Re: flexthismotherfucker

[Mirimir]

On 09/15/2016 02:35 PM, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:31:37 -0600
> Mirimir  wrote:
> 
>> It's the
>> fucking Chinese that seem to beat at every SSH server that I
>> run :(
> 
> 
>   Go figure. So it just so happens that oceania is at war with
>   eastasia? Or was it eurasia?

All war, all the time :(

>   And it also just so happens that schneie (who you said is a
>   'good guy'?) is parroting war propaganda about china? 

I made that comment before reading Schneier's piece. Is he a "good guy"?
I have no clue. He's quite clever, for sure. Maybe he works for TLAs,
and thinks it good. How would we know?

>> But then you'll say that it's just americunts pretending to be
>> Chinsese ;)
> 
>   And you can't prove that's not the case? 

Nope, I can't. I just do whois on the IPs. Maybe whois is faked. Or
maybe they're just leased anonymously.

Re: Legal vs lawful vs moral; legally sanctioned yet immoral

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:38:51PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> So, an appeal to "common law" that has any usefulness must cite some
> legal authority, ideally a mandatory controlling legal authority.

There you go again.

A citation may help in a legal proceeding.

But "common law" as in "the customs and practices of the community since
time immemorial" is more than useful for a conversation where we attempt
to reclaim authority to the individual, the ultimate sovereign in any
true democracy.


Binding humans into "need" and "must" and implying that "the only
usefulness comes from a legal proceeding", are not exactly political
anarchy, nor individual sovereignty and (human) right.



> You may or may not have noticed, but law has been likened to
> engineering, and software engineering in particular.  Or, like many
> things, a sort of algebra or calculus.  I think of security exactly
> like that, especially when designing a secure information system and
> related policies and procedures.  Given the rules of the system, you
> have to work out a mechanism to accomplish what you want or stop what
> you don't want.  Appealing to wishful thinking isn't going to make
> your software work, your system secure, or win your legal case.

And there you go again.

But running your torrents on Tor is neither wishful thinking, nor
something that does not work today now is it?


What you've just done, again, with your phrase "Appealing to wishful
thinking isn't going to win your legal case" has just couched the
debate, framed the discussion on terms / assumptions which are
fundamentally objectionable.


Now, over to you to unpack why I say this, what is the guts of this
statement, and how you yourself might choose to reword, enhance,
subtract from or add to, your statement quoted by me.


This is a test. Should be easy for you - you seem to be quite "the
intellectual type".



> > Also, consider use of the word "moral" if not a more politically correct
> > "watered down morality" term.
> 
> Calculating moral balance is tricky and perhaps usually fluid.
> I don't think we've clarified specifics enough to do that here yet.

By all means, and please, clarify away. That's why I threw that ball in
your court - it's another test see, to see if you're capable of bringing
something "of substance to the little people".


> > That which is illegal corporate actions today (pursuing "illegal"
> > filesharers), is made "legal" by lobbying.
> 
> I think the attitude of many who are involved would be that it was
> already illegal in some sense, just not specifically enough to
> enforce.

Framing / couching, and assumptions.

Are you sure you're not able to take a non-statist position in this (or
any) conversation?


> Copyright is an extension or interpretation of property rights.

That's the best definition you can come up with?

Are there no other parts to the copyright debate which you would choose
to add in to the conversation? bring to the table in a "punks" forum?

Seriously?

Or are you violently refusing to stop framing almost every sentence you
write in a pro-state way?

Seriously, you're too much work. If you want a conversation of
substance, rather than something you keep steering in favour of the
state, you "need" to start thinking seriously about how you are
perceived, and how easy it is to ridicule what you say.


> Property rights are a basic component of a legal system.

"preferred" legal system perhaps? Almost sounds like you are saying
"any" legal system - either way, you made a loose and not useful
statement.


> Some degree of property protections is fundamental, some degree is a
> legislative choice that balances rights and mechanisms and system
> tuning.

Hint: Start naming your assumptions rather than presuming them all the
time.


> > Consistently speaking of what is illegal vs legal by you, is misleading
> > to the truth of what the community at large accepts as moral behaviour,
> > whether by individuals or by individuals employed by a corporation.
> 
> A characteristic of the law is that by following principles that
> consistently lead to a fair, just, and functioning legal system,
> sometimes the majority will want something that the principles
> protect.  A functioning legal system is not majority rule in a number
> of key ways.  In other ways it is.  Walking that distinction properly
> is probably the key indicator of the health of a legal system.
> Knowing that dynamic exists sometimes, the fact that a majority may
> want something doesn't intrinsically make it right.
> 
>
> > s/moral/lawful/
> > s/moral/acceptable/
> > s/moral/ etc etc /
> >
> >
> > Your persistent framing of "legal" behaviour, hides the reality of the
> > endless encroachment, by corporations via their bribery / lobbying
> > efforts, against our rights.
> 
> There is usually a balance of rights.  Law is often a blunt instrument
> for various reasons.
> 
> You haven't stated what rights you think are being trampled.

Neither have 

Re: Legal vs lawful vs moral; legally sanctioned yet immoral

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/15/16 2:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:36:18AM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 9/15/16 1:12 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:20:31PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
 On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.
 Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.
>>> Legal, as in compliant with their statutory right to financially pillage
>>> and legally bully their way around arbitrary "privilege" monopolies,
>>> yes.
>>>
>>> Lawful, as in compliant with the common man's sense of right and wrong
>>> (the "common law" or "community law"),
>>> no!
>> I think common law could be defined more precisely.  There has always
>> been a gap between what was considered illegal and what seemed unfair
>> to someone.
> Very willing to hear your draft of clarification on these terms!
>
> Give a shot, and then perhaps others can tweak your draft.

This is my current favorite summary of law for a few purposes.  I was just 
clearing up confusion about the legal jargon "controlling
legal authorities" which consistently confuses non-legal-geeks.

Note the pedigree: Thurgood Marshall Law Library Guide to Legal Research – 2016 
- 2017
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/researchguides/tmllguide/chapter1.pdf
> RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUTORY LAW AND CASE LAW
> Legal systems in Great Britain and the United States were originally centered 
> around case law, or judge-made law. The term common
> law refers to judge-made law that is found in judicial opinions. Judges hear 
> cases involving particular parties, then issue
> decisions based on available precedent and on their own initiative in the 
> absence of prior decisions. The notion that a common law
> existed that reflected the generally accepted values and practices of a 
> society, and upon which judges drew to decide individual
> disputes, was behind this reliance on judge-made law.
> The law in some subject areas still consists primarily of common law. In 
> recent years, however, legislatures and administrative
> agencies have become much more active in the law-making process. Present-day 
> legislatures adopt statutes affecting a broad range
> of activities. Some of these statutes may preempt earlier court decisions, 
> either as a result of a deliberate action on the part
> of a legislature or inadvertently. For example, if the legislature disagrees 
> with a court interpretation, the legislature can
> amend an existing
> statute, or enact a new statute, clarifying the particular issue upon which 
> there is disagreement.
> Administrative agencies, created and empowered by statute to carry out 
> mandates, have also become extremely active in promulgating
> regulations that carry the force of law. Most such agencies also have the 
> authority to issue rulings and interpretations of
> regulations, and to conduct hearings adjudicating disputes under their 
> jurisdiction. 
> Under the balance of power inherent in our system, courts can declare 
> statutes and regulations to be unconstitutional if they
> exceed constitutional authority or if they conflict with constitutional 
> provisions. Thus the universe of potential authority for
> conducting research on a specific problem has broadened considerably from the 
> days when case law comprised the bulk of legal
> authority. Even so, judicial opinions, whether they draw upon earlier common 
> law precedent or apply or interpret statutes or
> regulations, are still a major source of law for the researcher. The complete 
> picture can only be gained by reading the applicable
> statutes and regulations in conjunction with relevant cases. 

So, commonly, "common law" is case law, i.e. based on explicit decisions of 
judges.  They may base their decisions on a more general
sense of common law, but only judges can do this with any meaning.  Non-judges 
may think there is some principle that amounts to a
concept in "common law", but it carries no weight unless a judge specifically 
agrees in a context that applies to you and trumps
other legal authorities, a "common law" "controlling legal authority" in other 
words.  If you read a bit more there, they clarify
primary legal authority, both mandatory and persuasive, and secondary legal 
authority, opinions which are less weighty persuasive
legal authority.

So, an appeal to "common law" that has any usefulness must cite some legal 
authority, ideally a mandatory controlling legal authority.

You may or may not have noticed, but law has been likened to engineering, and 
software engineering in particular.  Or, like many
things, a sort of algebra or calculus.  I think of security exactly like that, 
especially when designing a secure information system
and related policies and procedures.  Given the rules of the system, you have 
to work out a mechanism to accomplish what you want or

Re: flexthismotherfucker

[juan]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:31:37 -0600
Mirimir  wrote:

> It's the
> fucking Chinese that seem to beat at every SSH server that I
> run :(


Go figure. So it just so happens that oceania is at war with
eastasia? Or was it eurasia?

And it also just so happens that schneie (who you said is a
'good guy'?) is parroting war propaganda about china? 




> But then you'll say that it's just americunts pretending to be
> Chinsese ;)

And you can't prove that's not the case? 


> 
> 

Re: Coalition Seeks Obama to Pardon Snowden

[Razer]

"@benwizner, Snowden’s attorney, says if he came back to the US “he
would be reporting for sentencing not for trial"

B/c Espionage Act has no juried trial (more) and it's unacceptable...
Demanding pardon

(Still sticking to my 'dead in a ditch a few years later' theory)

Video @CNN tweet: https://twitter.com/CarolCNN/status/776438965310070784

Rr

On 09/12/2016 09:13 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/12/2150235/aclu-is-launching-a-campaign-to-convince-president-obama-to-pardon-edward-snowden
> https://pardonsnowden.org/
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSAiI3xMh4
> https://www.amnesty.org/
> https://www.hrw.org/
> https://www.aclu.org/
> 
> The effort, which is organized by the ACLU, Amnesty International, and
> Human Rights Watch, will gather signatures from regular people and
> endorsements from celebrities. Snowden will speak by video link from
> Moscow at a press conference on Wednesday morning in New York, and an
> initial list of "prominent legal scholars, policy experts, human
> rights leaders, technologists and former government officials" in
> support of the cause will be released, according to a statement from
> the campaign. A presidential pardon would mean that Snowden could come
> home from Moscow, where he's lived for the past three years, without
> the fear of being prosecuted. He currently faces federal charges of
> violating the Espionage Act and stealing government property
> 
> Older
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden
> 

US2Hakrz: 'We're coming for you once we figure out who you are' [Was: Re: Fucking comedy of old white guy parasites [Bruce Schneier's blog]]

[Razer]

Whoever did this, U.S. says of latest hacks, we’re coming after you

With linkage @ Mcclatchy
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article101838132.html

By Tim Johnson
mcclatchydc.com

Top White House and Justice Department officials asked for patience from
the public Wednesday as they refused to say whether Russia or another
nation may be behind a new series of headline-grabbing hacks affecting
the realms of politics and sports.

But they promised that the hacks will not go unpunished – once they are
certain who is responsible for them.

“Whether you are a rogue hacker or a uniformed soldier, the shadowy
corners of the internet will not provide respite for long,” Attorney
General Loretta Lynch said.

A top Lynch deputy, John P. Carlin of the Justice Department’s National
Security Division, said the Obama administration would go after whoever
was responsible, even if they were operating as part of a foreign
government’s institutions.

“The message should be clear: You are not safe because you are operating
under another nation’s flag,” Carlin said. “We can figure out who did
it. It won’t remain anonymous.”

The warnings came as the interim chair of the Democratic National
Committee, Donna Brazile, blamed agents in Russia for the release of new
hacked DNC documents that she said were intended to influence the
outcome of November’s presidential election.

“There’s one person who stands to benefit from these criminal acts, and
that’s Donald Trump,” Brazile said in a statement. “Not only has Trump
embraced (Russian President Vladimir) Putin, he publicly encouraged
further Russian espionage to help his campaign.”

Whoever hacked the DNC, an act first reported in June, provided some
20,000 internal DNC emails to WikiLeaks, which released them a month
later. The hack has fueled concern that foreign cyber-agents might also
meddle directly in the November U.S. election.

Earlier this week, the World Anti-Doping Agency reported that its
database had been penetrated by a Russian espionage group, known as
Fancy Bear, that released information on four U.S. athletes – gymnast
Simone Biles, tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams, and basketball
player Elena Delle Donne. The confidential medical data showed that the
four had used medicines that usually are banned but that may be used
with approval from the International Olympic Committee to treat certain
medical conditions. All four had received permission.

Hundreds of Russian athletes were barred from competing in last month’s
Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro due to suspicions of widespread
doping.

Lisa O. Monaco, President Barack Obama’s top aide on homeland security
and counterterrorism, declined to blame Russia for the latest hacks but
said finger-pointing would come soon enough.

“Folks should stay tuned,” Monaco said at a forum at the Center for
Strategic & International Studies to honor the Justice Department’s
Division of National Security.

“We know Russia is a bad actor in cyberspace, just as China has been,
just as Iran has been,” Monaco said. “Nobody should think that there is
a free pass when you’re conducting malicious cyber-activity.”

“Our reach is long,” added Monaco, a former assistant attorney general.
“Sometimes it takes a long time to build a case but it doesn’t deter us
from pursuing it.”

Lynch noted that U.S. prosecutors in 2014 had charged five members of
China’s People’s Liberation Army with hacking U.S. companies to benefit
Chinese industry. Last year, prosecutors charged seven Iranians,
allegedly linked to the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with
planning to hack U.S. banks and a New York State dam in an attempt to
disrupt its operation.

Before the indictments of the Chinese army members, Carlin said, few
thought the U.S. government would seriously go after hackers linked to
foreign governments.

“There was a period of time when folks said, ‘Cyber-espionage, Chinese
espionage, there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s too hard. They’re
going to be able to remain anonymous, and this is just the world we have
to accept as the status quo,’ ” Carlin said.

But he said indictments against foreign hackers had proved otherwise.

“For those who think that, be it Russia or any other country, that
there’s going to be a free pass, that we can’t figure out what they are
doing in cyber-enabled espionage, the message should be clear,” he said.

--30--

Re: Fucking comedy of old white guy parasites [Bruce Schneier's blog]

[Dan White]

On 09/15/16 13:49 +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:25:56PM +0300, Cari Machet wrote:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/someone_is_lear.html


lol, Russia and China. Did he miss the Norks?

Also where the resources and bandwidth come from, there is no mention of
it, especially botnets. Long ago someone claimed BGP amplification from
a single ISP can get large ddos factor, don't know if this scales
exponentially.


In the ISP space, certainly botnets, driven by gamers, almost exclusively -
in the enterprise and "critical infrastructure" space, driven by large
monetary and technical resources where botnet use is likely used for
obfuscation.

I've never encountered BGP amplification, which sounds like a waste of
time. In the ISP space, it's near all DNS and NTP.

A more interesting discussion would be non-DDOS based attacks that are only
briefly touched on in the article (DNS hijacking). The quite fragile voice
network - SIPs embarrassingly poor security use in trunking configurations,
BGP hijacking in the default free zone, and strategic attacks on provider
transport links come to mind.

--
Dan White

Re: Cultural Marxism – Social Chaos

[John Newman]

--
John

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Александр  wrote:
> 
> 2016-09-14 19:57 GMT+03:00 John Newman :
>> I think Zen is doing an impression of a paid Russian troll living in St 
>> Petersburg and clocking in at the troll factory to spit out 10k words a day 
>> at CP ;)
>> 
>> Or maybe it's not an impression.
> 
> OR maybe you, John Newman, will fuck off with your usual shitty comments 
> about Zen that never change. We got your "great point" 100 comments ago. Now, 
> either you got something substantial to say about what Zen writes/posts, 
> either you just SHUT THE FUCK UP and leave this Great Human Being with the 
> name "Zenaan".
> (◣◢)┌∩┐

"Great Human Being" - is this a fucking joke?

Eat a dick Alex. As if you have ever ONCE said anything substantive or relevant 
to this list. 


John

Re: Fucking comedy of old white guy parasites [Bruce Schneier's blog]

[Georgi Guninski]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:25:56PM +0300, Cari Machet wrote:
> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/someone_is_lear.html

lol, Russia and China. Did he miss the Norks?

Also where the resources and bandwidth come from, there is no mention of
it, especially botnets. Long ago someone claimed BGP amplification from
a single ISP can get large ddos factor, don't know if this scales
exponentially.

Re: Legal vs lawful vs moral; legally sanctioned yet immoral

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/15/16 1:12 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:20:31PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
>>> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.
>> Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.
> Legal, as in compliant with their statutory right to financially pillage
> and legally bully their way around arbitrary "privilege" monopolies,
> yes.
>
> Lawful, as in compliant with the common man's sense of right and wrong
> (the "common law" or "community law"),
> no!

I think common law could be defined more precisely.  There has always been a 
gap between what was considered illegal and what seemed
unfair to someone.

>
>
>> Actual conspiracies are seldom needed
> A fluffy and largely useless statement.
>
> Actual conspiracies are every day occurrences, widespread to the point
> of being universal.
>
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
>[gcide]:
>Conspire \Con*spire"\, v. t.
>   To plot; to plan; to combine for.
>   [1913 Webster]
> Angry clouds conspire your overthrow.--Bp. Hall.
>   [1913 Webster]

In this context, I took that to mean 'illegal conspiracy', which has a much 
more specific meaning.  Using the general meaning to
justify the statement when that statement will be taken as indicating criminal 
conspiracies is misleading.

>
>> and usually not worth the
>> risk.
> People talk and plot in private, including corporate "leaders".
And usually there is nothing wrong with that.

>
> --Especially-- corporate leaders.
>
> Talking and plotting -is- conspiring.
But not necessarily illegal conspiracy.

>
>
> Example:
>To conspire with other self interested corporate executives, to
>combine bribery capacity (lobbying), to cause -unlawful- laws to be
>passed by parliament, which institute 10 years jail time punishments
>for sharing a file by bittorrent;
>
>Such punishment being thereafter deemed as "legal" punishment, even
>though such punishment is not, and would never be, lawful by the
>moral standards of the community (cruel and unusual punishment,
>punishment which does not fit the crime, punishment not comparable to
>punishment for other crimes e.g. rape, murder, tanking the economy
>("white collar" crime)).

I can see that, although it seems weak.  And it is rebuttable by the right 
campaign.

>
>
> Stephen, you are brainwashed, and purveying your brainwashing upon
> others.
>
> The part of that which I personally, vehemently, object to, is that you
> do so with an endless air of authority.

I claim familiarity with certain things, and demand clarity, logic, and 
specifics in any argument.  I make little or no claims of
authority beyond certain first hand knowledge, experience, and conclusions 
after reading authoritative sources.  More solidly
grounded specifics will always have an air of authority over vague hand waving 
and ad hominem attacks.  I can't really help that.

>
> And with seemingly endless pro-statist views.

I'm not all that pro-statist, but I also don't ignore what is working or 
blindly denigrate systems that should and could work
better.  Often things somewhat broken can be fixed rather than tearing down 
everything that is working out of spite and blind rage. 
Alternatives to everything should be considered, but alternatives aren't better 
simply because they are alternative; there has to be
some reasoning and proof of some kind.

>> Many abuses have come to light, usually with a pretty good downside
>> for the corporation.  Harder to get away with really bad stuff than it
>> used to be.
> It's getting easier and easier for corporations to do bad stuff legally.
> They lobby, they get their pet "laws" (unlawful though they are) passed,
> and thereafter their crimes falling under those laws are "legal", even
> though they remain as crimes, and remain immoral.

Plenty of this has just been exposed in the last few years.  Some of that will 
no longer work.  There are some cases of this still.

>
>
 Ioerror.
 Institutional assassination
>>> Precisely. And it's disgusting.
>> What are the worst things that corporate heads and politicians are
>> getting away with?
> Endless encroachment upon our individual sovereign rights with "laws",
> making their immoral activities and enforcements against our individual
> sovereign rights, legal.

OK.
>> What's your proposed solution?  What's your proposed cypherpunkian
>> solution?
> Well, there are possibly the most useful things you've ever said on this
> list. Good question. There, I said it. You asked a useful question.

> In the current context, get your torrentz over Tor, I2P, possibly
> FreeNet, and also sneakernet - network in human space, N2N / neighbour
> to neighbour your neighbourhood.

OK, now that you have a secure overlay communications and identity network, how 
are you going to 

Re: UK: Censors, Tracks and Balkanizes Its Internet; 10yrs for Pirates

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/14/16 11:11 PM, oshwm wrote:
> The UK Gov has spent two generations indoctrinating people right from birth 
> that privacy is only for bad people, big corporations
> will look after them, gov dependency is a good thing, debt is a good thing, 
> politics is of no interest and too complicated for
> them etc etc
>
> Only subversive types would think otherwise and so any of you opposing their 
> plans are quite simply extremists and terrorists.

Did the movie V for Vendetta play in the UK much?

We do hear surprising things, like self defense being practically outlawed.

We've gone mostly the other way.  We're chock full of subversives and 
subversive preparation in case it is needed.  This takes a
number of forms, including guns, stand your ground laws, etc.  Just the other 
day someone was showing me his handgun, complete with
silencer.  Legal and licensed for concealed carry in that state, including the 
silencer.

The worst problems, in places like Chicago and parts of Oakland, are that whole 
areas have gone somewhat subversive and rogue, at
least at certain times.  This could be thought of as undirected subversiveness. 
 Google 'sideshows Oakland' for some interesting videos.

>
> Unless the peoples minds can be 'reprogrammed' then those of us subversive 
> types who have somehow avoided being brainwashed will
> become criminals according to the state.

American TV and movies don't help?  ;-)

>
> So, Brits on the list, expect a bumpy ride.
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 00:07:44 GMT+01:00, grarpamp  wrote:
>
> The 90's was simple existance, not the depth of mass application. If 
> people
> think the 90's was the last fight, or a big fight, or some kind of
> defining success,
> it's suggested they're terribly mistaken. The application is causing 
> govt's and
> useless legacy power structures worldwide to lose some control in certain 
> areas,
> and they're approaching panic mode. When an animal is panicked, it
> gets ugly, fast.
> You don't want that. Yet you can't turn back. So you need to push the 
> envelope
> harder, faster... so as to make panic mode but a forgone blink in time, 
> rebuffed
> by the legion of myriad pressure against them... and push them
> straight into a feeble
> state of shock, then kill them before they can regain composure and
> enact vengeance.
>
> Keep yer sails full, keels wet, and cannon hot.
>

sdw

Re: Coalition Seeks Obama to Pardon Snowden

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Stephen D. Williams  wrote:
>> If that is ever found to be true, Americans would freak out.  Government
>> only has authority to the extent that they follow the rule of law.  It's
>> already the stuff of conspiracy theories.  Any solid proof of unchecked
>> ongoing abuse not explained away sufficiently, which would inevitably leak
>> eventually for anything happening consistently
> The rise and consumption of alternative media like Alex Jones, RT,
> Al Jazeera, etc is proof that things are not being sufficiently explained.
> With a Government and Corporation of secrets (engaging in things
> like say unchecked Gitmo abuse, ahem) there will always be much
> more to discover and cover. Deepweb indeed.

Somewhat important, but mostly details that don't change much.
>
>> would cause gigantic
>> backlash.
>>  The ultra-right gun lobby and the liberal sophisticates and
>> others would unite and squash anyone responsible.
> There was a firefight...
Which one?
>
>>  Now that we have
>> instances of clear video proof to actually get at the truth
> No we don't... there are no body cams on your politicians,
> your corporate exectuives, no feeds from their backrooms,
> no audio from their limos.

Politicians are watched pretty thoroughly.  There's some room, but most of what 
they accomplish is fairly public, sooner or later. 
The worst abuses, in Western countries anyway, seem to be grossly misleading 
voters just before a vote.

One pattern seems to be: Stay vague and high level while building your team / 
tribe.  Then gradually pump up half truths and attacks
by spinning outrage.  Then, once your team / tribe has bought in and has a 
habit of repeating your talking points, graduate to full
on lies and obvious mistruths that the team/tribe will parrot even more loudly 
as they try to drown out the other team / tribe.  Use
confirmation bias, in-group / out-group membership, and every other trick to 
get others to further your attacks and cheerleading. 
Spin any opposition statements or attempts at clarification as blatant attacks 
on your team / tribe.  With an apparent ownership
interest in the results, people will ignore all facts and please for reason to 
win and resolve their angst.

It is a tried and true pattern, never more honed, applied, and amplified in 
such a contest so starkly divorced from reality, logic,
and reason.  Very instructive.

>
> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.

Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.  Actual 
conspiracies are seldom needed and usually not worth the
risk.  Many abuses have come to light, usually with a pretty good downside for 
the corporation.  Harder to get away with really bad
stuff than it used to be.

>> Ioerror.
>> Institutional assassination
> Precisely. And it's disgusting.

What are the worst things that corporate heads and politicians are getting away 
with?
What's your proposed solution?  What's your proposed cypherpunkian solution?

sdw

Re: UK: Censors, Tracks and Balkanizes Its Internet; 10yrs for Pirates

[oshwm]

The UK Gov has spent two generations indoctrinating people right from birth 
that privacy is only for bad people, big corporations will look after them, gov 
dependency is a good thing, debt is a good thing, politics is of no interest 
and too complicated for them etc etc

Only subversive types would think otherwise and so any of you opposing their 
plans are quite simply extremists and terrorists.

Unless the peoples minds can be 'reprogrammed' then those of us subversive 
types who have somehow avoided being brainwashed will become criminals 
according to the state.

So, Brits on the list, expect a bumpy ride.


On 15 September 2016 00:07:44 GMT+01:00, grarpamp  wrote:
>The 90's was simple existance, not the depth of mass application. If
>people
>think the 90's was the last fight, or a big fight, or some kind of
>defining success,
>it's suggested they're terribly mistaken. The application is causing
>govt's and
>useless legacy power structures worldwide to lose some control in
>certain areas,
>and they're approaching panic mode. When an animal is panicked, it
>gets ugly, fast.
>You don't want that. Yet you can't turn back. So you need to push the
>envelope
>harder, faster... so as to make panic mode but a forgone blink in time,
>rebuffed
>by the legion of myriad pressure against them... and push them
>straight into a feeble
>state of shock, then kill them before they can regain composure and
>enact vengeance.
>
>Keep yer sails full, keels wet, and cannon hot.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.