RE: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We *CAN* win -- wake up, people! Dude. As someone who was personally connected to this (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html), and this, http://www.komonews.com/news/local/68320537.html I feel pretty justified in telling you to keep this 'shoot a pig' crap off the list. Unbelievable.
RE: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote: As someone who was personally connected to this (http://www.komonews.com/ne= ws/local/78088192.html), and this, http://www.komonews.com/news/local/68320= 537.html I feel pretty justified in telling you to keep this 'shoot a pig' = crap off the list. To all uniformed dudes reading this: if you don't want the people you serve to feel like shooting you, perhaps you should consider going on strike, immediately stopping enforcing any and all man-made laws that go against the natural law of Universe, against common sense and against basic humanity; immediately stopping following any and all orders telling you to do things that are morally wrong, and finally, switching over to our side, helping defend America and the American People against USA. In the timeless words of The Internationale: No more deluded by reaction, On tyrants only we'll make war; The soldiers too will take strike action, They'll break ranks and fight no more! And if those cannibals keep trying To sacrifice us to their pride, They soon will hear the bullets flying: We'll shoot the generals on our own side! MS Hold the Heathen Hammer High! With a battle cry! For the pagan past I live and one day will die.
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On 12/5/2010 11:32 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote: Pretty much, I no longer care what you wrote. Go away. Seriously. Just GO AWAY. Alt.politics is -- thataway. *plonk* -- Die gedanken sind frei.
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:53:22 GMT, Michael Sokolov said: Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We *CAN* win -- wake up, people! Yes, but shooting down an RFC1925-compliant porker may require larger caliber If you mean shooting people in order to protest a law, that proposition is obscene, and attempting to dehumanize flesh and blood, while hiding the nature of the act through name-calling does not make the act more civilized, sane, or less deserving of rebuke. If pig is defined as person(s) conducting network abuse, violating the AUP of services they use in manners, such as sending spam, transmitting illegally obtained documents, or posting large numbers of off-topic political rants to a technical discussion listserv contrary to its AUP. And by shoot you mean turning off their network service, being used in the abusive manner contrary to the terms agreed or as required by the law. Then this is done every day, and I would applaud those such as Amazon who have done a service to the network community by doing so. -- -JH
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:45 AM, andrew.wallace wrote: Washington (CNN) -- U.S. officials at the Pentagon and State Department denied Friday knowing of any efforts to take down the WikiLeaks website or asking companies to do so. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/03/wikileaks.takedown/index.html Yes, that is what both spokesmen literally did I am not aware of any conversations by the United States government - said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. I am not aware that the Department of Defense is behind any of the problems that WikiLeaks is experiencing, Col. Dave Lapan, Pentagon spokesman. Not the Department, not the Secretary, not the Joint Chiefs, just the lowly old spokesman, all by himself, who is not aware. A weaker and less convincing denial can scarcely be imagined this side of the divorce court. And the CNN headline, while technical true : U.S. officials deny they are urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks would be more accurate as Minor U.S. officials deny they are personally urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks which would have not nearly had the same punch. Regards Marshall Andrew
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
Not the Department, not the Secretary, not the Joint Chiefs, just the lowly old spokesman, all by himself, who is not aware. A weaker and less convincing denial can scarcely be imagined this side of the divorce court. And the CNN headline, while technical true : U.S. officials deny they are urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks would be more accurate as Minor U.S. officials deny they are personally urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks which would have not nearly had the same punch. Who cares ? we'll know what they actually said/did in the next batch of stolen documents. -J
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html or for anyone who can't speak German: http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.htmlsl=detl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 (The translation is about as coherent as Sarah Palin herself).
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote: Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html or for anyone who can't speak German: http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.htmlsl=detl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 (The translation is about as coherent as Sarah Palin herself). Enough already...this is not a political list!
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
+1 On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote: Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html or for anyone who can't speak German: http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.htmlsl=detl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 (The translation is about as coherent as Sarah Palin herself). Enough already...this is not a political list!
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
++ Enough already...this is not a political list -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments Disclaimer: http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
++ (ie *2) -J
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:24:46 EST, Bret Clark said: On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote: Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities Enough already...this is not a political list! However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream. pgpmrQHiKvNfo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream. If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up. -J
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
- Original Message - From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:24:46 EST, Bret Clark said: On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote: Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities Enough already...this is not a political list! However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream. And enumerating some of those thoughts is Lauren Weinstein of Privacy Forum: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000788.html I don't always agree with everything Lauren says, but it seems to me he has this one taped pretty well. Cheers, -- jra
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up. Option 3: unleash your full firepower against the miscreants who have dared to invade your soil despite the sign at the gate which reads in plain English: THIS FACILITY IS EXTRATERRITORIAL AND IS NOT PART OF ANY COUNTRY NO MAKERS OR ENFORCERS OF ANY FORM OF MAN-MADE LAW ARE ALLOWED ON THE PREMISES DEADLY FORCE WILL BE USED AGAINST ANY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TRESPASSING PAST THIS BOUNDARY! Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We *CAN* win -- wake up, people! American People vs. USA -- let's see who is stronger. MS Hold the Heathen Hammer High! With a battle cry! For the pagan past I live and one day will die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu2bgwcv43o
Re: [NANOG] Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 02:53:22AM +, Michael Sokolov wrote: Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We *CAN* win -- wake up, people! Is there really any need for this nonsense on this list? Can all the rhetoric and politics be kept off and return the list to technical issues? There are venues much better suited for those discussions. John -- We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -- Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), 30th president of the United States pgpgx4xdCsoOy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:17:30 -0600 Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream. If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up. The land of the free; or so you keep telling everyone. -J -- John
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:53:22 GMT, Michael Sokolov said: Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We *CAN* win -- wake up, people! Yes, but shooting down an RFC1925-compliant porker may require larger caliber munitions than most of us have handy. And you may want to check your insurance coverage for liability when it comes back down if you manage to hit it. pgp4C592NNODK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
BTW, at this time only the server at NL seems to be responding -J
Re: [NANOG] Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
This nonsense is only non-operational until you suddenly find yourself in a dire need to evade military patrols on a street while you're dragging a bag full of equipment to your backup NOC. Been there, done that. What are your contingency plans for the event of a government order (illegal, of course, but that'd be your least worry) to shut the network down? Putting your head into sand saying it can't happen here? Yes, it can. In the Soviet Union just emptying datacenters and phone exchanges from any personnel other than security guards - with all technical people making themselves unreachable was sufficient to keep the networks running. The goons, apparently, had no clue which switches to turn. (There also was a capacity problem caused by the surge in the traffic; but this isn't likely to be a problem in the modern networks, but arranging local caches for highly demanded videos and alternative news sites - all mainstream outlets will be playing the equivalent of Swan Lake - may be necessary in order to keep service running). --vadim John R. Dennison wrote: On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 02:53:22AM +, Michael Sokolov wrote: Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We *CAN* win -- wake up, people! Is there really any need for this nonsense on this list? Can all the rhetoric and politics be kept off and return the list to technical issues? There are venues much better suited for those discussions. John
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:17:30PM -0600, Jorge Amodio said: However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream. If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up. And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request. /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote: And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request. Except of course when you're asked not to share what has occured with anyone. I hear that kind of thing happens today. Adrian
Re: U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@creative.net.au wrote: On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote: And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request. Except of course when you're asked not to share what has occured with anyone. I hear that kind of thing happens today. No -- iin the U.S., if you even reveal that you have been served with a National Security Letter [1], you are in violation of the FISA [2] court under the Patriot Act. Ask is not the word I would use. Fun stuff, eh? - - ferg [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Security_Letter [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveil lance_Act -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) wj8DBQFM+x6Tq1pz9mNUZTMRArexAJ0QKJZQFSe/ujsUrCqh8nIcBs4rjQCfdJ9U wjHFgjDtIQdJ6exnFkOAyzQ= =Ej/J -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
