- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

The Blacklist (was: The Black List)
by Michael Best 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

I asked one of the writers about this awhile back after another episode seemed to mirror a "case" I was involved in. The off the record answer was that instance was a total coincidence but the research assistants for the writing team use a lot of real life stuff as inspiration, but rarely delve more than skin deep. They borrow headlines, but that's it. It's like Oliver Stone's JFK - a mirror of reality, but nothing is quite right. TL;DR: Probably a trick, but James Spader's voice will make me forget that.

2 1

Re: list sans smtp spillage
by Ulex Europae 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

At 08:44 AM 10/27/2015, Cari Machet wrote: >I dont know-know but test it all out irl ask someone in love with >you if you can fuck them ...watch the facial expression That seems pointless, BTDT a few times and had the same said to me more times than that. What followed after was, a pleasure. >On Oct 27, 2015 12:06 PM, "Ulex Europae" ><<mailto:europus@gmail.com>europus(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Word meanings change over time. To not acknowledge and take this >into consideration reveals an agenda. A religious agenda, most probably. Mainstream religions these days have odd ideas about women and the sex act. They should advance their theologies because it's the 21st century now, not the Dark Ages (which xtianity single-handedly caused (for western civilization), btw). -- "Studies have found that people who use profanity are more intelligent than the rest of you motherfuckers." -- some Facebook meme

2 1

Re: Shiny stuff and designer societies (addenda)
by Sean Lynch 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Dammit, meant to send to the list again. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:02 AM Sean Lynch <seanl(a)literati.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >> >> I think there's a place for individualism within collectivism but the >> collective comes first. >> >> > This I can't really agree with. There is no collective without the > individual, and why should any individual be part of such a thing if it > doesn't benefit him or her? > > I recognize that we share the planet and that we all benefit from the > existence of society, but I think the only obligation that places upon us > is to give at least as much as we take. But at the end of the day the only > people qualified to make the determination of whether an individual's > contribution is adequate is the individual and anyone considering entering > into some kind of exchange/relationship/whatever with that individual. It > is the sum total of these decisions and interactions from which society > emerges. > > My longer term hope is that sharing the planet is just a temporary > constraint that we'll eventually overcome. There is a lot of room in the > galaxy and even the solar system. "If you don't like it, leave" is a lot > more realistic of an option when the choices and resources available are > practically infinite. This is not to say I'm sympathetic to the Venus > Project and its' ilk; I don't think they're wrong about a future of > abundance, I just think their language and thinking is rooted in a > fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of economic scarcity. >

1 0

Re: Shiny stuff and designer societies (addenda)
by Razer 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

On 10/30/2015 09:52 AM, Sean Lynch wrote: > Something that one might call "societal equality" is of interest to > me, too. But different people have different ideas of what that means. And that is the point of commonality we work from. The idea is to work towards more of that commonality without sacrificing our individual ethics or morals. Ideas are the 'mutable' element. RR > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:08 PM Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net > <mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net>> wrote: > > > > On 10/29/2015 03:27 PM, Sean Lynch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:02 AM Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net > <mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net>> wrote: > > > > You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" > is primary. > > > > > > I aim for the heads of people who aim for such a society, > because "we" > > is a fiction. It is just a way of saying "I" while pretending > you have > > others' interests in mind. You can only speak for yourself. > Trying to > > speak for anyone else who has not asked you to is just another > form of > > coercion. > > Who said I speak for anyone but me? Or care to. > > You're reading a lot into my interest in social equality. Perhaps it's > because of your own world view? > > >

2 2

Re: Shiny stuff and designer societies (addenda)
by Sean Lynch 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Sorry, meant to send this to the list, too. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM Sean Lynch <seanl(a)literati.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:08 PM Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/29/2015 03:27 PM, Sean Lynch wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:02 AM Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> > >> > You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" is >> primary. >> > >> > >> > I aim for the heads of people who aim for such a society, because "we" >> > is a fiction. It is just a way of saying "I" while pretending you have >> > others' interests in mind. You can only speak for yourself. Trying to >> > speak for anyone else who has not asked you to is just another form of >> > coercion. >> >> Who said I speak for anyone but me? Or care to. >> >> You're reading a lot into my interest in social equality. Perhaps it's >> because of your own world view? >> > > Something that one might call "societal equality" is of interest to me, > too. But different people have different ideas of what that means. >

1 0

Cypherpunks is broken - Welcome to Secret Admirers
by Trent Secret Admirers 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

TL;DR, apply here: http://oestla3j22reypzj.onion/account/index/applyform It's been more than 20 years since the the Cypherpunk's manifesto was published and we believe it's more important today than it was back then. And like the manifesto, we believe in action more than in talk. Just as software and hardware can be developed for surveillance purposes, so can it be for better privacy and a truly free cyberspace. Technology itself is neutral, we choose what to build with it. The reason so little has been achieved lately is because we lost track of a fundamental point from the manifesto: Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. It seems that the original Cypherpunks mailing list degraded into a debating society and very little new code is written. The signal-to-noise ratio has become abysmal. Intellectual masturbation won't give us more privacy - deployed code does. Towards that end we founded the Secret Admirers. This is what we offer - for members only: - The Secret Admirers mailing list (only reachable via Tor). - The Secret Admirers mailing list archive. - Mail account on the Secret Admirers server to communicate with the mailing list and other members (IMAP). - Git repository hosting (with read access for all member repositories). - Members can edit a user file on the server (for example, to publish their public PGP key). Secret Admirers Rules - Secret Admirers is a community of doers. To be a member, you have to code/maintain privacy enhancing software and/or be the admin of privacy enhancing systems/services. This includes digital OPSEC tools and open-source hardware which is privacy/security related. - To become a full member of Secret Admirers you have to go through the application process (see below). - The existing full members will vote to decide if an applicant becomes a full member. - For all software and systems we design the following holds true: The more privacy it provides the better. This usually implies that strong cryptography is used as well. - Discussions on the Secret Admirers mailing list should be in regard to Cypherpunk... how to build better systems. Members are expected to communicate in a civilized manner and try to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio. - Software written by our members in the context of Secret Admirers is freely available to all other members. - Only the original author may make the source code available to the general public. Members never release source code written and unreleased by other members. - A full member can bring up to two followers to Secret Admirers. - Followers get the same benefits as full members except voting rights and bringing in followers. - Followers can apply for full membership under the same rules as normal applicants. - Full members have to maintain the conditions of their application. That is, they keep working on/maintaining privacy related software or systems. If members stop being productive they risk loosing their membership status. - Members who do not follow the rules will be ejected. If a full member is ejected his followers will be ejected with him. How to apply for Secret Admirers For your Secret Admirers application we need: - A way to contact you (encrypted). - Your desired pseudonym on Secret Admirers. - A description of your working software project/system. If the code/system is already public we will request proof of control from you. - If you want to make the code only available to Secret Admirers we need it upfront to be able to review your application. Apply here: http://oestla3j22reypzj.onion/account/index/applyform

8 7

Droidjack raids in germany
by Tom 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

German police raided a couple of poeple's homes who've purchased the android RAT tool DroidJack. They justified the searches with the claim Droidjack is an offense-only tool which has no dual use (which is nonsense) and that by purchasing it the user is therefore already a criminal (nonsense as well). Beside this claim they didn't provide any further evidence, like if the person has indeed used the software against someone. The searches are therefore probably unlawful. However if the scheme persists before the courts then it may be illegal to buy/own/use "hacker software" in germany. And since judges usually don't have any clue, the prosecution can tell them whatever they please and will be able to convict basically everyone in the security industry at will. German law blog article: http://www.kanzlei-hoenig.de/2015/droidjack-der-durchsuchungsbeschluss/ BBC report: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34668337 best, Tom

1 0

Fwd: [guardian-dev] Ripple: reliable panic trigger
by grarpamp 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans(a)guardianproject.info> To: Guardian Dev <guardian-dev(a)lists.mayfirst.org> For the "Ripple" panic trigger app, I just put together a trigger sequence that is meant to be self-explanatory, and be very difficult to accidentally set off. This is for the "delete everything" panic setup, so you want to be sure that you don't mistakenly set it off. This is for use cases where the user has some time to do it, and are not super rushed, so for example, crossing a border or in an office that is being raided. You can see screenshots of the trigger sequence here: https://dev.guardianproject.info/boards/21/topics/379 And here is more about the design of Ripple: https://dev.guardianproject.info/boards/21/topics/366 Here is a test build that can be used with the latest Zom to test panic: https://guardianproject.info/builds/Ripple/Ripple-debug.apk https://guardianproject.info/builds/Ripple/Ripple-debug.apk.asc .hc PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D 8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81 List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev

1 0

Fwd: [tor-dev] Tor Messenger Beta: Chat over Tor, Easily
by coderman 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sukhbir Singh <azadi(a)riseup.net> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:12:00 -0400 Subject: [tor-dev] Tor Messenger Beta: Chat over Tor, Easily Hi, Today we are releasing a new, beta version of Tor Messenger, based on Instantbird [0], an instant messaging client developed in the Mozilla community. * What is it? Tor Messenger is a cross-platform chat program that aims to be secure by default and sends all of its traffic over Tor. It supports a wide variety of transport networks, including Jabber (XMPP), IRC, Google Talk, Facebook Chat, Twitter, Yahoo, and others; enables Off-the-Record (OTR) Messaging [1] automatically; and has an easy-to-use graphical user interface localized into multiple languages. * What it isn't... Tor Messenger builds on the networks you are familiar with, so that you can continue communicating in a way your contacts are willing and able to do. This has traditionally been in a client-server model, meaning that your metadata (specifically the relationships between contacts) can be logged by the server. However, your route to the server will be hidden because you are communicating over Tor. We are also excited about systems like Pond [2] and Ricochet [3], which try to solve this problem, and would encourage you to look at their designs and use them too. * Why Instantbird? We considered a number of messaging clients: Pidgin, Adam Langley's xmpp-client, and Instantbird. Instantbird was the pragmatic choice -- its transport protocols are written in a memory-safe language (JavaScript); it has a graphical user interface and already supports many natural languages; and it's a XUL application, which means we can leverage both the code (Tor Launcher) and in-house expertise that the Tor Project has developed working on Tor Browser with Firefox. It also has an active and vibrant software developer community that has been very responsive and understanding of our needs. The main feature it lacked was OTR support, which we have implemented [4] and hope to upstream to the main Instantbird repository for the benefit of all Instantbird (and Thunderbird) users. * Current Status Today we are releasing a beta version with which we hope to gain both usability and security related feedback. There have been three previous alpha releases to the mailing lists that have already helped smooth out some of the rougher edges. * Downloads Linux (32-bit) https://dist.torproject.org/tormessenger/0.1.0b2/tor-messenger-linux32-0.1.… Linux (64-bit) https://dist.torproject.org/tormessenger/0.1.0b2/tor-messenger-linux64-0.1.… Windows https://dist.torproject.org/tormessenger/0.1.0b2/tormessenger-install-0.1.0… OS X https://dist.torproject.org/tormessenger/0.1.0b2/TorMessenger-0.1.0b2-osx64… sha256sums https://dist.torproject.org/tormessenger/0.1.0b2/sha256sums.txt https://dist.torproject.org/tormessenger/0.1.0b2/sha256sums.txt.asc The sha256sums.txt file containing hashes of the bundles is signed with the key 0x6887935AB297B391 (fingerprint: 3A0B 3D84 3708 9613 6B84 5E82 6887 935A B297 B391). * Instructions - On Linux, extract the bundle(s) and then run: ./start-tor-messenger.desktop - On OS X, copy the Tor Messenger application from the disk image to your local disk before running it. On all platforms, Tor Messenger sets the profile folder for Firefox/Instantbird to the installation directory. - Note that as a policy, unencrypted one-to-one conversations are not allowed and your messages will not be transmitted if the person you are talking with does not have an OTR-enabled client. You can disable this option in the preferences to allow unencrypted communication but doing so is not recommended. * Source Code We are doing automated builds [5] of Tor Messenger for all platforms. The Linux builds are reproducible: anyone who builds Tor Messenger for Linux should have byte-for-byte identical binaries compared with other builds from a given source. You can build it yourself [6] and let us know if you encounter any problems or cannot match our build. The Windows and OS X builds are not completely reproducible yet but we are working on it [7]. * What's to Come Our current focus is security, robustness and user experience. We will be fixing bugs and releasing updates as appropriate, and in the future, we plan on pairing releases with Mozilla's Extended Support Release (ESR) cycle. We have some ideas on where to take Tor Messenger but we would like to hear what you have to say. Some possibilities include: - Reproducible builds for Windows and OS X (#10942) - Sandboxing (#10943) - Automatic updates (#14388) - Improved Tor support (#10950) - OTR over Twitter DMs (#13312) - Produce (and distribute) internationalized builds (#10945) - Secure multi-party communication (np1sec) [8] - Encrypted file-transfers - Usability study * How To Help Give it a try and provide feedback, requests, and file bugs [9] (choose the "Tor Messenger" component). If you are a developer, help us close all our tickets [10] or help us review our design doc [11]. As always, we are idling on IRC in #tor-dev (OFTC) (nicks: arlolra; boklm; sukhe) and subscribed to the tor-talk/dev mailing lists. Please note that this release is for users who would like to help us with testing the product but at the same time who also understand the risks involved in using beta software. Thanks and we hope you enjoy Tor Messenger! [0] - http://instantbird.com [1] - https://otr.cypherpunks.ca [2] - https://pond.imperialviolet.org [3] - https://ricochet.im [4] - https://github.com/arlolra/ctypes-otr [5] - https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor-messenger-build.git [6] - https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor-messenger-build.git/tree/README [7] - https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10942 [8] - https://github.com/equalitie/np1sec [9] - https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/newticket [10] - https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?status=!closed&component=Tor… [11] - https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorMessenger/DesignDoc

2 1

The Economist checks in on "The promise of the blockchain"
by Razer 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

The Economist The promise of the blockchain The trust machine The technology behind bitcoin could transform how the economy works Oct 31st 2015 | From the print edition BITCOIN has a bad reputation. The decentralised digital cryptocurrency, powered by a vast computer network, is notorious for the wild fluctuations in its value, the zeal of its supporters and its degenerate uses, such as extortion, buying drugs and hiring hitmen in the online bazaars of the “dark net”. This is unfair. The value of a bitcoin has been pretty stable, at around $250, for most of this year. Among regulators and financial institutions, scepticism has given way to enthusiasm (the European Union recently recognised it as a currency). But most unfair of all is that bitcoin’s shady image causes people to overlook the extraordinary potential of the “blockchain”, the technology that underpins it. This innovation carries a significance stretching far beyond cryptocurrency. The blockchain lets people who have no particular confidence in each other collaborate without having to go through a neutral central authority. Simply put, it is a machine for creating trust. The blockchain food chain To understand the power of blockchain systems, and the things they can do, it is important to distinguish between three things that are commonly muddled up, namely the bitcoin currency, the specific blockchain that underpins it and the idea of blockchains in general. A helpful analogy is with Napster, the pioneering but illegal “peer-to-peer” file-sharing service that went on line in 1999, providing free access to millions of music tracks. Napster itself was swiftly shut down, but it inspired a host of other peer-to-peer services. Many of these were also used for pirating music and films. Yet despite its dubious origins, peer-to-peer technology found legitimate uses, powering internet startups such as Skype (for telephony) and Spotify (for music streaming)—and also, as it happens, bitcoin. The blockchain is an even more potent technology. In essence it is a shared, trusted, public ledger that everyone can inspect, but which no single user controls. The participants in a blockchain system collectively keep the ledger up to date: it can be amended only according to strict rules and by general agreement. Bitcoin’s blockchain ledger prevents double-spending and keeps track of transactions continuously. It is what makes possible a currency without a central bank. Blockchains are also the latest example of the unexpected fruits of cryptography. Mathematical scrambling is used to boil down an original piece of information into a code, known as a hash. Any attempt to tamper with any part of the blockchain is apparent immediately—because the new hash will not match the old ones. In this way a science that keeps information secret (vital for encrypting messages and online shopping and banking) is, paradoxically, also a tool for open dealing. Bitcoin itself may never be more than a curiosity. However blockchains have a host of other uses because they meet the need for a trustworthy record, something vital for transactions of every sort. Dozens of startups now hope to capitalise on the blockchain technology, either by doing clever things with the bitcoin blockchain or by creating new blockchains of their own (see article). One idea, for example, is to make cheap, tamper-proof public databases—land registries, say, (Honduras and Greece are interested); or registers of the ownership of luxury goods or works of art. Documents can be notarised by embedding information about them into a public blockchain—and you will no longer need a notary to vouch for them. Financial-services firms are contemplating using blockchains as a record of who owns what instead of having a series of internal ledgers. A trusted private ledger removes the need for reconciling each transaction with a counterparty, it is fast and it minimises errors. Santander reckons that it could save banks up to $20 billion a year by 2022. Twenty-five banks have just joined a blockchain startup, called R3 CEV, to develop common standards, and NASDAQ is about to start using the technology to record trading in securities of private companies. These new blockchains need not work in exactly the way that bitcoin’s does. Many of them could tweak its model by, for example, finding alternatives to its energy-intensive “mining” process, which pays participants newly minted bitcoins in return for providing the computing power needed to maintain the ledger. A group of vetted participants within an industry might instead agree to join a private blockchain, say, that needs less security. Blockchains can also implement business rules, such as transactions that take place only if two or more parties endorse them, or if another transaction has been completed first. As with Napster and peer-to-peer technology, a clever idea is being modified and improved. In the process, it is fast throwing off its reputation for shadiness. New chains on the block The spread of blockchains is bad for anyone in the “trust business”—the centralised institutions and bureaucracies, such as banks, clearing houses and government authorities that are deemed sufficiently trustworthy to handle transactions. Even as some banks and governments explore the use of this new technology, others will surely fight it. But given the decline in trust in governments and banks in recent years, a way to create more scrutiny and transparency could be no bad thing. Drawing up regulations for blockchains at this early stage would be a mistake: the history of peer-to-peer technology suggests that it is likely to be several years before the technology’s full potential becomes clear. In the meantime regulators should stay their hands, or find ways to accommodate new approaches within existing frameworks, rather than risk stifling a fast-evolving idea with overly prescriptive rules. The notion of shared public ledgers may not sound revolutionary or sexy. Neither did double-entry book-keeping or joint-stock companies. Yet, like them, the blockchain is an apparently mundane process that has the potential to transform how people and businesses co-operate. Bitcoin fanatics are enthralled by the libertarian ideal of a pure, digital currency beyond the reach of any central bank. The real innovation is not the digital coins themselves, but the trust machine that mints them—and which promises much more besides. http://www.economist.com/node/21677198/print

2 1