Re: Katzenpost: Traffic analysis resistant messaging
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:52:19AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > https://katzenpost.mixnetworks.org/ > https://github.com/katzenpost/ > > Katzenpost > “An especially problematic excision of the political is the > marginalization within the cryptographic community of the > secure-messaging problem, an instance of which was the problem > addressed by David Chaum. Secure-messaging is the most fundamental > privacy problem in cryptography: how can parties communicate in such a > way that nobody knows who said what. More than a decade after the > problem was introduced, Rackoff and Simon would comment on the > near-absence of attention being paid to the it.” (Phillip Rogaway, The > Moral Character of Cryptographic Work) > > Goals > to prevent a sufficiently global passive adversary from learning > who is communicating with whom > to detect active attacks against the network infrastructure > hide message content from participating providers, hide recipient > identity from the sender’s provider, and the sender identity from the > recipient’s provider > reliable out of order delivery > support for various “message based” use cases like ‘instant > messaging’, ‘e-mail’, and ‘crypto currency’ anonymization That's a sufficient summary. +1
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What > We've Learned From WikiLeaks.. so assamge helped the socialist corporatist fascist trump to gain power and now he's going to be lynched by his 'ally' - I kinda wonder what was assange thinking
BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
NovaSAR:. First all-UK SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite sends back images. NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46312874
HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-top-stories-julian-assange_us_5bf33e8de4b0d9e7283c4451?ncid=NEWSSTAND0001
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:00:23 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > NovaSAR:. First all-UK SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite sends back > images. amazing new tool for the complete enslavement of the human race, thanks to western fascist 'science' I guess that kind of news is rather important for cypherpunks because of the "know your enemy" principle.
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:00:23 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > NovaSAR:. First all-UK SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite sends back > images. "The Pentagon's Rampaging Surveillance Blimp Will Fly Again" http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/rampaging-blimp-will-fly-again/ "U.S. border patrol flies huge blimps with low-altitude radar to detect drones trying to cross border" https://www.recode.net/2016/11/8/13566270/wall-drones-border-control-mexico-drugs-blimp
Alternative Comms Channels: Torrenting the OpenPGP, Blockchains, and DarkNets
https://torrentfreak.com/openpgp-keyservers-now-store-irremovable-torrent-magnet-links-180907/ https://medium.com/@mdrahony/sks-keyservers-being-used-as-piracy-sites-59ce5144101f Now if the bittorrent communities would simply move onto the encrypted p2p overlay networks, they could operate freely with relative impunity [1]. Data and metadata are published on the blockchains too. [1] Up to some level of interest by antis, at least until more secure networks are developed. Still the bar for antis is reasonably high today for some use cases and networks. Massive global torrenting and filestores would be a good test of that. Have fun :) https://7layers.semperen.com/content/pgp-keyserver-dumps-now-available https://www.gpg4win.org/ https://macgpg.sourceforge.io/ , https://gpgtools.org/ https://gnupg.org/ https://keybase.io/
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
> are you sure the satellites from that time had *radar* at 6 meters > resolution? Weren't they just optical? Jim's wikipedia ref and links above cover that. Here's another SAR dataset... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Radar_Topography_Mission Paid for with money stolen from US "taxpayers" and the best 30m data witheld as CLASSIFIED as further insult upon the payers as the true owners for 14 years. The US Govt (NGIA) doesn't release stuff like that unless it's: beyond lifetime dead, or under heavy political / humanitarian pressure, or long surpassed by public tech... the likely case here. Quasi commercial radar imaging seems now at or better than 1m. Optical is said to be better. TOP SECRET of either... you're beyond fucked. Here's a few more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceborne_Imaging_Radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Spaceborne_Thermal_Emission_and_Reflection_Radiometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopSat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraSAR-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TanDEM-X "Seasat was able to detect the wakes of submerged submarines, a discovery not anticipated before launch.[8] The conspiracy theory holds that once this was discovered, the military shut SEASAT down, with a cover story of a power supply short."
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 10:51:29 AM PST, juan wrote: On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:00:23 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: >> NovaSAR:. First all-UK SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite sends back >> images. > amazing new tool for the complete enslavement of the human race, thanks to western fascist 'science' > I guess that kind of news is rather important for cypherpunks because of >the "know your enemy" principle. Before you spout your paranoia, you should be aware that SAR has been used since the 1960's, and was actually conceived in 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar It is enormously useful, and became much more practical as computer technology advanced, especially in the 1980's. (it is necessary to turn thousands of individual radar-returns into a 2-D or 3-D image, a process that became far easier with the advent of high-speed computers in the 1970s.) We can try to imagine how SAR can be used for "the complete enslavement of the human race", but nevertheless I don't see very much, even when I turn my "paranoid-mode" dial up to "11". This particular satellite is said to have a resolution of 6 meters. It's hard for me to imagine how being able to detect voxels (3-D pixels) of 6 meter on a side, from space, could enable "the complete enslavement of the human race". It could detect the existence of houses and cars, but those items have been detectable from space since the 1970's using optical satellites. It can detect buried artillery emplacements, such as those of North Korea, but the average ordinary citizen doesn't have buried artillery emplacements. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9315/this-is-how-america-keeps-watch-over-north-korea-from-the-sky In the 1990's, space-shuttle-based SAR was used to identify the ancient city of Ubar, found primarily by noticing the lines on the map produced by hundreds of years of wagon-wheel compaction of the deserts, which could be identified and imaged under feet of sand. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA01721 It can be used to detect bulging of a few inches height, over an area of tens or hundreds of square miles, such as was done over a place called Sisters, Oregon, starting in 2001. Google 'Sisters Oregon SAR magma bulge' for some details. One resulthttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/226843737_Continuing_inflation_at_Three_Sisters_volcanic_center_central_Oregon_Cascade_Range_USA_from_GPS_leveling_and_InSAR_observations× The underwater analog of SAR is called "side-scan sonar", which was developed in the late 1970's and 1980's by (among others) Harold Edgerton, late professor-emeritus at MIT. This can be used to accurately map seabeds, as was used in the recent successful search for that Argentine submarine that sank about a year ago. (and in the as-yet unsuccessful search for that missing Maylaysia aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 Very cheap sonar imagers are apparently available for boating use. https://www.boatingmag.com/using-side-scan-sonar I don't claim (and it would be foolish to claim) that there are no "anti-freedom" applications for SAR. But I cannot imagine many of those, compared to the others. Jim Bell
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
>> Probably an inside joke on 21M BTC as well. >> Though it will probably be Cryptocurrency and >> even Metals that get the last laugh. >> Consider that Cryptocurrency AnCap's have and will have >> enough resources to launch their own satellites soon. > NovaSAR-S makes primitive but useful LandSat functions available to > organizations working on shoestring budgets. NovaSAR-S shift the > balance of power in the electronic warfare terrain toward some > "underdog" players, by eroding intelligence (Earth imaging) monopolies > presently held by the world's most powerful organizations. It's not the tools, but those who you foolishly put in power and stupidly let use them over you.
Russia's Roscosmos head vows "USA moon landing" verification - [PEACE]
Russia, that most maligned group of 144 million people, keeping the ISS in the air and bring in a slightly less insane multi-polar world order, riding bears in the wilderness, meddling in literally all the world's elections oh my god I'm like so literally shaking like! Well, one of the world's greatest conspiracy theories is set to soon be debunked as Roscosmos vows to put the pedal to the metal and check the landing site for realz! Oh yeah - what's not to love? Russia To Verify Whether USA Actually Landed On The Moon https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-24/russia-verify-whether-usa-actually-landed-moon https://www.apnews.com/1966a07c5a63419fb825ed7a92cec8de Dmitry Rogozin: "I answer questions of the President of Moldova: whether there were Americans on the moon... We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they've been there or not." … While Rogozin's comments may have been made in jest, in 2015 a former spokesman for the Russian Investigative Committee called for a probe into the American moon landings. Until Russia can "verify" the moon landing, we anticipate a lively discussin on Van Allen belt radiation and laser reflectors to ensue...
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 19:58:32 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 10:51:29 AM PST, juan > wrote: > > > On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:00:23 + (UTC) > jim bell wrote: > > >> NovaSAR:. First all-UK SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite sends back > >> images. > > > > amazing new tool for the complete enslavement of the human race, thanks > to western fascist 'science' > > > I guess that kind of news is rather important for cypherpunks because of > >the "know your enemy" principle. > > > Before you spout your paranoia, wow - very disappointing. You might want to think before displaying such a kneejerk reaction when confronted with reality. > you should be aware that SAR has been used since the 1960's, so? I didn't make a comment on any specific date. "new tool" was sarcasm referring to the fact that when advertising garbage, it's usually described as "new and improved". > We can try to imagine how SAR can be used for "the complete enslavement of > the human race", but nevertheless I don't see very much, even when I turn my > "paranoid-mode" dial up to "11". wow - you are trying to mock your betters and only mocking yourself =) - The phenomenom is known as "involuntary self parody". > This particular satellite is said to have a resolution of 6 meters. It's > hard for me to imagine how being able to detect voxels (3-D pixels) of 6 > meter on a side, from space, could enable "the complete enslavement of the > human race". your lack of imagination isn't an argument though. It's more like the "argumentum ad ignoramtiam" fallacy. you might want to consider that the resolution will be improved, for starters. > It can detect buried artillery emplacements, such as those of North Korea, LMAO at the right wing war propaganda. > > It can be used to detect bulging of a few inches height, I thought you said the resolution was 6 meters? > I don't claim (and it would be foolish to claim) that there are no > "anti-freedom" applications for SAR. But I cannot imagine many of those, > compared to the others. In other words, you completely miss the point? Now, let's ignore reality and follow the bullshit 'progressive' propaganda about how amazing 'technology' is. WHY should crypto anarchists care about it? What kind of anarchist or libertarian gives a fuck about the 'applications' you listed?
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 10:58:07 AM PST, juan
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 + (UTC)
jim bell wrote:
>> HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What
>> We've Learned From WikiLeaks..
BTW, I utterly detest Huffington Post. But that doesn't prevent me from
posting articles from it. ("A stopped clock is right twice a day").
> so assamge helped the socialist corporatist fascist trump to gain power and
>now he's going to be lynched by his 'ally' - I kinda wonder what was assange
>thinking
In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange: I very much wanted
Hillary Clinton to lose the election. That doesn't mean that I wanted Donald
Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the Democrat to lose
means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins. (How I wish that were
not the case!!!)
The big difference is that the only thing I did to attempt to cause Hillary
Clinton to lose, was to vote for Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate. (I voted
in the American state of Washington, which went 54.3% for Hillary, and so my
vote (for Johnson) wouldn't have accomplished anything even if I had voted for
Trump.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Washington_(state),_2016
Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably
caused Hillary to lose the election. Which I very much liked, of course.
Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt: They were
corrupt before Assange publicized that fact. Do you blame Assange for exposing
political corruption? I certainly don't.
Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news
media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free publicity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other
references. It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course. Naturally, the MSM
wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election: If they were honest,
they would have admitted that they were trying to get Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to
lose the nomination. Which they did. But they hoped that Trump would lose the
general. Which, due to Hillary's great scandals, he didn't. So, I'd say that
the MSM was primarily responsible for causing Trump to win the nomination.
Which they seemingly admit, or at least admitted, before Trump won the general
election.
Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing Trump
to win the election. Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should understand that.
I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal, but he certainly did things
to cause some powerful American politicians to dislike, even hate him.
Particularly in regard to the 2016 election, as far as I know he merely
accepted, and then publicized, information embarrassing to the DNC, John
Podesta, and Hillary Clinton. The news media claims that he accepted hacked
emails from Russia: I think that even if we accept the idea that Russia hacked
emails, that does not inherently prove that the emails Assange published
necessarily came from Russia, or only from Russia. And, it also doesn't prove
that Assange knew, for certain, that (even if some of those emails came from
Russia or Russian citizens) that those emails came from Russia.
As I understand it, Wikileaks had set up an anonymous donation system, designed
to guarantee that each donor would maintain anonymity when submitting their
leaks. Which, I think, was great! Precisely what should have been done. But
that anonymity also provided deniability: Wikileaks couldn't be assumed to
know from where that information came from, or how it had been obtained.
I have read, a few years ago, implications that Assange may have been somehow
involved more with Manning's leaks. Would that lead to criminal liability?
Since this entire subject is vague, it's hard to express an opinion about this.
But the (American) definition of "conspiracy" tends to be, "an agreement by
two or more to commit a crime, followed by a single overt act". Assuming what
Manning did was a crime, it was copying State Department information. I don't
see how Assange's willingness to accept that information, even if it was
expressed before Manning copied that material, amounted to a "conspiracy".
Assange presumably didn't "agree" to commit a crime. He probably did not
"assist" in any crime. Manning could have copied that information and sent it
to any news organization; maybe they would have published it just as Assange
did. Assange probably did no more than most media outlets would be willing
to do everyday. It likely was that the only thing Assange arguably did was to
express a willingness to publicize information.
Jim Bell
×
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On 11/24/18 1:51 PM, juan wrote: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:00:23 + (UTC) > jim bell wrote: > >> NovaSAR:. First all-UK SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite sends back >> images. [...] > I guess that kind of news is rather important for cypherpunks because > of the "know your enemy" principle. vs. "Know your terrain," which includes many new (to human experience) overlays generated by sensors and communications networks. On the other hand, other than being a really cool ham radio project (I would describe it as almost literally that) what's the new radar satellite actually used for? https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/n/novasar-s quote: NovaSAR-S provides medium resolution (6-30 m) imagery ideal for applications in the following fields: - flood monitoring - agricultural crop assessment - forest monitoring (temperate and rain forest) - land use mapping - disaster management - maritime applications (e.g. ship detection, oil spill monitoring, maritime safety, and security of defence applications). /quote In terms of this gadget's potential for military and State Security purposes, that's almost laughable: A flyswatter vs. laser guided artillery rounds comparison fits the case of comparing NovaSAR-S to military sensor packages. NovaSAR-S makes primitive but useful LandSat functions available to organizations working on shoestring budgets. NovaSAR-S shift the balance of power in the electronic warfare terrain toward some "underdog" players, by eroding intelligence (Earth imaging) monopolies presently held by the world's most powerful organizations. :o) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 03:58:06PM -0300, Juan wrote: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 + (UTC) > jim bell wrote: > > > HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What > > We've Learned From WikiLeaks.. > > so assamge helped the socialist corporatist fascist trump to gain power > and now he's going to be lynched by his 'ally' - I kinda wonder what was > assange thinking Hillary "Butcher of Lybia" Clinton and her effective 'I promise you war against Russia' narrative probably cinched that one... Trump could barely have asked for a "better" opponent to run against.
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45523677 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA01721 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226843737_Continuing_inflation_at_Three_Sisters_volcanic_center_central_Oregon_Cascade_Range_USA_from_GPS_leveling_and_InSAR_observations > This particular satellite is said to have a resolution of 6 meters. Nobody is going to waste their money launching a pathetic 6m toy that doesn't even match 1990s - 2001 tech. Today's rigs could surely be expected at 60cm to commercial NDA customers, and maybe even at 6cm to their UK MOD government bosses that OP article clearly states paid £21M for spy surveillance and control rights just to "see its offerings". Probably an inside joke on 21M BTC as well. Though it will probably be Cryptocurrency and even Metals that get the last laugh. Consider that Cryptocurrency AnCap's have and will have enough resources to launch their own satellites soon. Keep in mind this was the "low cost" public facade version of greater Beasts A Marking already been launched before, and more to come... "We've done lots of work on the next generation. NovaSAR is just the first in a family of instruments that will offer different capabilities, such as finer resolutions and other parameters; and we will be putting those capabilities on smaller spacecraft than NovaSAR." The satellite, as *presently* configured, will operate in the S-band (3.2 gigahertz), giving a best resolution of 6m with a swath width of 15-20km. Future variants will go to the higher-frequency X-band and sense features on the ground as small as a metre across, *and less*. And that the article comes from the BBC, which is solely licensed and permitted to run at the whim and criminal tax of the self perpetuating UK Government... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC The first free live public broadcast from Marconi took place in June 1920, this public enthusiasm was not shared in official circles where such broadcasts were held to interfere with important military communications. Pressure from these quarters was sufficient to lead to a ban on further free Marconi broadcasts. The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. Thus, the BBC is a major prosecuting authority in England and Wales and an investigating authority in the UK as a whole. The BBC carries out surveillance (mostly using subcontractors) on properties (under the auspices of the RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and may conduct searches of a property using a search warrant. To this day, the BBC aims to follow the directive to "inform, educate and entertain" the Sheeple, aka "propaganda, program and distract" "Auntie Imperial" is right. > Can't imagine "anti-freedom" applications for SAR... > designers specifically want to see if it can help monitor shipping activity. > the data it provides can help crack problems from illegal shipping aka: Free Markets and Free Payments amongst peoples of humanity > much smaller pleasure craft. We can certainly see that they are there. One of > the main objectives of NovSAR will be maritime surveillance Of course... with private and charter craft being the only remaining cheap and easy way for free peoples to travel speak and live freely together across broad waters without being tracked, and then censored via torpedo to swim with the fishes. > "It is important to be able to monitor large areas of the ocean - something > we don't do at the moment. We all saw with the Malaysian airline crash in the > Indian Ocean the difficulty there was in monitoring that vast area. We can do > that kind of thing with radar and NovaSAR is good for that," Won't someone please think of the children. They trot that shit out everywhere they can, even for a simple fucking satellite. The drugs, terrorists, crime... FHOTI -- Tim May > Known as S1-4, this optical spacecraft will discern objects on the ground as > small as 87cm across Trouble always comes in twos. Here's a link mentioning a bit more about the UK's purposes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkYbnokARA
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 16:26:43 -0500 Steve Kinney wrote: > NovaSAR-S makes primitive but useful LandSat functions available to > organizations working on shoestring budgets. NovaSAR-S shift the > balance of power in the electronic warfare terrain toward some > "underdog" players, LMAO - what the fuck. I candidly admit I didn't even bother checking Jim's link in the first place since I can't stomach the sort of garbage teh BBC vomits BUT now I did and here's Jim's own BBC propaganda : "Its pictures are now being assessed for use in diverse applications, including MARITIME SURVEILLANCE" "NovaSAR is seeing not only large vessels but also much smaller pleasure craft." "The satellite is equipped with a receiver that can pick up Automatic Identification System (AIS) radio signals. " Vessels that tamper with or disable these messages very often are engaged in smuggling or illegal fishing activity. If such ships appear in NovaSAR's radar pictures, they will be reported to the authorities. " Of course, exactly like I said, the purpose of the 'technology' is the further enslavement of mankind.
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 3:31:00 PM PST, juan
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:16:43 + (UTC)
jim bell wrote:
>> In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange: I very much
>> wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election. That doesn't mean that I
>> wanted Donald Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the
>> Democrat to lose means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins.
>> (How I wish that were not the case!!!)
> yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won.
Don't blame me! Blame the MSM, the DNC, Hillary Clinton herself, and the
corrupt government stooges who supported her.
"I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were
saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than clinton.
Problem is, that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in reality the US
has a one party system with both candidates being exactly equally bad."
Perhaps you forget that Trump wasn't exactly a "Republican". Until a few years
ago, he was actually on very good terms with the Democrats.
>> Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably
>> caused Hillary to lose the election. Which I very much liked, of course.
>> Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt: They were
>> corrupt before Assange publicized that fact. Do you blame Assange for
>> exposing political corruption?
> No I don't. But it seems he should have done the same thing for the
>rethuglicans. I think he said he didn't have anything to publish regarding
>trump but that sounds not completely credible.
It's two years later. If nothing has come out which denounces Trump, even by
today, why would anyone think that Assange could have come out with in in, say,
October 2016?
> At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is a
fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct target of
trump's.
"assange favored Trump" is misleading. Assange had, at most, two choices. If
it was his goal to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, I completely welcome his
choice.
>> Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news
>> media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free
>> publicity.
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
>> Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other
>> references. It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course. Naturally, the
>> MSM wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election:
> yeah - or if I switch to 'paranoid mode' then who knows? As mentioned,
>apparently the media was against trump because trump was so anti 'liberal'
>anti 'progressive' bla bla, but as a matter of fact the media failed to
>prevent trump from being elected. So maybe they were inept or maybe they
>didn't try too hard...
The MSM can't, and didn't, control everything. Arguably, the revelation about
her illegally-used private server (caused by years Republican inquiries into
Benghazi) probably swung the election to Trump. But, the hugely biased U.S.
Government tried to swing it back: Comey and his thugs pretended that Hillary
hadn't done anything illegal. ("extremely careless" v. "gross negligence" on
July 5, 2016.). They didn't want to use the term "gross negligence" because
that is the trigger-term which justified prosecution under various statutes.
And, the discovery of about 600,000 copies of emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop
(and Anthony Weiner didn't a a security clearance for anything, as I understood
it) pretty much destroy their credibility, the whole lot of them.
>> If they were honest, they would have admitted that they were trying to get
>>Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to lose the nomination. Which they did. But they
>>hoped that Trump would lose the general. Which, due to Hillary's great
>>scandals, he didn't. So, I'd say that the MSM was primarily responsible for
>>causing Trump to win the nomination. Which they seemingly admit, or at least
>>admitted, before Trump won the general election.
> Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are
completely irrelevant.
That's a position to take. Someday, you should convince the American public of
that.
> I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have
>been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's being
>lynched.
That's not as clear. One of the dangers of any criminal prosecution is that
the defendant usually gets the right to access, and release exculpatory
material. Exculpatory to Assange arguably means incriminating to Hillary,
Obama, and each of their criminal crews.
>> Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing
>> Trump to win the election. Those
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On 11/24/18, juan wrote: > if the media were saying > Problem is, that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in > reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly > equally bad. The scam is present globally, with the US being noteworthy as one of the most successful versions of the scam in history... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=larken+rose+voting
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 00:23:17 + (UTC)
jim bell wrote:
>
> > yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won.
>
> Don't blame me! Blame the MSM, the DNC, Hillary Clinton herself, and the
> corrupt government stooges who supported her.
Haha, I don't blame you - as far as I know you didn't create the
american politcal system =P
>
>
> "I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were
> saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than
> clinton. Problem is, that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in
> reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly
> equally bad."
>
> Perhaps you forget that Trump wasn't exactly a "Republican". Until a few
> years ago, he was actually on very good terms with the Democrats.
Oh I didn't know that. Thanks for mentioning it. It nicely underscores
the underlying unity of the political establishment.
>
> It's two years later. If nothing has come out which denounces Trump, even by
> today, why would anyone think that Assange could have come out with in in,
> say, October 2016?
Maybe. Kinda hard for me to believe, but I'll assume that's the case
for now.
>
> > At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is
> a fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct
> target of trump's.
> "assange favored Trump" is misleading. Assange had, at most, two choices.
> If it was his goal to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, I completely welcome his
> choice.
I don't mean to emphasize his siding with trump too much. So maybe I
should rephrase to something like : Assange was morally obliged to publish
clinton's dirty deals and by doing so he helped trump, who is his enemy. All
in all, pretty ironic.
>
>
>
> The MSM can't, and didn't, control everything. Arguably, the revelation
> about her illegally-used private server (caused by years Republican inquiries
> into Benghazi) probably swung the election to Trump. But, the hugely biased
> U.S. Government tried to swing it back: Comey and his thugs pretended that
> Hillary hadn't done anything illegal. ("extremely careless" v. "gross
> negligence" on July 5, 2016.). They didn't want to use the term "gross
> negligence" because that is the trigger-term which justified prosecution
> under various statutes.
well there obviously is a double standard in the 'justice' system. The
poorer and less powerful people are, the more likely they are to be abused by
the state. And conversely, powerful people can get away with murder.
>
> > Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are
> completely irrelevant.
>
> That's a position to take. Someday, you should convince the American public
> of that.
Haha, doing that seems to be somewhat outside of my capabilities =P On
the other hand roughly half the american electorate doesn't vote so they seem
to be already convinced.
>
> > I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have
> >been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's
> >being lynched.
>
> That's not as clear. One of the dangers of any criminal prosecution is that
> the defendant usually gets the right to access, and release exculpatory
> material. Exculpatory to Assange arguably means incriminating to Hillary,
> Obama, and each of their criminal crews.
Assange is likely to be tried in some sort of secret court with 'sealed
evidence' because of 'national security' and bla bla?
I've heard snowden says multiple times that one of his conditions to
return to the US is access to a fair trail, which clearly he knows he won't
get.
>
> >> Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing
> >> Trump to win the election. Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should
> >> understand that.
> > I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal,
>
> > lol - illegal as defined by the american nazi government?
>
> Do you have any alternative opinions? Do you believe that Assange did
> anything illegal by YOUR standards?
Assange didn't attack the property or person of any individual so by
libertarian standards he didn't commit any crime or did anything 'illegal'.
I'm just pointing out that the definition of 'i/legal' that governments
use has nothing to do with any libertarian standard.
> He basically acted as a journalist.
And went against the interests of the group of criminals who call
themselves "the government". And accordign to those criminals, going against
their interests is 'illegal'.
Anyway, I wish Assange luck, but his chances of winning a 'legal'
argument against organized crime seem slim to me.
>
> Jim Bell
Re: making Assange the example
"Justice has disappeared in the West. In Justice’s place stands Revenge. This fact is conclusively illustrated by Julian Assange’s ongoing eight year ordeal..." Paul Craig Roberts On Assange: "Justice Has Disappeared In The West" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-23/paul-craig-roberts-assange-justice-has-disappeared-west On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:12:29PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > How dissident could you be? > > > Rise of the Western Dissidents > http://theduran.com/rise-of-the-western-dissidents/ > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:06:46PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > The USA under Trump/Pence appears entirely intent on making Assange > > an example to the rest of the alternative media/ fact publishing > > truthers and the rest: > > > > Trump Quietly Orders Elimination of Assange > > > > http://theduran.com/trump-quietly-orders-elimination-of-assange/?mc_cid=482509d7f4_eid= > > > > > > The question is what can we do about freeing Assange? > > > > Rather than Assange becoming a martyr by death, perhaps there's a > > less life ending solution which we the people can do? > > > > What could possibly work? > > > > When there is a single general for a particular war, that general is > > vulnerable to being personally attacked. > > > > When there are dozens, then there is no individual general... can we > > roll out dozens of Wikileaks? Or can we expand Wikileaks "generals"? > > > > How can we measure the trust/ staunch stand of any particular > > individual proclaiming to assist? > >
Re: HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:16:43 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > > In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange: I very much > wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election. That doesn't mean that I wanted > Donald Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the Democrat > to lose means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins. (How I wish > that were not the case!!!) yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won. I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than clinton. Problem is, that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly equally bad. > Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably > caused Hillary to lose the election. Which I very much liked, of course. > Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt: They were > corrupt before Assange publicized that fact. Do you blame Assange for > exposing political corruption? No I don't. But it seems he should have done the same thing for the rethuglicans. I think he said he didn't have anything to publish regarding trump but that sounds not completely credible. At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is a fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct target of trump's. >I certainly don't. > Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news > media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free publicity. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html > Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other > references. It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course. Naturally, the MSM > wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election: yeah - or if I switch to 'paranoid mode' then who knows? As mentioned, apparently the media was against trump because trump was so anti 'liberal' anti 'progressive' bla bla, but as a matter of fact the media failed to prevent trump from being elected. So maybe they were inept or maybe they didn't try too hard... > If they were honest, they would have admitted that they were trying to get >Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to lose the nomination. Which they did. But they >hoped that Trump would lose the general. Which, due to Hillary's great >scandals, he didn't. So, I'd say that the MSM was primarily responsible for >causing Trump to win the nomination. Which they seemingly admit, or at least >admitted, before Trump won the general election. Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are completely irrelevant. I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's being lynched. > Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing Trump > to win the election. Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should understand > that. > I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal, lol - illegal as defined by the american nazi government? > but he certainly did things to cause some powerful American politicians to > dislike, even hate him. Particularly in regard to the 2016 election, as far > as I know he merely accepted, and then publicized, information embarrassing > to the DNC, John Podesta, and Hillary Clinton. The news media claims that > he accepted hacked emails from Russia: I think that even if we accept the > idea that Russia hacked emails, that does not inherently prove that the > emails Assange published necessarily came from Russia, or only from Russia. yeah, the red scare, fairy tale about russia being behind assange, trump being a putin agent etc is both hilarious and retarded. And it's the sort of thing that liberal sheep believe, just like right wing retards believed that obomba was a muslim 'illegal immigrant'. >And, it also doesn't prove that Assange knew, for certain, that (even if some >of those emails came from Russia or Russian citizens) that those emails came >from Russia. > As I understand it, Wikileaks had set up an anonymous donation system, > designed to guarantee that each donor would maintain anonymity when > submitting their leaks. Which, I think, was great! Precisely what should > have been done. But that anonymity also provided deniability: Wikileaks > couldn't be assumed to know from where that information came from, or how it > had been obtained. yeah but that sort of argument is pretty much irrelevant when dealing with the 'justice' system of the american empire. > I have read, a few years ago, implications that Assange may have been
Re: BBC News: NovaSAR: UK radar satellite returns first images
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:16:06 -0500 grarpamp wrote: > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45523677 > https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA01721 > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226843737_Continuing_inflation_at_Three_Sisters_volcanic_center_central_Oregon_Cascade_Range_USA_from_GPS_leveling_and_InSAR_observations > > > This particular satellite is said to have a resolution of 6 meters. > > Nobody is going to waste their money launching a pathetic 6m toy > that doesn't even match 1990s - 2001 tech. are you sure the satellites from that time had *radar* at 6 meters resolution? Weren't they just optical? > Today's rigs could surely > be expected at 60cm to commercial NDA customers, and maybe even > at 6cm yeah the 6 meter resolution figure isn't to be trusted at all but what I think is 'new' here is that this is 3D imaging radar, not ordinary photography. > > Keep in mind this was the "low cost" public facade version of > greater Beasts A Marking already been launched before, > and more to come... > > "We've done lots of work on the next generation. NovaSAR is just the > first in a family of instruments that will offer different > capabilities, such as finer resolutions and other parameters; and we > will be putting those capabilities on smaller spacecraft than > NovaSAR." > The satellite, as *presently* configured, will operate in the S-band > (3.2 gigahertz), giving a best resolution of 6m with a swath width of > 15-20km. lol, so wavelength at 3.2 gigacycles is what? Oh yes, 10cm... > Future variants will go to the higher-frequency X-band and > sense features on the ground as small as a metre across, *and less*. but it will be used to save the whales! And the children from 'sex abuse'. > > And that the article comes from the BBC, which is solely > licensed and permitted to run at the whim and criminal > tax of the self perpetuating UK Government... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC > > The first free live public broadcast from Marconi took place in June > 1920, this public enthusiasm was not shared in official circles where > such broadcasts were held to interfere with important military > communications. Pressure from these quarters was sufficient to lead to > a ban on further free Marconi broadcasts. > > The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced > by the criminal law. Thus, the BBC is a major prosecuting authority in > England and Wales and an investigating authority in the UK as a whole. > The BBC carries out surveillance (mostly using subcontractors) on > properties (under the auspices of the RIPA Regulation of Investigatory > Powers Act 2000) and may conduct searches of a property using a search > warrant. > > To this day, the BBC aims to follow the directive to "inform, educate > and entertain" the Sheeple, aka "propaganda, program and distract" > > "Auntie Imperial" is right. > > > > Can't imagine "anti-freedom" applications for SAR... > > > designers specifically want to see if it can help monitor shipping activity. > > the data it provides can help crack problems from illegal shipping > > aka: Free Markets and Free Payments amongst peoples of humanity > > > much smaller pleasure craft. We can certainly see that they are there. One > > of the main objectives of NovSAR will be maritime surveillance > > Of course... with private and charter craft being the only > remaining cheap and easy way for free peoples to travel > speak and live freely together across broad waters without > being tracked, and then censored via torpedo to swim with > the fishes. > > > "It is important to be able to monitor large areas of the ocean - something > > we don't do at the moment. We all saw with the Malaysian airline crash in > > the Indian Ocean the difficulty there was in monitoring that vast area. We > > can do that kind of thing with radar and NovaSAR is good for that," > > Won't someone please think of the children. > > They trot that shit out everywhere they can, > even for a simple fucking satellite. > > The drugs, terrorists, crime... > FHOTI -- Tim May > > > Known as S1-4, this optical spacecraft will discern objects on the ground > > as small as 87cm across > > Trouble always comes in twos. > > > Here's a link mentioning a bit more about the UK's purposes... > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkYbnokARA
Assange Journalism
Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/ A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange. Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the leaker being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with WikiLeaks. That is evident from the number of leakers who have been severly punished while WikiLeaks and Assange is showered with glory.and repetitive news coverage. Wikipedia's WikiLeaks entry is grotesque. That's asymmetric racketeering side of leakage, to the benefit of journalists, publishers, lawyers and public interest organizations, all of whom are granted special privileges by authorities and in many cases handsome donations from fat cats through tax benefits. Its as if by overdoing lauding Assange and WikiLeaks those who have taken the highest risk can be slighted with impunity. Only fools would leak if they knew what is in store for them, not just the brief attention dispensed by outlets. Anonymity, non-tracability and comsec, always, if leak you must. Before proceeding, think twice, thrice, avoid believing the glory stories. Else you're cannon fodder for information generals.
Re: Assange Journalism
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote: > Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient > grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw. > > https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/ > > A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by > publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange. > > Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the leaker > being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with WikiLeaks. > > That is evident from the number of leakers who have been severly punished > while WikiLeaks and Assange is showered with glory.and repetitive news > coverage. Wikipedia's WikiLeaks entry is grotesque. > > That's asymmetric racketeering side of leakage, to the benefit of journalists, > publishers, lawyers and public interest organizations, all of whom are granted > special privileges by authorities and in many cases handsome donations from > fat cats through tax benefits. > > Its as if by overdoing lauding Assange and WikiLeaks those who have taken the > highest risk can be slighted with impunity. Only fools would leak if they knew > what is in store for them, not just the brief attention dispensed by outlets. > > Anonymity, non-tracability and comsec, always, if leak you must. Before > proceeding, think twice, thrice, avoid believing the glory stories. Else > you're cannon fodder for information generals. Of course. And if you're leaking "for the glory" then pride is definitely the rake about to smack you in the face as you step on it - and deservedly so! Just ask me about humility... Assange is being targetted. Greenwald and the "leaking" Jewish MSM? Please! (((Legacy Stream Media))) are sanctioned since they are well and truly controlled. Assange showed how pretty much anyone with a little determination can operate (as publisher of leaks) outside that cabal ... and so an example must be made of Assange, and has been, continues to be, and looks like shall be soon in a significant way - let's see. Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it gets.) We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very evil things. As I understand it John, you personally demonstrated (still do) the precursor to Wikileaks. Jim Bell took a massive hit - double decade long slice from his life, essentially for merely publishing a paper. Assange is 8 years and counting, with his family and children not allowed to visit him. I know some in Australia who've paid the price of their family, and a year or more "at her Majesty's pleasure" (i.e. in jail) for their respective stands for human rights and basic principles. In every single case I know of, from yours to those yet to be published, a significant "price" has always been paid. We can debate the "insufficiency of warnings" from Wikileaks to potential leakers, and you may have a good point, but such "improvements" will never detract from the very real price paid personally by Assange - let's not forget this. Standing on any foundational principle is a damnably tough haul. Anyone thinking otherwise is heartily encouraged to bloody well stand already and show us all how it's -really- done, with true blue balls bro (or ovaries as the case may be). Travel well John, and please excuse any strawmen I just shot down…
