Re: Persecution of Julian Assange Must End
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote: > > > Of course Assange is an Ecuadorian citizen, so if they wanted to, they > could have him leave the embassy through temporary diplomatic status, > particularly since he isn't accused of any crime by the British. > No, no they couldn't. The host country grants/approves diplomatic credentials, so it's up to the UK Government whether he gets that status. You can already guess what the answer would be. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: minix - tannenbaum won!
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM, John Newman wrote: > It's funny looking back at the ancient flame war between Tannenbaum & > Torvalds... and now it turns out there is a copy of Minix running at > ring -3 in every Intel CPU out there! Sweet fucking christmas. > > If I remember rightly, though, in that flame war he also criticised Linux for running on x86 as it was a dead (or perhaps he said short-lived) platform that no-one would be running in future (wasn't it MIPS he thought would dominate?). So there's also a certain irony to the architecture that Minix is now (effectively) the most dominant OS on. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: lists.cpunks.org giving TLS ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID
On 26 Jun 2017 20:45, "Greg Newby" wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:26:08AM -0300, Ben Mezger wrote: > > This *only* happens on Google Chrome and Chromium. > > > > Any idea why this might happen? > > I'll get this fixed over the next day or so, probably with a letsencrypt cert. Details: > > I'm running the current incarnation of https://lists.cpunks.org and this problem was presumably caused by some SSL changes I made yesterday. > > The lists.cpunks.org Apache named virtual host lives on mail.pglaf.org, which uses a wildcard certificate for *.pglaf.org duly issued by Network Solutions. > > So, Chrome is right to complain that the cert doesn't match the domain. See, for example: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=lists.cpunks.org > Thats not what its complaining about. It's saying the cert issuer isn't trusted (though without SNI you will get the wildcard which doesn't match). If you expand the certification paths you'll see Startcom is marked as self-signed. Afaik it has been ever since they got caught issuing google.com certs and the like for "testing". This has been on the horizon for a while, and similar is going to start happening for some certificates issued by Symantec CAs soon too. > It's interesting that this new error didn't occur until I tightened the cipher suites. In apache2.conf, the old set was: > > SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!EXPORT56:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:+MEDIUM:+LOW:+SSLv2:+EXP > It's interesting timing, but I suspect may simply be coincidence. > ... which yielded some recent reports of Firefox complaining about allowing SSL3 and some other less secure ciphers. > > The current config line, as of Sunday afternoon, is: > SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!EXPORT56:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:-MEDIUM:-LOW:-SSLv2:-SSLv3:+EXP > > - Greg >
Re: lists.cpunks.org giving TLS ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Ben Mezger wrote: > This *only* happens on Google Chrome and Chromium. > > Any idea why this might happen? > > The cert is issued by Startcom, which Chrome has started phasing out trust for - https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=685826#c15 https://threatpost.com/google-to-distrust-wosign-startcom-certs-in-2017/121709/ Apparently Firefox isn't going to be too far behind either > - seds > > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Heaps of Windows 10 internal builds, private source code leak online
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:00 PM, CANNON wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 06/25/2017 02:14 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > On 06/25/2017 09:03 AM, CANNON wrote: > >> Make open source: > >> Would would be very amusing is to see Microsoft cry once someone > >> creates librendows (Libre Windows) and puts this source code on > >> github or something to make open source version of Windows and > >> Windows software. > > > > Github would immediately shut it down once Microsoft sent them a DMCA > > takedown notice. *Maybe* it might last a while on BitTorrent, if > anywhere. > > > > Github is too centralized anyways. What is the best decentralized git like > system? > It's not exactly what you're after, but given that the options for actual decentralized backends seem few and far between (there was also GitChain btw - https://github.com/gitchain/gitchain ). It's fairly trivial to set up a central repo that you push to, and have a post-receive hook on it to forward any commits onto Github, Bitbucket and a variety of other git-as-a-service providers. Spread across enough providers, it makes take-downs harder (and you can easily just add a new provider - there are plenty of github wannabe's out there, after all). You'd need to be fairly careful about making sure that central repo isn't taken down, but again, it'd be trivial to replace if it were. You'd need to make sure discovery wasn't too hard, but that could be as simple as providing links to the various providers in the repo's README so that anyone with a copy of the README (or the internet archive) know where else to look.
Re: how to best organise a large community "important" books library?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > "Formal" library software (e.g. Evergreen) may be the answer for repo > wide searchability of meta data, but when others share interest, they > may only be able to store, and or may be only particularly interested > in a sub-category or two such as health and agriculture/gardening, so > it might be best anyway to use a handful of top level "general > categories" to reduce our maximums down from 50K books per dir, to 10 > fold fewer at least. > > I guess your best bet would probably be to approach it like a physical library does. Divide by broad category/genre (so separate fiction and non-fiction, subdivide that into health etc) Then divide further by Author's name, perhaps dividing that further by the first two chars of the author's name But it'd get complicated quite quickly (particularly if you don't know the author's name) so you'd want some sort of index available to do metadata based searching too. I think that's probably going to be hard to avoid with a substantial number of books though. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Did m$ released patch for unsupported windozes after Wannacry hit?
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Mirimir wrote: > On 05/15/2017 02:22 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: > > Wannacry hit on 2017-05-12 using exploit generously donated by the NSA. > > For supported windozes the bug was fixed in 2017-03 for unknown reasons. > > Looks like for unsupported windozes like XP the patch was released on > > 2017-05-13 after Wannacry hit: > > http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4012598 > > Is it really so? > > That's what I've read. Microsoft provided patches in March for nominally > unsupported Windows versions with custom support contracts. The NHS, for > example, had dropped its XP support contract in ~2014. Cheap bastards ;) > > To be fair, it wasn't the NHS that dropped that contract, it was the Tory Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. The NHS actually made a bit of noise about just how stupid it was at the time. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Happy Loyalty Day, May 1
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Jim wrote: > > Georgi Guninski guninski at guninski.com > > Mon May 1 04:25:01 PDT 2017 > > > > Happy Labour day. > > It's fucking Loyalty Day. > Not Labour Day. > Not May Day. > Loyalty Day. > > It was May Day centuries before USians tried to call it Labour (or Loyalty) day, so May Day is still correct (unless you're in the US, then it's arguable) But in 1958 he proclaimed 1 May to be "Law Day", so it could also be Law Day too. > It was originally called "Americanization Day," *shudder* -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: thepiratebay.org behind cloudflare
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Razer wrote: > > I assume the upstream > provider for the local ISP is AOL which would explain why the only time > we were ever notified about a 'torrentviolator' was in regard to Warner > content, > Warner in particular, are very keen on monitoring torrents, and pay various third parties to monitor swarms and extract IP addresses of anyone sharing their content. The third party contractors then look at who owns the relevant block, and sends a notification to that ISP (it's normally automated). It's less likely to be because AOL was upstream than it is simply a product of the fact that Warner are absolutely shit-hot on trying to keep on top of their content being shared (for all the good it does). They don't notice and catch everyone, but IME they've got a far better detection rate than other publishers. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Adding [Cypherpunks] at the beginning of a subject by default
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 6:41 AM, grarpamp wrote: > Users can also fuck around with Thunderbird or Mailpile. > Incidentally, mailpile also satisfies the desired requirement not to have to click into a seperate folder. It uses GMail like labels Has plenty of other drawbacks, but does tick that particular box. Like others I just filter into another folder -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: UK wants backdoor access to WhatsApp in wake of London Attack
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Razer wrote: > > Rudd said attacks like Masood's would be easier to prevent if > authorities could penetrate encrypted services after obtaining a warrant > similar to the ones used to listen in on telephone calls or - in snail > mail days - steam open letters and read their contents. > > I saw this same claim in a story elsewhere. Apparently he sent the WhatsApp message 2 minutes before the attack started. Seems unlikely that a letter sent minutes before would be found and steamed open in time to stop the attack (unless the culprit is being actively followed). Similarly, unless they're actively watching the guy's WhatsApp (and from other reporting, it sounds like they were aware of him, but he wasn't of much interest and wasn't under surveillance), it still wouldn't have stopped the attack. 2 minutes notice is better than nothing, but it's still not a lot of time to deploy countermeasures, especially given he's unlikely to have sent details of his plan in that message. It's more likely to be a confirmation that he was about to proceed. Access is obviously more helpful in the post-mortem, and when looking for co-conspirators who might be planning another attack, but it's still a case of fucking everyone over in order to spy on a few (assuming it even stays that well constrained). > British police investigating the attack say they still believe Masood, a > 52-year-old Briton, acted alone and say they have no indications that > further attacks are planned. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said it may never be possible to > fully determine Masood's motives. > > "That understanding may have died with him," Basu said Saturday night as > police appealed for people who knew Masood or saw him to contact > investigators. "Even if he acted alone in the preparation, we need to > establish with absolute clarity why he did these unspeakable acts, to > bring reassurance to Londoners." > > So there's a reasonable chance he didn't communicate anything useful to anyone else, so there might not be much they could have detected even with access. Again, fucking everyone over to try and target a few, potentially with no gain at the end of it. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: 10 judges are nuts.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell wrote: > Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution > http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android> > I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me: 'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King Wasn't the point in the 2nd to ensure there was a standing militia in case it was needed in times of War (civil or otherwise). If anything, you'd think that line of thought would lead to banning weapons with limited utility at war? Times change, and all that, but seems odd. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: The path of Islam is always the same.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Now here's an angle I have not seen before - historical nation > state wide religious changes. > > Interesting if true. > > >From a quick search, it's technically true but potentially presented in a misleading manner. Afghanistan - Arrival of Islam 6AD Lebanon - Arrival of Islam 7AD The decline of Hinduism in Pakistan is more recent, and largely coincides with when they gained independence - 1947. A lot of Hindu's left for India, with a lot of Indian Muslims migrating to Pakistan. You can do exactly the same for Christianity though, and at similar distances into the past Britain - Various Pagan gods (and Roman gods) supplanted by Christianity France - Various Pagan gods Scandinavia - Ditto Africa - in various countries, misc gods replaced by either Christianity or Islam About the only takeaway really is that religions sometimes get replaced (or "tweaked") by new religions, sometimes that's the result of a military invasion, sometimes it just happens over time and sometimes there's no change at all. None of which should be particularly surprising. IOW, the following claim is unsupported by the "evidence" provided > > Europe will be the next to fall > Then America--and Australia > > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Man jailed for refusing to reveal passwords.
omes to the virtual world, things change—at >> least insofar as the government is concerned. The government claims that >> Rawls isn't being ordered to testify against himself and that he isn't even >> being ordered to produce his passwords.FURTHER READINGChild porn suspect >> jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives >> Rawls, the government argues, (PDF) "repeatedly asserts that the All >> Writs Act order requires him to divulge his passcodes, but he is incorrect: >> the order requires no testimony from [Rawls], and he may keep his passcodes >> to himself. Instead, the order requires only that [Rawls] produce his >> computer and hard drives in an unencrypted state." >> The Electronic Frontier Foundation told the court in a >> friend-of-the-court brief (PDF) that "compelled decryption is inherently >> testimonial because it compels a suspect to use the contents of their mind >> to translate unintelligible evidence into a form that can be used against >> them. The Fifth Amendment provides an absolute privilege against such >> self-incriminating compelled decryption." >> When the appeals court finally rules on Rawls' plight, it won't be the >> final word on the topic. That's because the nation's circuit courts of >> appeal are not obligated to follow the decisions of their sister circuits. >> This means uncertainty over this issue could linger until the nation's >> highest court weighs in. >> All the while, a jailed man named Francis Rawls, who the authorities >> believe is hiding kid smut, remains the poster child surrounding the debate >> on forced decryption. >> > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Ray Cis wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31 01:45:24 -0100 > > "Ben Tasker" > > > > An alternative view of that situation, of course, > > Comes from a cucked citezen of the UK who cannot lawfully own a handgun. > > Given that the per-capita rate of crimes the US counts as "Violent Crimes" are an absolute shitload lower in the UK, I'm more than happy not to own a handgun in exchange. Given the huge variance between what the US and UK classify as a "Violent crime" the categorical numbers can't be compared directly. If someone breaks into my house overnight, the probability of them having a firearm is incredibly low, so I've got the option to go downstairs and lamp them with whatever's at hand without worrying about getting shot the second I appear on the stairs. We had a shooting at a primary school, and it was decided that the costs of handgun ownership were too high. Australia had something similar too before they tightened controls. The US had the Sandy Hook massacre, but seems to have decided that owning a weapon is more important, despite repeated school shootings. You might call the UK cucked, but that's still comparably better than willingly standing by and watching the NRA fuck your kids to death.
Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day
An alternative view of that situation, of course, would be that rather than forsaking whatever cash he had in his wallet, he escalated the situation and put every other victim in that diner at additional risk. It's a high pressure situation, so I'm not judging his instincts, but it could just as easily have turned into a story more like this - http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-houston-texas/ - he got lucky. Had he missed, or been too slow drawing his weapon, it could have been a very different outcome. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Pure propaganda of course, and a true story to boot - doesn't get much > better than this :) > > > http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/29/armed- > citizen-dropped-wallet-distracted-suspect/ > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Independent mirrors of the cpunks links?
I set one up back in June, so there's a few months worth here - https://mailarchives.bentasker.co.uk/Mirrors/cyberpunks/ No downloadable archives there, though the mail is all stored in maildirs so if they were needed I could definitely generate something. On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: > Independent mirrors of the cpunks links? > > What are independent mirrors of the cpunks list? > > Quick search suggests only mail-archive.com. gmane appears still down > and marc.info mirrors related list ending in 2005 with a lot of spam. > > This could be issue in case the main site kicks the bucket. > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: What is the importance of antimatter?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote: > What is the importance of antimatter? > > As is known, I don't understand physics. > The front page of wikipedia links to new results in antimatter > related to antihydrogen. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen > > What is the importance of antimatter not counting nukes? > > Amongst other things, there's a line of research that suggests that it's also helpful in treating cancer - https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/antimatter-and-gamma-rays-help-steer-cancer-killing-machines_en.html In theory, it could also be used as a fuel in space travel - whether that's ever going to be doable is something else - the idea being that an annihilation is pure energy, so if you can direct it, you may be able to travel quite efficiently. I don't think there'd be a use in Nukes (as we know them). Theoretically you could build a similar weapon, but there'd be a huge cost in acquiring and storing the AM, especially once placed into a weapon. Nukes tend to fail-safe, whereas a failure in an AM weapon would almost certainly result in detonation. > Why antimatter is accepted by the standard model in physics, but > anti-time and anti-space appear to be considered cranky topic? > > I guess it depends on what you mean by anti-time and anti-space. But in either case, there's a thread of people doing a far better job than I could of explaining here - http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51224-anti-space/ > Could it be currently we don't have measuring devices and enough > precision to detect anti-time and anti-space and the imaginary (in the > complex sense) stuff from the square root of negative real in the > Lorentz transformations, closely related to relativity? > > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: "right" vs permission, to immigrate - "Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists"
authorities is to make every effort not > to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and > managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region." > > The Japanese have a patriotic pride in Japanese exceptionalism, Japanese > culture and Japanese traditions, and instinctively recognize that > enculturating Islam threatens all that because its value system is so > antithetical to what makes Japan Japan. > > The resistance to Islamic infiltration is universally shared by the > populace at large. "Japan manages to remain a country almost without a > Muslim presence because Japan's negative attitude toward Islam and > Muslims pervades every level of the population, from the man in the > street to organizations and companies to senior officialdom." > > What's more, because the Japanese are proud of who and what they are, > and because of their allegiance to their own cultural values, they are > utterly unapologetic about their resistance to Islam. "The most > interesting thing in Japan's approach to Islam is the fact that the > Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative > way in which they relate to Islam." > > Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who has led the worldwide > effort to tell the truth about Islam, has said that Western nations must > rediscover the vast superiority of Christian civilization over Islamic > civilization, and take a justifiable pride in the Christian heritage of > their own country before they are swept beneath the waves of the Muslim > tsunami now sweeping over Europe and America. > > Concluded Dr. Kedar, "Japan is teaching the whole world an interesting > lesson: there is a direct correlation between national heritage and > permission to immigrate: a people that has a solid and clear national > heritage and identity will not allow the unemployed of the world to > enter its country; and a people whose cultural heritage and national > identity is weak and fragile, has no defense mechanisms to prevent a > foreign culture from penetrating into its country and its land." > > Taking humble and grateful pride once again in what God has done to make > America the most exceptional nation in history is not only the right > thing to do, it is the safest thing to do. > > > > -- > * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) > * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning > * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: > http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish- > pornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles/ > * How Liberal Lefties view the world: > http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/ > 042cb95724339d5df43eab11e5e714e506dadc7e_1_600x329.jpg > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: I Am a Dangerous Professor
Digging around, it looks like this is the post that lead to him being added to that list - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/ It's quite long, and self-indulgent at times, but worth a read. I can see how some would object to it though, a letter saying "If you're white, you're racist, even if you've never been racist, check your privilege" is something that's just not going to go down well. You may have never used the N-word in your life, you may hate the K.K.K., but that does not mean that you don’t harbor racism and benefit from racism. Not sure I agree with the whole idea of the professor watchlist, but I'm not entirely surprised he landed on it. But, good for him in continuing to stand and speak up for what he believes. On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:59 PM, John Young wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html > > > Those familiar with George Orwell's "1984" will recall that "Newspeak was > designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." I recently > felt the weight of this Orwellian ethos when many of my students sent > emails to inform me, and perhaps warn me, that my name appears on the > Professor Watchlist, a new website created by a conservative youth group > known as Turning Point USA. > > I could sense the gravity in those email messages, a sense of relaying > what is to come. The Professor Watchlist's mission, among other things, is > to sound an alarm about those of us within academia who "advance leftist > propaganda in the classroom." It names and includes photographs of some 200 > professors. > > The Watchlist appears to be consistent with a nostalgic desire "to make > America great again" and to expose and oppose those voices in academia that > are anti-Republican or express anti-Republican values. For many black > people, making America "great again" is especially threatening, as it > signals a return to a more explicit and unapologetic racial dystopia. For > us, dreaming of yesterday is not a privilege, not a desire, but a nightmare. > > The new "watchlist" is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, > especially in terms of its overtones of "disloyalty" to the American > republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program > that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations > in the '50s and '60s. Its goal of "outing" professors for their views helps > to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of > exposure designed to mark, shame and silence. > > ... > > > So, in my classrooms, I refuse to remain silent in the face of racism, its > subtle and systemic structure. I refuse to remain silent in the face of > patriarchal and sexist hegemony and the denigration of women's bodies, or > about the ways in which women have internalized male assumptions of how > they should look and what they should feel and desire. > > I refuse to be silent about forms of militarism in which innocent > civilians are murdered in the name of "democracy." I refuse to remain > silent when it comes to acknowledging the existential and psychic dread and > chaos experienced by those who are targets of xenophobia and homophobia. > > I refuse to remain silent when it comes to transgender women and men who > are beaten to death by those who refuse to create conditions of hospitality. > > I refuse to remain silent in a world where children become targets of > sexual violence, and where unarmed black bodies are shot dead by the state > and its proxies, where those with disabilities are mocked and still > rendered "<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/mental-illness-i > s-not-a-horror-show.html>monstrous," and where the earth suffers because > some of us refuse to hear its suffering, where my ideas are marked as > "un-American," and apparently "dangerous." > > Well, if it is dangerous to teach my students to love their neighbors, to > think and rethink constructively and ethically about who their neighbors > are, and how they have been taught to see themselves as disconnected and > neoliberal subjects, then, yes, I am dangerous, and what I teach is > dangerous. > > > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: FBI to gain expanded hacking powers as Senate effort to block fails
> In an effort to address concerns, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Leslie
Caldwell wrote a blog post this week arguing that the > benefits given to
authorities from the rule changes outweighed any potential for "unintended
harm."
That old line again. We know there are some serious concerns about this,
and we know you're right and can't begin to formulate an argument against,
but we really want these powers, so trust us it's for the greater good.
It's a bit like how the UK Investigatory Powers Act contains many, many
"safeguards". All of which are just promises not to misuse the data.
Politicians never seem to get the argument that even if *they* are
trustworthy, there's nothing to say the next bloke isn't going to be a
nutjob.
The post it refers to is here -
https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/additional-considerations-regarding-proposed-amendments-federal-rules-criminal-procedure
- it places a lot of focus on various things they want to use it to stop,
using the aged tactic of dropping some emotive crimes in there so that it's
hard for people to disagree.
Looking at the text though -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41
(6) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities
related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to
use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy
electronically stored information located within or outside that district
if:
(A) the district where the media or information is located has been
concealed through technological means; or
(B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media
are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and
are located in five or more districts.
There doesn't seem to be any restriction on what it can be used for, only
that it fall under criminal law (and the things that fall under that tend
to change over time). No reason they couldn't apply that to "criminal
copyright infringement" for example.
I do wonder how the American exceptionalists are going to cope when other
countries pass similar legislation and starting popping American systems in
greater numbers ("Well, it's legal under our laws"). Mind you, not like
they haven't been getting extra-territorial for quite some time anyway.
In both this and the UK IPA, it seems to be a case of legalising behaviour
that's been going on for a long time anyway, rather than actually stepping
back and looking at whether that behaviour is actually right (legal or not).
Bad times ahead me thinks.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Cecilia Tanaka
wrote:
> FBI to gain expanded hacking powers as Senate effort to block fails
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN13P2ER
>
> "[...] allow U.S. judges will be able to issue search warrants that give
> the FBI the authority to remotely access computers in any jurisdiction,
> potentially even overseas."
>
> "[...] in the hands of an administration of President-elect Trump, a
> Republican who has "openly said he wants the power to hack his political
> opponents the same way Russia does."
>
> We are discussing the bad possibilities in some legal and technical
> studies groups in my country. Our laws don't permiss this kind of
> violation. Fu¢k FBI.
>
--
Ben Tasker
https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Britain and Apple Fucking Your Privacy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Cannon wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > 1. I wonder what effects this will have on encryption. Since encryption > cannot be "decrypted on demand" if it is good encryption, this means that > likely true encryption will be banned in UK? > > They've previously said that this won't be the case. Whether that proves true is something else, of course, especially as they've still not been able to explain exactly how they intend those companies to decrypt. In reality various bits are almost certain to hit the European Court and get shot down, though it might then get resurrected post-Brexit. ICR's in particular probably don't stand much chance of surviving. No-one's quite sure exactly which providers are going to be expected to keep the logs either, as there's no definition of what a CSP is. It's almost a given that consumer ISPs will be required to, but who else? I currently have no idea what, if any, of the various services I make available will be affected. I'd shut down operations before even considering complying with some of the requirements. > 2. And what are the details on allowing hacking, does this mean that > spooks can lawfully bulk hack anyone/everything? > > Apparently they need to constrain the scope a little and be targeting something specific, but essentially, yes. For security concerns I propose we boycott all and any technology, > products, services, or businesses based in UK that complies with "the law" > and has anything to do with technology or communications out of security > concerns. > > If you're going to do that, be very vocal about the business you would have done, and why you weren't able to trust them. Doing it quietly will change nothing. In particular, there's a good chance those companies won't be allowed to disclose that they've had to comply. Warrant canaries arguably don't work as well in the UK as (IIRC) you can be ordered to avoid doing anything that might lead to disclosure of the order, which would include failing to update the canary. At least, I recall reading that somewhere. Theresa May's had a hard-on for this capability for years though, so there's some serious determination behind seeing it all come to pass, so it's going to be some time before common sense prevails (if ever) -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Censors: We want Real-News, Real-Names, Real-ID, Real-Censorship
> Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name? As the very first comment on that slashdot post says, what reporter is going to stop and do a whois before publishing the juicy, breaking news they just stumbled on. Requiring real-names doesn't help with the issue, but risks harming plenty. Having your contact details in a publicly accessible database can lead to self-censorship through fear that someone'll do a who-is and pay a visit (or coerce the local plod into unwittingly doing so). It was a land grab when ICANN tried it previously, and doesn't bring any additional benefit now. It's funny though, how many years have we been telling people to avoid putting personal details online, and still we're seeing people trying to demand more. On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:48 PM, jim bell wrote: > > I have to chuckle about these people complaining about fake news. Let's > say there are two problems: > 1. People promoting fake news. > 2. People FAILING to promote GENUINE news. > > The MSM (mainstream media) just spent about a year avoiding telling the > truth about Hillary Clinton, and her corruption. (I won't list the > details; no point). It misled the public enormously. Why, then, should we > pay attention to its complaints (and those of others) who are claiming that > false facts are being pushed? > > Further, I should point out that "fake" news would tend to not exist in an > environment in which the MSM actually covered such negative news. The > problem, as I see it, is that UNLIKE previous election cycles, and > non-election coverage, in 2015-2016 the MSM took a very biased position, > and avoided covering embarrassing and incriminating facts. This was > especially true in the last few months of the campaign. > Which (IMO) is part of what screwed Clinton over. If you look at the stuff that came up in the final months, whilst damaging, it was all stuff that she could probably have recovered from (the public being fairly fickle and forgetting things quite quickly) had it come up earlier on. Had the media broached it further on rather than trying to ignore it, they could have helped the candidate they wanted to win to actually do so. Instead they buried their heads in the sand and pretended there was nothing to see, even as it became clearer and clearer that there was quite a lot more to be told. Whether you're happy or sad about Trump, I think it's fair to say the media had quite a hand in putting him where he is today, even if that's the opposite effect to the one they intended. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 11:25:19AM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > > At what userbase level would you consider a communication platform to > > > have crossed the line into "service provider"? > > > > > > 100 million? More? Less? > > > > I think, to an extent, it depends as much on how the provider behaves as > it > > does on userbase level. Although actual function would need to come into > it > > too. > > > > The platform that twitter provides is one that lets you "reach" millions > of > > people. In some ways, it's almost unrivalled, in the sense that it's > (IMO) > > far easier to stumble across someone new on Twitter than it is on FB etc. > > > > Whether that's an essential service, obviously, is up for debate. > > Please try to avoid shifting ground, or further twisting my words. > Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I was hung over and trying to interpret what exactly you actually meant by "service provider", as I wasn't entirely clear whether you were viewing it as a utility or an essential service, so I expounded a little on my thinking which has obviously made it less clear. > "Essential service" would be something like water, or electricity (for > cooking). Internet access is not an 'essential service', yet ISPs are > "service providers", Internet Service Providers to be precise. Like a > telephone. > > I'm sure it called be argued that Twittering on Twitter makes one a > Twit, but it's also easy to say that once any communication platform > reaches a 100,000,000 user base, it has become a utility, a service > provider, albeit not an essential utility. > > For a utility? That number seems reasonable to me > Arguing otherwise is arguing -for- a feudal corporatist world, > ESPECIALLY given that these corporations (in particular in this instance > the one you're spruiking for) build themselves to such heights with > statutory corporate and monopolistic protections, defended by government > and the courts. Zuckerberg is protected from personal legal attack by > the corporate veil of protection(ism) provided by the 100% artificial > corporation entity. "Twitter" in the "communications domain" at least > but possibly "all domains" is (presumably) a "protected" (for exclusive > use of Twitter Inc) trademark. > > They almost certainly are, yes. > > > Do you agree that "Twitter" has become a communication platform/ > > > conduit? > > > > To some extent, yes. > > Would be difficult to argue otherwise. > > > > And do you agree that no one is obliged to "follow" anyone else? > > > > Yes. But, not following you doesn't mean that you can't dump stuff into > my > > notifications by simply including an @. If you've got many hundreds of > > people doing that, are you going to sit and block all of them? > > OK, so Twitter does have an "email" type of targetting function. I didn't > know that. > > Sounds like the technology is flawed - it's centralised, and a walled > garden - at least you can set up your own email server. > > Yes, and with email you at least have the ability to set up some very strict filters to try and limit what you receive. Until recently, Twitter lacked even the beginnings of that - they've recently added the ability to "mute" tweets based on keyword. Not tried it though so it might be crap. I _think_ it's probably fair to say that the tools Twitter provide were probably reasonable for how they envisioned the platform being used. Whether through simple growth or lack of imagination, though, it is fairly flawed if your aim is to filter things getting sent to you directly > > But I can still include you in mentions which'll end up in your > > notification area. As an added "bonus" those mentions are visible to > anyone > > who is following you, so they can reply to them (which'll also ping me). > A > > DM would, at least, be hidden from your followers > > > > If you look at Razers tweet earlier, you'll probably find he's not > > following any of those > > His ability to create such "non-following" is perhaps above the ability > of "the average Twitter user"? > > In the case of Razer's tweet, we actually need to look at the reverse (so I mis-stated it a bit). Razer sent an unsolicited tweet to three people, all of whom are unlikely to be following
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
"lefty" politicians much further left than centre-right. But I take your point Juan: > The difference between your previous scenarios and the twitter thing is that if there were any threats, I doubt they were credible at all. That's a valid point (though I did say analogies were flawed). Receiving those kind of threats is undoubtedly unpleasant, but you're right, they shouldn't lead to quite the same fear for safety as in my scenario. On the other hand, I could understand someone fearing that they were just the beginning. The person sending them might not, physically, be able to reach you themselves, but the next step might be swatting. But, to be fair, at that point we're away from speech and well into real-world actions. > I mean, what kind of threat is an anonymous idiot with a fake account half accross the world saying he'll kill you? Your own account probably not giving any real info about you either. It's scary the amount of information people do put online, though most at least have the sense to not publicly post their address. That's often not enough, though. Both corporations and governments seem to take a laid back approach to protecting the data they're given (and in the case of govt, the data they compel us to give them), so with various leaks floating about there's always the possibility that information can be gathered. Again, though, I'll conceded that that's a seperate issue > Of course for those people tha ability to block anybody who called them out was essential. There's definitely groups of people (some of those Jim would probably correctly identify as "PC") who seem to revel in the ability to block dissenting views. An individual blocking someone else, at most, is only harming their ability to learn something about the opposing view. But others do try to take it further by trying to have "it" blocked at a wider level by coercing government (or private orgs) to act. On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > At what userbase level would you consider a communication platform to > have crossed the line into "service provider"? > > 100 million? More? Less? > > I think, to an extent, it depends as much on how the provider behaves as it does on userbase level. Although actual function would need to come into it too. The platform that twitter provides is one that lets you "reach" millions of people. In some ways, it's almost unrivalled, in the sense that it's (IMO) far easier to stumble across someone new on Twitter than it is on FB etc. Whether that's an essential service, obviously, is up for debate. > Do you agree that "Twitter" has become a communication platform/ > conduit? > > To some extent, yes. > And do you agree that no one is obliged to "follow" anyone else? > > Yes. But, not following you doesn't mean that you can't dump stuff into my notifications by simply including an @. If you've got many hundreds of people doing that, are you going to sit and block all of them? > > > Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for > > expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of directly > > harassing people for race, gender, whatever. > > So you say. This is Twitter we're talking about - where the only way you > can be "attacked" (you should at least be saying 'verbally' attacked) Yes, I should have been saying verbally, you're right is > if you "follow" the person "attacking" you. > > Untrue. Depending on your settings, you'd need to be following me to for me to send you a direct message. But I can still include you in mentions which'll end up in your notification area. As an added "bonus" those mentions are visible to anyone who is following you, so they can reply to them (which'll also ping me). A DM would, at least, be hidden from your followers If you look at Razers tweet earlier, you'll probably find he's not following any of those > > > The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we > > currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've > > bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but > > of their actions. > > So now "speech == actions". > > At what point, in the online world, would you consider something becomes analogous to a real-world action? Their action was that they verbally attacked someone (and encouraged others to do so) - obviously doing that requires speech but the two are not the same thing. > The Ministry of Truth congratulates you; take notice that > the Ministry's cheques take up to 48 hours to arrive. > Please ensure it's made out to CASH ;) -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:00 AM, juan wrote: > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:01:34 + > Ben Tasker wrote: > > > Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and > > defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that > > it sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those > > users anyway > > > The profits of businesses like twitter are certainly no concern > of mine...though from a purely commercial point of view you are > right. On the other hand, that means they should suppress > ANYTHING that the mob doesn't like. Or pander to anything the > mob ikes, be it clever and uplifting, stupid or outright > criminal. > > > Which unfortunately, corporations sometimes do. It's a very hard line to draw to define when that's right or wrong, especially as it's always going to be based on individual bias and opinions. What you find gravely offensive I might find funny as fuck, and vice versa. > > > > > > > > > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend > > > fascist corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course > > > > > > > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. > > > > I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and > > certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. > > > > But you know what, I believe in individual rights, > > > So do I. that's why I'd never invoke individual rights to > defend fascist twitter or their laughable (from a legal and > moral point of view) 'terms of service'. > > More important, the people who call themselves 'twitter' > don't believe in individual rights. If they did they would > not be a leading company under 'jurisdiction' of the US state. > > I've been on this list more than long enough to know you're not a statist Juan, and I don't entirely disagree with a lot of your views, so I'm not going to try and disagree here. All I will say, is that the corporate entity is made up of lots of individuals, though the corporate ethos (if you'll forgive the term, I know it implies ethics which might actually be absent) will be dictated from on high. > > > > and that includes > > the right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're > > being made to carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world > > where people will associate them with you, that's - in effect- > > compelling speech which is just as bad (if not worse) than > > suppressing speech. > > > > A corporation actually take a stance to try and prevent some of the > > targeted abuse that flows online is a good thing. > > > Oh yes. Censorship is a 'good thing'... > > It's a little more fine-grained than that. A corporation trying to protect users (even if it does simply view them as a revenue source) is a good effect for the majority of users. Doesn't help much if you're in the minority though. > Anyway, I should mention that this incident is just > propaganda, as usual. Twitter and their political masters need to pretend that they > are not 'racists' so they lynch a few racists..so that all the > official racism of the US empire can happily continue. It's > called 'plausible deniability'...hypocrysy...or The American > Way. > > Here, I agree. > > > > It might not (nay, > > doesn't) offset the myriad faults with the system, but it's a lean > > towards benefiting the userbase (even if driven primarily by > > self-interest). The world isn't black and white, even the truly evil > > can perform good acts from time to time. > > > > > > Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for > > expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of > > directly harassing people for race, gender, whatever. > > > How did they harrass people? By posting bullshit on twitter? It > must have been that, since, as far as I know, twitter hasn't > become the thought police in the offline world...yet. > > See the answer to your final question below > > > > > > They're still free to continue running websites promoting their > > views. I'd have a bigger issue with a hosting company refusing to > > host what amounts to a political (if extreme) opinion or new
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
> As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in FREE SPEECH?!? Except as I tried to make clear in the rest of the email, it's not the speech that's the issue, but the actions. Want to post how much you hate (to pick an example) mexicans on twitter? Go for it, it's unlikely you'll be banned. Encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of others to tweet racist shit at a single user? Its your action there that gets you banned. It's not what you've said so much as the fact you've led a charge. Twitter'll deny you the tools to take those actions. My comment was in the context of a commercial decision, and yes, the sane commercial decision is to remove those that are causing issues, if they're in the minority. They're a corporation and can't let a small chunk of revenue drive away large chunks. It's that simple. Reddit had to go through a similar thing a while back, and shuttered coontown (amongst other subs). Many predicted the demise of reddit, but in reality, whilst some users left for Voat and probably never came back, most of the remaining subs continue to thrive. Admittedly, that was more about getting money to come onboard in the first place, so it was as much about the investors sensibilities as the userbase. > A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If a service removes speech that _somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon there will be little or no speech to see. I agree. And booting someone for saying something offensive isn't right. Encouraging others to descend, en masse, on someone else though isn't just speech, it's incitement - an action. Or at least as much as an action as the average user can actually take online >I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship I suspect you dropped "PC" in there because it's one of your trigger words. This isn't about political correctness, this is about people getting targeted, en masse, because their skin's the wrong colour, or because they lack a penis (or in some cases, have one). Not about protecting peoples sensibilities, but about outright, deliberate victimisation. FTR, There's fuckload wrong with world of Political Correctness, especially once you get people arguing that we should use so-called "positive discrimination". Leaving actions aside, and going back to the original reason I mailed the list, Mirimir noted that ACLU supported the KKK's right to rally. IOW they defend the KKK's right to free speech. ACLU don't however, let the KKK hold those rallies in their carpark, or provide them with megaphones etc. There's a big difference in defending the right to speech and actively helping someone make that speech. I see this as much the same, you've got the right to say what you like, and I'll gladly defend that, but I'm not going to help you say it. Why would Twitter be any different? Hell, the world in general is no different. You don't see Breitbart hosting guest columns from lefties, just as you don't tend to see liberal publications inviting the alt-right to put their views forward. Each have to find their own, accommodating, venues to push their agendas from. On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:14 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > *From:* Ben Tasker > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: > > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist > government they work for. > > > >Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that > allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling > comfortable >using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the > only sane commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? > > As opposed to that old concept of actually letting people engage in FREE > SPEECH?!? > Sorry, but I have to laugh! A lot of speech will bother _somebody_. If > a service removes speech that _somebody_ claims to object to, fairly soon > there will be little or no speech to see. > I suspect these people are merely trying to justify PC censorship. Stop > it. >Jim Bell > > -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan wrote: > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist > government they work for. > > Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling comfortable using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the only sane commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that it sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those users anyway > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend fascist > corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. But you know what, I believe in individual rights, and that includes the right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're being made to carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world where people will associate them with you, that's - in effect- compelling speech which is just as bad (if not worse) than suppressing speech. A corporation actually take a stance to try and prevent some of the targeted abuse that flows online is a good thing. It might not (nay, doesn't) offset the myriad faults with the system, but it's a lean towards benefiting the userbase (even if driven primarily by self-interest). The world isn't black and white, even the truly evil can perform good acts from time to time. Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of directly harassing people for race, gender, whatever. They're still free to continue running websites promoting their views. I'd have a bigger issue with a hosting company refusing to host what amounts to a political (if extreme) opinion or news site. The line seems to be drawn at launching direct attacks, which doesn't seem unreasonable, especially given the reality is we live in a world where capitalism currently exists, and most of society doesn't want to have to deal with that type of bullshit. Course, there is the question of how direct attacks should be defined too, and there's no good way to do that definitively. I think encouraging hundreds, if not thousands, of followers to hurl abuse at one user is probably well over it though. > > The 'terms of service' of the corporate mafia are null and > void, in case you never noticed. > > > Not if you plan to use a service provided and controlled by that mafia. The (non-corporate) mafia, in fact, tend to be quite insistent that you abide by their terms I know you'll probably disagree with huge chunks of that, if not all of it, and it's probably a bit muddled where it's been rattled out. The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but of their actions. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mirimir wrote: > On 11/18/2016 02:55 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > On 11/18/2016 03:44 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > >> Once known as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", Twitter's > >> true colours are hard to hide for even those with slowest brainial > >> neorone. > >> > >> Facebook to follow and Google joining the party. > > > > I wouldn't call them "alt-left" just because they want the garbage off > > of their service. There is a difference between free speech and garbage. > > Well, ACLU has supported rights of KKK to rally :) > > Aye, but they've not also given them a section on their blog to post on have they? If you look a little deeper, you'll also find it's not the fundamental views (and expression of) themselves that Twitter have taken issue with, it's that the users in question repeatedly violated the ToS. There's really not that much wrong with an individual service provider deciding there are rules if you want to use their service. There might, of course, be some chilling effects if all players in that area decide to enforce overly strict rules, but that's somewhat different. As ever, XKCD is relevant - https://xkcd.com/1357/ -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: flexthismotherfucker
>>> 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. I've seen more boxes in China that were *very* poorly secured than not (could be selection bias of course) so it's just as likely they're compromised boxes. In fact in the majority of cases it's probably more likely - China's a good place to originate from if your aim is to make it difficult for anyone in the Western World to trace a connection back to your real location - at least by legal methods. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia - [perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Razer wrote: > > > Well, I found my 4s in the gutter in the showers before a rainstorm and > rescued it. You wouldn't believe how many people lose them and never > bother looking. Their insurance, or 'upgrade plan' resolves it. I waited > THREE FUCKING MONTHS for the owner to call and claim, but they never > did. So I had it turned on in my name. > > An iPhone without giving any money to Apple? That's the dream! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqk_eKwVLY -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
