins aren't necessarily skilled at network OPSEC. And vice versa. I mean, I'm for sure no assassin :) So there would certainly be fails. But even so, survival of assassins is arguably not a prerequisite for workable AP, as long as there's an adequate pool. And especially if assassins don't expect to survive. > 2) Large numbers make fools of us all. AP appears to presume that > abusive politicians. and the cartels of billionaires who elect and > direct them, can not out-spend 'honest' participants in AP by orders of > magnitude at need. Well... they can. And if required, they will. Yeah, this has always concerned me. And I don't see a solution. > 3) As a general conclusion, I think that for AP to work as intended and > usher in an age of NAP based Anarchist society - an objective no truly > sane individual could oppose IMO - it would be necessary for only > "honest" lotteries that deny targeting of "Libertarian" figures to > present games. But two can play at any game, as long as the second > players in question happen to be filthy rich. Right, there could be lots of AP lotteries. And so no way to control targeting of whatever class of individuals, and of one lottery by others. Even so, the wealthy _already_ live in anarchy. In that the rules don't apply to them. States are just their tools. So what AP could do is level the playing field a little. > In real life, "Operate an AP lottery, die within weeks of announcing it > to the public and getting enough capital under management to motivate an > assassin." Or in a best case scenario, pull 20 years without parole in > a Federal prison. That same sentence would also be available to any > random participant who happens to get "outed" by any of several > technical means readily available to the NSA and comparable signals > intelligence services. > > I do believe that the above factors explain why Assassination Politics > has not been implemented in the 20 or so years the instructions have > been floating around. As far as I know, nobody has even tried. > > Alas, for those who want to Change The World from the bottom up, it > looks to me like conventional populist political warfare - the darkest > of the Dark Arts - in the sense that nearly nobody outside agencies > tasked to prevent it knows the first damn thing about how it works - > remains the only game in town. Maybe so. But time will tell, I suppose. If I were part of proto AP in Augur, I'd be getting very nervous ;)
Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
The printing of vast and corrupt stately sums always has a tough time going up against - The hero of the peoples, singular, or plural, philosophically - Defection of States armies to the peoples in civil war No such asshole states last forever.
AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not
Listen up you punks... I will assume that readers already know how "Assasination Politics" a.k.a. AP works. If not, look it up: I consider it a brilliant idea. But like many brilliant ideas, one can find structural flaws if one looks closely enough. Here's my set: 1) AP treats anonymity on the networks as a 'primitive', that is, a Platonic ideal: One either has anonymity or not, and if one does, nobody can remove it regardless of resources brought to bear. I see anonymity on the networks as nearly always relative and nearly never absolute. To achieve absolute anonymity, an individual must commit "the perfect crime" by connecting to the networks once, briefly, by physically breaking in at an access point not personally associated with him or herself. If not seen coming or going (a tricky prospect in 'civilized' countries these days), and all digital fingerprints left behind present a generic, non-traceable profile, success: Unbreakable anonymity. But any lesser feat of operational cyber-warfare leaves some smaller or larger probability that the message in question will be attributed to the right person. I say "message" rather than "messages" because each instance of 100% anonymous network access presents a fresh challenge. Re-using the same access point and/or techniques could potentially create an identifiable profile. "Really anonymous" network access presents as a job for well trained intelligence officers and/or assets, not John and Jane Q. Public looking to fund the removal of a politician they don't like. Designers and operators of anonymizing overlay networks generally agree, their tools do not by themselves provide "life safety" grade protection against an adversary with global network surveillance capability. Within the borders of a given State with a highly funded intelligence establishment, such global adversaries already exist. If AP rears its very interesting head, the first response from the community targeted for termination would include command directives and blank checks to turn the AP process inside out. Thus would exploitable gaps in network surveillance close up fast. AP depends on the ready availability of anonymity to thousands or millions bettors, and dozens or hundreds of professional assassins. Participation in any 'lottery of the doomed' (RIP Spain Rodriguez - and Trashman, agent of the 6th International) would immediately become a Federal felony with stiff minimum mandatory sentences. The unavailability of absolute anonymity for assassins, or even half-assed anonymity for John and Jane Q. Public, would at best seriously degrade the whole program. 2) Large numbers make fools of us all. AP appears to presume that abusive politicians. and the cartels of billionaires who elect and direct them, can not out-spend 'honest' participants in AP by orders of magnitude at need. Well... they can. And if required, they will. Bounties on actual and perceived "enemies of the State and ruling class" participating in the AP process would greatly exceed bounties on State and corporate offenders within weeks of the first pay-out by an honest AP game. Massive bounties for "information leading to the arrest and conviction" of AP operators and anyone collecting bets made in that lottery would greatly exceed those available to "honest" assassins who play by the rules of AP. (Anyone here naive enough to believe that AP lotteries can not and will not be outlawed within days of a perceived reason to do so?) Combined with top priority directives to /all/ intelligence and law enforcement agencies to shut that shit down PRONTO, hostile AP-like games would create a steep uphill climb for honest AP participants and winners. For a quick correction to "common sense" assumptions about income disparity in the USA - which is less than asset disparity by a couple of orders of magnitude - see http//lcurve.org 3) As a general conclusion, I think that for AP to work as intended and usher in an age of NAP based Anarchist society - an objective no truly sane individual could oppose IMO - it would be necessary for only "honest" lotteries that deny targeting of "Libertarian" figures to present games. But two can play at any game, as long as the second players in question happen to be filthy rich. In real life, "Operate an AP lottery, die within weeks of announcing it to the public and getting enough capital under management to motivate an assassin." Or in a best case scenario, pull 20 years without parole in a Federal prison. That same sentence would also be available to any random participant who happens to get "outed" by any of several technical means readily available to the NSA and comparable signals intelligence services. I do believe that the above factors explain why Assassination Politics has not been implemented in the 20 or so years the instructions have been floating around. As far as I know, nobody has even tried. Alas, for those who want to Change The World from the
