Re: The difference between moderation and censorship [was Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate...]
On 10/15/2016 02:14 PM, Xer0Dynamite wrote: > He's differentiating between floods of off-topic material which acts > to censor real discussion by hiding it in noise One geek's 'noise' is another geek's datastream. Tail-ending, boilerplate postings of mbs of non-related info, other ploys for attention ... all those things go back to the inception of lists, forums, comment trees. The people DOING THAT are, in a way, attempting to censor the flow of information. I alway make them for mentally ill individuals, people with an axe to grind about the individuals on the list (see point 1), or cops trying to crudely disrupt the topic at hand or the forum's operations. I personalty believe humans CAN distinguish a legitimate difference and act appropriately on it. I just don't see it happen that way very often in reality. Rr >> Tell us quinn what to do with people like you, who post very >> stupid 'defenses' of CENSORSHIP in an allegedly >> crypto-anarchist mailing list? > > He's differentiating between floods of off-topic material which acts > to censor real discussion by hiding it in noise vs. removing > discussion which simply doesn't agree with some (explicit or implicit) > preferential view. > > You have to admit that it's different, si? > > \0x >
Re: The difference between moderation and censorship [was Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate...]
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:31:04 -0500 "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > >> > Tell us quinn what to do with people like you, who post > >> > very stupid 'defenses' of CENSORSHIP in an allegedly > >> > crypto-anarchist mailing list? > >> > >> He's differentiating between floods of off-topic material which > >> acts to censor real discussion by hiding it in noise vs. removing > >> discussion which simply doesn't agree with some (explicit or > >> implicit) preferential view. > > > > So you failed to understand all the points I made, or are > > you just trolling me? > > Actually, I incorporated your points, figuring they were too simple to > enumerate and incorporated them within the last sentence of the first > paragraph. Should I take that as mmeaning that you see and understand that quinn is nothing but a crass apologist of censorship and that his 'argument' for it is nonsensical at best, or just trolling? Because what I'm getting from your two messages is that you didn't mention the points I made (you explicityl deleted them) and you followed quinn's wrong analogy about spam. So for completness' sake. SPAM has LITTLE TO DO WITH THE CENSORSHIP ISSUE. Blocking mass, unsolicited advertising, sent by machines is not the same thing as blocking INDIVIDUAL messages from PEOPLE based on POLITICAL grounds. "He's differentiating between..." No he isn't. He wants people to go from "blocking spam is OK" to "blocking whatever I want to block is OK". You don't get that, or what. "You have to admit that it's different, si? WHAT is differnt? I have to admit that you are either agreeing with quinn, or if you are agreeing with me, you are doing it in a very cryptic way. Oh OK, since one of the topics here is cryptography, you post cryptic remarks? Makes sense somehow...or other. > > 'Nuff said. > > \0x
Re: The difference between moderation and censorship [was Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate...]
>> >Tell us quinn what to do with people like you, who post very >> >stupid 'defenses' of CENSORSHIP in an allegedly >> >crypto-anarchist mailing list? >> >> He's differentiating between floods of off-topic material which acts >> to censor real discussion by hiding it in noise vs. removing >> discussion which simply doesn't agree with some (explicit or implicit) >> preferential view. > > So you failed to understand all the points I made, or are you > just trolling me? Actually, I incorporated your points, figuring they were too simple to enumerate and incorporated them within the last sentence of the first paragraph. 'Nuff said. \0x
Re: The difference between moderation and censorship [was Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate...]
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:14:59 -0500 Xer0Dynamite wrote: > > Tell us quinn what to do with people like you, who post very > > stupid 'defenses' of CENSORSHIP in an allegedly > > crypto-anarchist mailing list? > > He's differentiating between floods of off-topic material which acts > to censor real discussion by hiding it in noise vs. removing > discussion which simply doesn't agree with some (explicit or implicit) > preferential view. > > You have to admit that it's different, si? So you failed to understand all the points I made, or are you just trolling me? > > \0x
Re: The difference between moderation and censorship [was Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate...]
> Tell us quinn what to do with people like you, who post very > stupid 'defenses' of CENSORSHIP in an allegedly > crypto-anarchist mailing list? He's differentiating between floods of off-topic material which acts to censor real discussion by hiding it in noise vs. removing discussion which simply doesn't agree with some (explicit or implicit) preferential view. You have to admit that it's different, si? \0x
Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate Maiden Senate Speech gets Standing Ovation - YouTube
> I don't think I ever said that or agreed to it. I'm not > interested in *irrelevant* technical discussions. But, > for instance, I've discussed a few times why a cyberweaponlike > tor (widely supported in fake, american, privacy circles ) is > TECHNICALLY flawed - at least if we were to believe the lies > about its intended purpose. It's not flawed from the point of > view of its creators. There are certainly known attacks on the Tor model, and I understand its technical failures in this regard. Conspiracy theories (with no disdain there -- one should question the veracity of government funded projects) about its intended purposes aside, unless a better model can be put forward that provides Tor's features, while decreasing risk, I just don't see how such criticisms are relevant on technical grounds. You liken it to a weapon, and fair enough. In the 1700's muskets were state of the art. Criticisms of their technical failures with regard to poor accuracy, slow time to reload, difficulties in wet conditions, and so on have no real merit unless/until an alternative design is presented which solves it. For me, Tor's main utility isn't in the way of anonymity so much as a robust way to reach out past firewalls, and to obviate the need for any dynamic DNS considerations, and so forth. On each network that I have to deal with, I keep one box/VM running SSH as a tor hidden service. If I, or someone else, fucks up a firewall configuration, we have a chance to use the Tor entry point to jump in and fix. We could use a VPN server for this, with an associated single-point of failure, and cost. With Tor, we get redundancy and no cost. But anonymity isn't even a stated need with this use-case. That said, you're right: Tor is very suspect in terms of providing true anonymity and protection from government surveillance. But if that is who you're worried about, there is never, and really can never, be a wholly technical/cryptographic solution to that problem. Even if you have technology that the government can't spy on, they are bound to get extra interested in you BECAUSE they can't spy on you. The solution to that problem starts, "at home", as they say. Opsec from the start. One keeps a bootable USB drive hidden in a bus-station locker or some such. When anonymous comms are desired, you leave your cell phone at home, retrieve the disk, boot up at a random public wifi spot, do what you need to do, and drop the disk back off. Avoid patterns in public hot spots that you use, and so on. Keep a strictly red/black design where no information leakage between "you" and your "alter-ego" ever cross up. Probably you'd even want to wear a disguise of some sort when doing work as your alter-ego. Separation of "privilege" all the way down. Any purely technical scheme seems doomed to failure in some way or another.
Re: No bullshit
On Oct 15, 2016 12:37 PM, wrote: > > Please consider to stop posting on CP. You create threats of useless nonsense. Your words make no sense at all. > > STOP. POSTING. * * * I received more agressive messages, but I am copying the CypherPunks list only in this specific answer to advertise the members that there is a _fake profile_ using my real name. * * * Dear 'Fake Profile', aka 'Alex', Please, consider seriously to study English better and learn the differences between the words "thread" and "threat". What you are doing with me in this moment is a "threat", a menace using my own name and a fake account. I don't create "threats", my dear. I receive them, like now. :) Please, consider to use a good English dictionary, Alexander. The word "threat" can be used as a substantive or a principal verb. It doesn't need the use of the verb "to create". "Useless nonsense" is creating a fake account just to write a message using an English worst than mine. Tsk, tsk... What a shame, bad boy! I admiss I am too lazy to use the dictionary in all the moments, but if you want to use my name in a fake profile, please, be less repetitive and use a better grammar. I am annoying, but not so stupid like you. I will stop posting _only_ if I want it. Why would be acceptable for you to be an idiot and posting here and not for me? It's very unfair, dear. Hey, Razer told you about the message that I sent him yesterday, asking peace, begging to stop with this kind of garbage on the list? He respected our deal. Please, be rational and stop the bullying too. Grown up and get a life, Alex. A real one, not a profile at 'Second Life' game or my fake profile, ok? Believe me, I am more beautiful and charming than you. And you're a bit older and hairy too, hoho... :) Cecilia Tanaka, the real one! ;) * PS: - About all the other nasty, bitter and cruel messages... Yawn, too boring... (-_-)* zzz... Sorry, I will be very, very busy making my fabulous manicure, so I will ignore all your offenses. No answers for you. Pardon, if I wanted to see angry bitches barking and growling, I would visit pit bulls kennels. Today is a lovely sunny Saturday here and I have more interesting things to do, la la la! <3 <3 <3
Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate Maiden Senate Speech gets Standing Ovation - YouTube
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 23:13:50 -0400 John Newman wrote: > > Its technical discussion that doesn’t interest you, so you call it > "useless talk". It is useless talk because it doesn't lead to any improvement, security-wise, let alone increased freedom. > I think we are agreed on this - you are bored by > purely technical discussions. I don't think I ever said that or agreed to it. I'm not interested in *irrelevant* technical discussions. But, for instance, I've discussed a few times why a cyberweaponlike tor (widely supported in fake, american, privacy circles ) is TECHNICALLY flawed - at least if we were to believe the lies about its intended purpose. It's not flawed from the point of view of its creators. > This doesn’t make the crypto list > inherently flawed. It’s just not for YOU, which is appropriate, since > you likely can’t follow the discussions anyway. Yes you're right. I can't 'follow' that kind of thing just like I can't watch hollywood movies. Or like I can't stand establishment retards. Were you able to 'follow' my 'technical' remark about hardware? I mentioned that all your 'free' 'open' software runs on hardware owned by the US silicon-valley-military. Are the 'technical' implications of that fact too hard for you to 'follow'? What are the PDF masters at the crypto mailing list planing to do about that little problem? Or perhaps it's not even a bug but a feature? Because, you know, there are lots of america-hating terrists out there. Ask bruce schneier. Oh, and there's another technical issue you perhaps have some trouble 'following'. It is the technical issue of CENSORSHIP in the FUCKING CRYPTOGRAPHY MLIST. I'm using ALL CAPS because you seem to have missed that TECHNICAL matter a couple of times. I'm guessing the font was TOO SMALL. > My apologies on this one. I have seen Zen and Alex give you props > only about a fucking million times, Because I tell apologists of the american establishment/empire to go fuck themselves, perhaps? > but apparently its not a two way > street. You don’t actively support the fucking torrent of Russian > bullshit, but you mostly don’t say shit about it either. I already said what I think about russia. I'll add that regarding the current warmongering provocations against russia, made by american psychos, I'd 'side' with russia...and trump. Assuming putin and trump actually are slightly less warmongering than the sick cunt hitlery and the 'progressive' fascists from the 'democratic' party. Or perhaps it's a show fully agreed upon by both sides. At any rate, your reaction to russian propaganda doesn't speak too well of you, just like it doesn't speak too well of Google Inc. representatives. > So consider > yourself out of the circle jerk if that makes you feel better. > > And, no, don’t bother to quote yourself…. your inane, vicious, vulgar > bullshit is generally not worth repeating. True, true. And give my regards to all those well-bred, virtuous heroes at the cryptography mailing list. They are really saving the world from evil anti-american forces. Russian mostly. > > > > John >
Quantum entanglement / Directed energy devices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIy-QctVPNI&index=7&list=LLlwBdeUDTHoq13fBkPTUW5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNU3MLqyzPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24UqFFS6sV8 Hi to unsystem, cpunks and trolls. b...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: [ PFIR ] Google: Building on Surveillance Reform
On 10/15/2016 12:32 AM, Evil incarnate wrote: > Before producing data in response to a government > request, we make sure it strictly follows the law, for example > to compel us to disclose content in criminal cases we require > the government use a search warrant, and that it complies with > Google's strict policies (to prevent overreach that can > compromise users' privacy). Two words: "FISC Court", over-rides all that crap. Last year the court passed EVERY SINGLE ORDER of the thousands put before it. Don't believe the LIES. FiveEyes DOES NOT ALLOW a digital right-to-privacy from their snooping. Never did... Even before teh intertubz, never will. As George Carlin put it: "You have owners." Rr > Google: Building on Surveillance Reform > > https://blog.google/topics/public-policy/building-surveillance-reform/ > > Today, we've updated our Transparency Report on government > requests for user data. Globally, we received 44,943 > government requests for information regarding 76,713 accounts > during the first half of 2016. We provided user information > in response to 64% of those requests, which remains unchanged > from the previous reporting period (i.e. the second half of > 2015). We also received our first ever requests from the > following countries: Algeria, Belarus, Cayman Islands, El > Salvador, Fiji, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, pursuant to the > USA Freedom Act, the FBI lifted a gag restriction on an NSL > issued in the second half of 2015. To reflect this, we have > updated the range of NSLs received in that period -- July to > December 2015 -- from 0-499 to 1-499. As we have noted in the > past, when we receive a request for user information, we > review it carefully and only provide information within the > scope and authority of the request. The privacy and security > of the data that users store with Google is central to our > approach. Before producing data in response to a government > request, we make sure it strictly follows the law, for example > to compel us to disclose content in criminal cases we require > the government use a search warrant, and that it complies with > Google's strict policies (to prevent overreach that can > compromise users' privacy). > > --Lauren-- >
Re: The difference between moderation and censorship [was Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate...]
I thought spam filtering was generally automated by a machine without an opinion on social issues and moderation was basically the censorship of messages based on the whim of a human? On 15 October 2016 11:41:17 GMT+01:00, "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: >On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 22:24 -0300, #$%& wrote: >> To be more precise. Expect to find absolutely no russian >> propaganda, because that list is fully 'moderated'. That is, >> censored. And expect it to contain loads of american >> propaganda, which the 'moderators', aka censors, simply >> consider >> to be 'ontopic' 'morally perfect' 'legitimate' 'content'. > >Moderation is not censorship. Moderation is the selective approval of >messages so that a forum is not effectively censored by the prevalence >of off-topic material, and to maintain standards of decorum and >conduct. > >Moderation, when done properly, is actually the *prevention* of >constructive censorship. If this list were to be overrun by spam for >knock-off Ray-Ban and Oakley sunglasses, penis enlargement pills, Dr. >Oz >approved acai berry diet pills, or even ads for VPNs that accept >payments in Bitcoin, I'm sure most of you would demand something be >done >to protect the integrity of the forum. > >-- >Shawn K. Quinn -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Fwd: #jakegate explained ... by a Dummy
-- Forwarded message -- From: "Patrice Riemens" Date: Oct 15, 2016 3:53 AM Subject: #jakegate explained ... by a Dummy To: NB Two days ago, The Guardian newspaper published a long article about Jacob Appelbaum, the first text in mainstream media since the two pieces in Die Zeit Online (see refs below), and only the second publication I am aware of since the storm around 'Jake' abated somewhere in last Summer. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/jacob- appelbaum-tor-project-sexual-assault-allegations This post was largely written in Romania a few weeks ago, and hence is not informed by the article in The Guardian. It also looks at the whole affair from a different angle, less focused on the person(age) himself. #jakegate explained by ... a Dummy Well, since there are so many texts written for dummies, I thought it would be nice to have one ... written by one. And as you see, I carefully choose my subject ... The story going by the moniker #jakegate is, I assume largely known by nettime readers, but here's for an ultra-short ExecSum all the same: Jacob Appelbaum, aka ‘Jake’ is a prominent hacker-activist whose precipitous fall from grace and reputation has stunned the digerati scene. End May/begin of June this year (2016), organisations at the forefront of the battles for privacy and security like the TOR project, the CCC, Debian, and others, quite brutally scuttled him amidst accusation of (longstanding) sexual and social misbehaviour. But by now a backlash has also occurred as the same organisations stand accused of precipitate, non-transparent, and largely unfounded decision making - all this with 'Jake' himself largely disappearing from view. My reason for writing this piece is to try to understand - even if largely for my own sake – the circumstances and group processes that have been at work in creating this rather startling, though not totally unanticipated fracas. As a general disclaimer, I should reiterate that I am truly a dummy in this, in the sense that I am not an insider, even if I know a few ones. And all I do know stems from publicly available sources, of course supplemented by a few private talks – but don’t expect confidential information to be disclosed, since there was actually none. I do know Jake personally however, since 2003, and I have followed his activities ever since, be it from quite a distance. Also 'Jake' knows who I am and has always be very friendly to me, but we have always been distant acquaintances nonetheless. In short, my locus standi is situated at the 'core periphery' to the circles and activities Jake was or is related with - to use a swanky term Geert Lovink and I once made up. It may be needless to add and emphasize that ‘#jakegate’ is a very ‘complicated’ issue (as in Facebook), and that I tried to write about it, following Tacitus, ‘sine ira et studio’ ... I have structured this text in four sections (plus a concluding part): Jake’s persona(ge); his social circle, mostly in Berlin; the organisations he is (was) part of; and the the wider, bad world of surveillance and repression this constituency is facing and combating. These sections cannot, however, be strictly separated, they flow and must weave readily together towards the concluding remarks on the #jakegate backlash and beyond. On Jake’s persona(ge) It is self evident that Jake's character, as it appears to his social environment’s bystanders and to observers at large, provides a substantial, if by way insufficient, explanation of ‘#jakegate’. Even with some allowances, Jacob Appelbaum might be taken as exemplary for the phenomenon of a gifted, extrovert geek rising to prominence, not to say ‘rock star’ status, amidst the general hacker alternative, and mainstream, media hype. The by now fairly well documented mix of autism (-lite), mental (over)activity, sociopathy (-lite), maybe best captured by the German word ‘Drang’ - the ‘urge’ to do ‘something’ - can all be observed, and then in no small measure, with Jacob Appelbaum. Add precociousness and young age, and you have the potent combination which might largely – but again, not entirely – explain how 'Jake' ended up in the predicament that is now his. On Jake’s social environment and the groups he is/was in - in Berlin, mostly. Another tentative, partial explanation may be found in the nature and ongoings within the social circles 'Jake' has been moving in the past years in Berlin, that ‘poor but sexy’ capital which had overtaken Amsterdam as the place to be if you are young, worldly, engaged - and poor and sexy. From the early 2000's the city had become an international magnet to all sorts of creative people and voluntary organisations, eager to contribute to the “an other world is possible” idea. Berlin has obvious ‘locational’ advantages in terms of situation in the geographical and political centre of Europe and because of its convenience in terms of affordable housing, cheap food, and a dynamic cul
[ PFIR ] Google: Building on Surveillance Reform
Google: Building on Surveillance Reform https://blog.google/topics/public-policy/building-surveillance-reform/ Today, we've updated our Transparency Report on government requests for user data. Globally, we received 44,943 government requests for information regarding 76,713 accounts during the first half of 2016. We provided user information in response to 64% of those requests, which remains unchanged from the previous reporting period (i.e. the second half of 2015). We also received our first ever requests from the following countries: Algeria, Belarus, Cayman Islands, El Salvador, Fiji, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, pursuant to the USA Freedom Act, the FBI lifted a gag restriction on an NSL issued in the second half of 2015. To reflect this, we have updated the range of NSLs received in that period -- July to December 2015 -- from 0-499 to 1-499. As we have noted in the past, when we receive a request for user information, we review it carefully and only provide information within the scope and authority of the request. The privacy and security of the data that users store with Google is central to our approach. Before producing data in response to a government request, we make sure it strictly follows the law, for example to compel us to disclose content in criminal cases we require the government use a search warrant, and that it complies with Google's strict policies (to prevent overreach that can compromise users' privacy). --Lauren--
