- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Will the Earth burn? Events to post-whatever... [was: Sealand]
by grarpamp 28 Oct '14

28 Oct '14

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Cathal Garvey: > Will the earth burn? No, that's an unlikely outcome. Venus is Venus because > it never developed life. Will the Earth burn *us*? Maybe. Totally plausible > possibility, though still unlikely. Will the Earth burn the ecosystems that > civilisation (rather than humanity, per se) depends on? At this rate, > probably. None of the above. As rate of population, resource consumption and toxification is faster than restoration, and war is still easier in DNA than cooperation... humanity will burn the ecosystems humanity depends on, or burn itself. And likely far sooner than the Earth gets around to the next of any of its own human belching cycles [1]. [1] You know, on the scale of 10k to millions of years or more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risks > We have fallbacks; go all-in on solar & nuclear for energy and biotech for > efficient, lower impact food/med production, and use nuclear/biotech to cook > up some hyperefficient carbon-capture system to try and roll back as much as > we can. All mere delay tactics without fixing this and other things to replacement-rate first... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth > Anyways, just to say doom and gloom is rarely useful, but ostrich-heads are > worse than useless. Rarely useful? But it's so much gnarly fun ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_time#See_also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth#See_also > As to on/off topic-ness, it's off topic. But this list has seen people > bitching about who is and isn't a real native American, so I find this at > least engaging and interesting. cpunks are offtopic, engaging and interesting. > On 24/10/14 14:40, dan(a)geer.org wrote: >> is reasonable to imagine that some excursions have a phase >> where the feedback is positive and thus if the temp heads >> either north or south its velociity will, for natural reasons, >> accelerate as the excursion grows more extreme. That implies >> that the present time is an unstable equilibrium, thus our >> imapct, whatever it is, seems likely to be an initiator or >> a potentiator but not a cause in the classical sense of, >> say, a dose-response curve. >> >> Put differently, I don't believe that we (humans) can push >> the climate to a place it has not been before, but we can >> change the clock. The only clock that matters is the time till you're off the rock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_… Yes, I'm a whore, beam me up some btc: 1NE2jK3emijdBf9jhtjMadRH9MJiCzo61L

1 0

Re: CITIZENFOUR
by Steve Kinney 27 Oct '14

27 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In my mind the sudden appearance of that momentarily almost-famous "pole dancer girlfriend" of Snowden's is of a piece with the rest of The Snowden Affair: It raises more questions than it answers, and adds more reasons to suspect a double game. Did the "pole dancer girlfriend" ever exist, and is that really her? I will assume so, for the sake of a fun story. What are the odds that she has travelled more than one mile in any direction since Ed went walkabout, without that motion being logged for analysis by a consortium of TLAs? Other than "she has always worked for us and is still passing polygraph exams," how could her bona fides as a person of no interest be so confidently endorsed by the public servants who let her walk away? If on the other hand Russia worked some hocus pocus on her behalf, why have public officials and partisan propaganda mills that already call Snowden a Russian agent remained silent on that subject? Painting the young lady in question as a Russian agent who used her pole dancing skills to steal U.S. secrets would not be hard: The story sells itself. Part two of the story would be how she fluttered away free as a bird to the waiting welcome of her Russian paymasters: First Benghazi, now Boris and Natasha in a Moscow love nest? It's an outrageous story that would suit many of our partisan political propagandists very nicely right about... now. But all I hear so far is crickets. "Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven." -- Ursula K. LeGuin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUTFWGAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0L2eIQAInkvM+0AUswetwBk2VMHf8r 9mu/zMReznVPyGcW0+Yn5hlftTlFkGouw8Eohdc/hlH9Av66Xf65fQD0q060sU8N eC3KuwBjcNsekZxDuinPS0ferwBkn5FQge819S9aTwAN6rJTO3d50AhtkG685udl T+Zm4TufUU5H3a0htckJEgsgwSVUJ71bSPchOovA8uC6ZFo1kTb00AnoixHIJyP1 E26KaaqoddRekut/bmGZoWvujkbqm22DSh5I4+SI1cCesnxezcgEhGShVBazHGFb lkwDrO29KjUHdiFY0qPrx1JBiQFa2tlk8OpeSTWrkWL8BbYgIgtBNxjS9JuljOiV /rZqQNnW9wxhz9xFU+zL3R1WD8oqFohBz9Jj/Jw5EzD+Qws97JFmJEzKUt3u0Q4y xGaS4Ic04pvPFGIH8FPkCTrswoN0ZzOpZyX3d4oBwKf3HO7D8FuRgmSnte4ppqUQ wwS2oCWu8Xd/k3iKbdanCdIfQbb5Pqk3gggEgN3Jo7rIiiqzpx9tjQy+0krxszIn mxnMusEL3vY8zdBf0Hc/n+g2erZAYjP6Lpw5WrvOaZvXj629Zv/UmguZkvF5/x37 FirG7rzAc7a72Xpr2K2P6jkV2zHtuGgeJenWnny8OcK/5mZ3dTNiWgb8F8fFyhgF IoTcBm2ed7/1VbjxEWcB =1T2p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: CITIZENFOUR
by John Young 27 Oct '14

27 Oct '14

Thanks for the comments. Screenshots most welcome. cryptome[at]earthlink.net or pointers. Greenwald's mercenary greed is why only 97% of Snowden docs have been released. His and cohorts criminal behavior puts citizens in harms way to protect the natsec apparatus including natsec media. At 02:58 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote: >Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for >all CPunks. I think it was probably the most >important documentary film of all time. As Roger >Ebert said, "itâs as if Daniel Ellsberg had a >friend with a movie camera who filmed his >disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of >the way. Or if the Watergate burglars had taken >along a filmmaker who shot their crimes and the >cover-up that followed. Except that the issues >âCitizenfourâ deals with are, arguably, a >thousand times more potent than Vietnam or >Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we >have been waiting for since 2013. > >The main revelation of the film, however, is >what an incredible boob Glenn Greenwald is. I >had some idea of this after seeing him give an >extremely disappointing talk earlier this year, >but I don't think I quite understood how useless >this guy really is. He's constantly asking the >wrong questions, displays a technical ineptness >(to the point of deliberate ignorance) that >obviously hampers the journalism, and at very >step shows a very clear desire to keep the >document cache to himself for careerist >purposes. At one point Ewen MacAskill brings up >the idea of there being a Wikileaks-esque >document explorer, and Ed says that this would >be the best outcome for the documents, and >Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk >about his publishing schedule. I still have >immense respect for him, but I found it very >frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat >the whole event in news-cycle terms, while >everybody around him is obviously thinking in >historical context. For instance, there is a >moment when they are prepping for Ed's first >on-camera interview and he asks the reporters >how much background he should give about >himself, and they give different answers. >Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and >Greenwald basically says that isn't important, >just be short so we get a good soundbite. > >More importantly, I think the film also misses >an opportunity to talk about power. This is >something Edward himself has addressed, but it >isn't really covered in Greenwald's reporting or >books, and the only time it's mentioned in the >film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking >before a European council of some sort, quite >astutely comments that surveillance and control >are one and the same. I think the film should >probably have spent another hour or so >investigating, naming and confronting those who >profit from that control. Other than a few >choice C-SPAN snippets, the enemy is completely >faceless, which plays well for the pervading >sense paranoia which envelops the film, but also >leaves many questions unasked. Perhaps that's >left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think >the general take-away message from both the >reporting and to a slightly lesser extent the >film is that any "solution" will be token reform >of policy and not dismantlement of power structures. > >Also, very nice of the Russian government to let >Ed have his girlfriend back. I didn't know that >had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected >happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. > >Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you >lot thought of it. (JY, you should throw a >torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be >screenshotting and analyzing all of the new document shots the film contains.) > >R

3 5

Time for IETF witch hunt? (was: NSA Co-Chairs of Crypto Forum Research Group, Legitimacy of WebCrypto API in Doubt)
by Nicolas Bourbaki 26 Oct '14

26 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is this a victory? Has anything been learned from the process? We know that regime changes are meaningless if the means of governance are not also reformed. In July of 2013 JFC Morfin registered an appeal [1] to the IAB (IETF governing body). He asked the IAB to consider how the concept of a protocol should account for social and ethical requirements. The IAB's response [2] was terse. It showed that these governing bodies lack the means and will to consider how the tools they develop effect people. We sit in a time where the architect of good citizenry is being increasingly dictated by undemocratic institutions. We are quickly trading space beholden to social contracts of the commons for those built by neo-liberal corporations. The ethics of "the protocol" is dictated by whichever company provides the most coffee and cake for the next workgroup meeting. I think the argument of "GeoIP as a threat to democracy" [3] provides an example rhetoric illustrating why concern for this is so important and why perhaps a witch hunt within the IETF is in order. 1. http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/07/appeal-morfin-2013-07-08.… 2. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg11697.html 3. https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2014-July/005037.html On 23/10/2014 20:30, odinn wrote: > As a (hopefully final) note to this particular issue, please note > the resolution at: > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25839#c64 > > The NSA co-chair is resigning, and it appears the Working Groups > are moving ahead without the involvement of that co-chair, for > example: > > (see comments 61 and 62 at) > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618#c61 > > Cheers, > > > -Odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUS4SzAAoJEHi6xtksL8/uwzcP/01mXaZiWgfcR6QEo7te2iC2 ECGnIHCXmHT4amxPDtjWGWJwPaY7ZY3k4c328gx/hOewS1a2BYU1LIpv9nJ2Hq/P B96QciRIJG4lIzaoYUE72RyvorEUOyB5VDzDTzx5McqAkW0STReJSTJKlg9G30He vJ7wrDBS3VB1G8kY32i39fEDPJMm4vlv+1n2R9FM6lSXyD/QCuTQQQzrqA1Z9XCD Y+8r6XNhN0+H5oMRyutQV9qJp6+BNXJLl3rQBi8JPtxtKxNCa3kbdt1bINjWy/2J fheKL6gUynX/EpL0epNnX1OgXWHd6SjnEjPZj08w142UQT7aEL5W1WHi/nbdKx1u uZIkEoAzJq0Gb/Bnumon0R3WA+xU2tqPF/BGr2kFCvws8PgQr6K5lZEmzLcu0AyV dGABC921MLA2scOqRSTmaYiVgVMrp8JAkjxwHe7TSJIh94M7e2GzbVnkkzeJhyEF pSpK6lkSJrq0lDlqN6njKB0P+myBEh3a0kPBoK93UfaFYD36elOBjvdIKN4mBMp1 1b2nC/0jrpjtfWe8gGwOhLXBeCDLunVJWLG47x4JhRy4YwTfBZicFs1rdoyOQBkd zoPTlOoBShYV87ERdPvWrRzdwa0fcFeJhXuFHL4OIc+nPRU1ged1TPnNkjfZW6Az E0ig0q8YefURxuz4BPBN =5/1u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 6

Re: CITIZENFOUR
by Jesse Taylor 26 Oct '14

26 Oct '14

After reading the Salon article you mentioned, I filed FOIA requests regarding "Main Core" with NSA, FBI, DHS, DSS, NORTHCOM, STRATCOM, CYBERCOM, and DODIIS. All I got was responses saying that there were no responsive records. Of course, this is what happens when almost any information about classified programs is requested via FOIA, so I wasn't surprised (FOIA is really just a smokescreen to make people waste their time begging for records they're never going to get, and to promote the illusion that citizens have some sort of oversight over "their" government). I sent a letter to the editorial staff at Salon and Democracy Now, which both ran stories on this based on "anonymous sources", and pointed out to them that pretty much every intelligence agency is responding to FOIA requests saying the topic of one of their stories doesn't actually exist. Neither of them responded. --Jesse odinn wrote: /1) Who might have access to a list known as Main Core? This is such an old story that it would seem that some kind of list would now be available, but I haven't found it. Has it ever been leaked, FOIA'd, successfully released in partially redacted form in some other mechanism, or made searchable somewhere? // // //[[ Main Core notes / background: Salon reported on Main Core in July of 2008 with an article by Tim Shorrock. Apparently, William Hamilton, a former NSA intelligence officer who left the agency in the 1970s, had heard of Main Core at some point in 1992, according to the Salon article. Hamilton, who (was then, and still is) president of Inslaw Inc., a computer services firm that includes clients in government, indicated that the Bush administration's domestic surveillance operations used Main Core - it is not known if it is still used today in 2014. Main Core was first widely reported on in May 2008 by Christopher Ketcham and in July 2008 by Tim Shorrock, which included in July of 2008 an interview by Amy Goodman of Tim Shorrock. However, I am unaware of any release of names, e-mails, etc. which might be on this list, and it seemed kind of obvious that those who were reporting on it probably had never seen the Main Core list. This may involve use of PROMIS software, and according to Adm. Dan Murphy (a former military advisor to Elliot Richardson who later served under President George H.W. Bush as deputy director of the CIA, who 'died' shortly after his meeting in 2001 with William Hamilton), did not specifically mention Main Core. But he informed Hamilton that the NSA's use of PROMIS involved something "so seriously wrong that money alone cannot cure the problem." ]]/

2 1

Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state]
by Ryan Carboni 25 Oct '14

25 Oct '14

Global warming is devouring island nations.

8 23

Re: CITIZENFOUR
by tigrutigru＠gmail.com 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

Russian gov is not nice. Though it's kind of lucky that it has to do rather nice things to piss US gov off. Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Oct 2014, at 01:27, cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org wrote: > > Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cypherpunks-request(a)cpunks.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cypherpunks-owner(a)cpunks.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. CITIZENFOUR (Rich Jones) > 2. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] (Juan) > 3. Re: CITIZENFOUR (John Young) > 4. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] (Juan) > 5. Re: CITIZENFOUR (Colin Mahns) > 6. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] > (Cathal Garvey) > 7. Re: CITIZENFOUR (Michael C. Toren) > 8. Re: Of Sealand, corp, and country [was: nation-state] (Juan) > 9. Re: CITIZENFOUR (odinn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:58:22 -0700 > From: Rich Jones <rich(a)openwatch.net> > To: "cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org" <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> > Subject: CITIZENFOUR > Message-ID: > <CADJYzxL0-5oq9vmFe45YUbF_cYcBkUsxm+kdSNi0c6FvPBU6Ww(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for all CPunks. I think it was > probably the most important documentary film of all time. As Roger Ebert > said, "it’s as if Daniel Ellsberg had a friend with a movie camera who > filmed his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or if > the Watergate burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their crimes > and the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues “Citizenfour” deals > with are, arguably, a thousand times more potent than Vietnam or > Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we have been waiting for since > 2013. > > The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible boob Glenn > Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him give an extremely > disappointing talk earlier this year, but I don't think I quite understood > how useless this guy really is. He's constantly asking the wrong questions, > displays a technical ineptness (to the point of deliberate ignorance) that > obviously hampers the journalism, and at very step shows a very clear > desire to keep the document cache to himself for careerist purposes. At one > point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there being a Wikileaks-esque > document explorer, and Ed says that this would be the best outcome for the > documents, and Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk about his > publishing schedule. I still have immense respect for him, but I found it > very frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat the whole event in > news-cycle terms, while everybody around him is obviously thinking in > historical context. For instance, there is a moment when they are prepping > for Ed's first on-camera interview and he asks the reporters how much > background he should give about himself, and they give different answers. > Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically says > that isn't important, just be short so we get a good soundbite. > > More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to talk about > *power*. This is something Edward himself has addressed, but it isn't > really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, and the only time it's > mentioned in the film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking before a > European council of some sort, quite astutely comments that surveillance > and control are one and the same. I think the film should probably have > spent another hour or so investigating, naming and confronting those who > profit from that control. Other than a few choice C-SPAN snippets, the > enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for the pervading sense > paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves many questions unasked. > Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think the general > take-away message from both the reporting and to a slightly lesser extent > the film is that any "solution" will be token reform of policy and not > dismantlement of power structures. > > Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his girlfriend > back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected > happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. > > Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of it. (JY, you > should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be screenshotting and > analyzing all of the new document shots the film contains.) > > R >

1 0

CITIZENFOUR
by Rich Jones 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for all CPunks. I think it was probably the most important documentary film of all time. As Roger Ebert said, "it’s as if Daniel Ellsberg had a friend with a movie camera who filmed his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or if the Watergate burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their crimes and the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues “Citizenfour” deals with are, arguably, a thousand times more potent than Vietnam or Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we have been waiting for since 2013. The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible boob Glenn Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him give an extremely disappointing talk earlier this year, but I don't think I quite understood how useless this guy really is. He's constantly asking the wrong questions, displays a technical ineptness (to the point of deliberate ignorance) that obviously hampers the journalism, and at very step shows a very clear desire to keep the document cache to himself for careerist purposes. At one point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there being a Wikileaks-esque document explorer, and Ed says that this would be the best outcome for the documents, and Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk about his publishing schedule. I still have immense respect for him, but I found it very frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat the whole event in news-cycle terms, while everybody around him is obviously thinking in historical context. For instance, there is a moment when they are prepping for Ed's first on-camera interview and he asks the reporters how much background he should give about himself, and they give different answers. Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically says that isn't important, just be short so we get a good soundbite. More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to talk about *power*. This is something Edward himself has addressed, but it isn't really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, and the only time it's mentioned in the film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking before a European council of some sort, quite astutely comments that surveillance and control are one and the same. I think the film should probably have spent another hour or so investigating, naming and confronting those who profit from that control. Other than a few choice C-SPAN snippets, the enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for the pervading sense paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves many questions unasked. Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think the general take-away message from both the reporting and to a slightly lesser extent the film is that any "solution" will be token reform of policy and not dismantlement of power structures. Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his girlfriend back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of it. (JY, you should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be screenshotting and analyzing all of the new document shots the film contains.) R

4 3

NSA Co-Chairs of Crypto Forum Research Group, Legitimacy of WebCrypto API in Doubt
by odinn 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 For those of you on this list who have been watching the progress of things relating to the W3C coordinated process for the WebCrypto API, you know that a lot of work and thought has gone into this and it is an impressive collaboration. But with the IETF CFRG (Crypto Forum Research Group) still being co-chaired by an agent of the NSA (n1), anything that passes through that organization must be questioned at this time. (In the unlikely event that the CFRG page is censored after this message is sent, I've included the names and e-mail addresses of the current co-chairs as part of this message as they currently appear on the CFRG's site, where their names and e-mail addresses have been sitting in full public view for a very long time (n2)). As some of you already know, people within the Crypto Forum Research Group have tried (so far unsuccessfully) since last year (n1, n2, n3) to remove the NSA Co-chair. It should not matter who the person is, but the issue is that having anyone who is in the employ of or affiliated with the NSA chair (or co-chair) a research group whose purpose it is to advise all IETF Working Groups, is highly problematic for reasons which now should be obvious to anyone reading this message. Currently the WebCrypto API is approaching its last call ~ it's in a process of being finalized. For those who are not sure what the WebCrypto API is, it's one of those things that is designed to basically help make ordinary webpages that you see work, and includes the definition of cryptographic primitives that make your internet go. That's a terrible description actually, but if you want a better or more comprehensive description of WebCrypto API in plain English, consider reading poulpita's blog (n4). It's also described at a W3C page as a "JavaScript API for performing basic cryptographic operations in web applications, such as hashing, signature generation and verification, and encryption and decryption. Additionally, it describes an API for applications to generate and/or manage the keying material necessary to perform these operations. Uses for this API range from user or service authentication, document or code signing, and the confidentiality and integrity of communications." (n5) But the WebCrypto API Doc process and, and indeed the legitimacy of the WebCrypto API itself, should be questioned and doubted, for the WebCrypto group has recently held off on including the widely-used curve25519 within NamedCurve dictionaries or as part of its extensibility and errata process, until the (NSA co-chaired) Crypto Forum Research Group gives W3C the go-ahead. For further information and confirmation on this, see (n6) below. If you are concerned about this, check out the message thread discussing attempts to remove the NSA co-chair (n3) and consider posting to the CFRG list (n7) about it once you subscribe. NSA affiliated persons need to be removed from groups that influence the direction of the entire web. I hope those who receive this message will organize to help make that happen. (n1) https://irtf.org/cfrg (n2) From CFRG's public webpage (n1) as of Oct. 20, 2014: "CFRG is chaired by Kevin Igoe (kmigoe(a)nsa.gov) Kenny Paterson (kenny.paterson(a)rhul.ac.uk) and Alexey Melnikov (alexey.melnikov(a)isode.com)" (n3) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03554.html (n4) http://poulpita.com/2014/08/28/w3c-web-crypto-whats-next/ (n5) https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html (n6) https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25839 (see in particular: comments 11, 12, 48, and 59 through 63 on that page) (n7) https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJURL5EAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CN6QH+wZK+J15RtA4PART46BJRuPf 6ikb/gncf1oIVqVhII1MZyni9Tz+l9fZxkEiPN7bEAZg9zEkm/UrJhpQGa+Q1Lna vNanGyLfnVGJjsA1AxXpBnBsxqm8uwbLQNtNhLdf/UnEk92aNFgvroxSWk62aGoh 3zpzwTMioe1OWyuWk2y3adx/0WTAP9YRuM3J6MKY+Qh+mJMZJmCsnal+Dw/gqjSn Nd5oYght6H+9Af4bwSq3Eh816ojHg6rmzgAIIyWLyeFQiSPHrZVdFXa1bYUeM2gW 8a1udtaRLfVf69IevOvbIc2RM8Lh+uAKXFk65jfpvh2TbJ6U8PP9BUR799XGfEY= =k9SP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 1

Digital security consultant willing to be based in LatAm?
by Bethany 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

Front Line Defenders (FLD) in partnership with Tactical Technology Collective (TTC) is working to expand capacity of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) to manage risks associated with the use of digital communications. We would like to offer direct, on the ground support to HRDs with the help of a Digital Security Consultant (DSC) based in Latin America. FLD and TTC are seeking cooperation with a consultant for a contract finishing at the end of 2015 to help with digital security support for HRDs and HR organisations at risk in Latin America. The deadline for the applications is 9th November 2014. Read more: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/27505 --- Front Line Defenders (FLD) y Tactical Technology Collective (TTC) están trabajando juntos para que defensores/as de derechos humanos (DDH) incrementen su capacidad para el manejo de riesgos asociados con las comunicaciones digitales. Nos gustaría ofrecer asistencia directa y en el terreno a los/as DDH a través de la asistencia de un Asesor en seguridad digital (ASD), con base en América Latina. FLD y TTC buscan trabajar en cooperación con un asesor, a través de un contrato hasta fines del 2015, para ayudar a brindar asistencia en seguridad digital para DDH y organizaciones de derechos humanos en riesgo en América Latina. La fecha tope para enviar las postulaciónes esta 9 de noviembre de 2014. Leer más: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/es/node/27506

1 0