Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 249
151
Legal / Re: Shipping a loose ounce to a politicians home
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:54 am »
Even better send them a malware infected .pdf and get them to open it, then after taking control of their PC download a bunch of CP then upload a bunch of it to public websites then clean any forensic trace of the virus :).

152
Legal / Re: Shipping a loose ounce to a politicians home
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:53 am »
even better hack their WiFi and upload tons of CP to public porn sites from it

153
Security / Re: Dissent: accountable anonymous group communication
« on: September 07, 2013, 04:20 am »
Syndie can be as anonymous as the infrastructure it uses is. Pretty much we started from the bottom up, making a mix network (done) and PIR-like system (need to do) first with plans to add a forum on top of it, and they started from the top down, making a forum first and never making a strongly anonymous system underneath of it (but rather relying on existing anonymity infrastructure).

The mix network we have coded is provably more secure than Mixminion or Mixmaster, and it gives the user control over the trade off between latency:anonymity, whereas Mixminion and Mixmaster both set the time delay for the user. Also, Mixmaster is considered deprecated at this point, Mixminion was an improvement on it in every way, and the mix network we have is an improvement on mixminion in every way.

In fact, Syndie could probably be interfaced to use our system (Alpha-mix-net + PIR-like-system) with little trouble. However, I still desire to make a different forum software, especially because the UI for Syndie is pretty ugly. I don't know what encryption they are using but I doubt it is ECC. I cannot even tell if they automatically handle key exchange. It looks like they automatically use encrypted zip files, but no documentation on how key exchange is done.

Syndie is cool, so is Frost for Freenet, even BitMessage is kind of neat despite being full of flaws (and it uses PIR even, but in a totally different way than we are going to) but I think we can make huge improvements over all of these systems.

For example, look at the Syndie graphic on the page you linked to. It can make use of already existing anonymizers such as Tor, I2P, Mixmaster, Mixminion, etc. It can use pretty much any anonymity infrastructure. It can also make use of already existing content archives, including HTTP archives, Mail archives and Usenet archives. The content storage systems it can currently use either do not support anonymous receiving of messages (other than via Tor etc), or they only support it via Everybody Gets Everything PIR. So you can delay forward messages to an archive with Mixmaster or Mixminion, but you still need to either use Tor to obtain them or mix many groups together using the same content storage server and then use Everybody Gets Everything PIR to download the messages.

This is in contrast to what we are doing. We are making a new anonymizer (alpha-mixing with sphinx, which is already implemented), and a new content archive (the PIR-like system, which also allows for anonymous receiving of messages without needing Everybody Gets Everything), and then after these things are done we are making a component that is more similar to Syndie (although hopefully with a better user interface, and probably with better automated security features, and other features such as integrated Bitcoin/Zerocoin) to make use of them.

So where their diagram has Syndie -> Mixminion -> Mail Archive, ours will have New Forum Software -> New Mix Network -> PIR-Like-System
and also ours will not have the various other lines connecting it to all the other infrastructure (anonymizer, jap, i2p, mixminion, mixmaster, HTTP archive, Mail archive, Usenet archive, etc). Although technically ours will be:

Forward Messages: New Forum Software -> Tor -> Specific New Mix Network -> Tor -> Specific New PIR-like-system
Message Retrieval: New Forum Software <-> Tor <-> Specific New PIR-like-system

Syndie is:

Forward Messages: Syndie -> Any Or No Anonymizer -> Any content archive
Message Retrieval:  Syndie <-> Any Or No Anonymizer <-> Any content archive

154
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Why I abandonded Libertarianism
« on: September 07, 2013, 02:41 am »
Quote
It's oppression because your system would deprive the people of free will and choice. You may do everything, do what you want, as long as you do not form a body where representatives of the many go to decide what the many will do communally.

But you are mistaken! Under the rule of Totalibertarians you are free to form a body where representatives of the many go to decide what the many will do communally! But it must be voluntary. Meaning you can choose to join such an organization. But you cannot force others to join it. And you cannot have what the many decides upon be binding onto the few who do not choose to join the organization. For example, you can have a community school still, and you can pay taxes to the people running it. But you cannot force somebody who does not want to use the service to pay for it, so you cannot tax them or require them to join your organization. Totalibertarians are extremely tolerant of those who wish to organize in whatever way they see fit, indeed we are accepting of communists and of free market capitalists! However, the default position of all people is free market capitalism, and we will protect those who do not wish to join communist structures. So you can have your commune and those who decide to join it can live under the rules they have agreed upon. But those who do not wish to join cannot be forced to, and their default status is Free Market Capitalism. They can only lose their default status by voluntary agreement. 

But you are correct in that Totalibertarians dream of a world where we violently rip freedom and choice away from the many. Their freedom to kill, to rob, and to enslave will be viciously ripped from them. They will have no choice at all in the matter! They will cry out in agony, begging us to relinquish our total control over their lives, but we will never allow it.

Quote
I want to be taxed. I want to pay so institutions without commercial interest can teach my kids, foster research that the profit-mongers don't care to do for lack of instant financial incentive. I want emergency services that are above making a wallet biopsy their main criterion in the decision whether to save me or not.

Under Totalibertarianism you are free to be taxed and free to not be taxed! As I have already pointed out, we are extremely tolerant. If you want to be taxed, feel free to join such an organization and be taxed by them! However, of course you cannot force others to be taxed by this organization, for to do so would make you an armed robber and therefore a dissident. Totalibertarians must ruthlessly crush all dissidents to ensure that our regime never falls out of power.

Quote
Your world is the same to me as living under Stalin or Hitler, for it will forbid me to lead the life I want to live because it doesn't fit in its ideology.

But you are wrong! You can be taxed by an organization! The organization can have its own rules! You can even agree to be sacrificed in a volcano by this organization, to please the God that you worship (Totalibertarians are extremely tolerant of religion). The thing is though, this organization cannot force its rules onto others. So you cannot tell your neighbor that he must be taxed by this organization. If you do so you are a dissident and must be ruthlessly crushed like a bug. Additionally, you cannot force your neighbor to be thrown into a volcano to please your God, as doing so would make you a dissident and an enemy of the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army.

155
Security / Re: Calling for a SR vendor to set up TOR relay fund
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:26 pm »
you guys know there is a Tor Project associated organization that takes donations, including anonymous BTC donations, and uses them to host Tor exit and other relays, correct?

https://www.torservers.net/donate.html

I would donate to them well before I would donate to a random noob on SR. I saw someone else with 18 posts in the newbie section offering to run relays for btc, seemed like although he could be legit he could very well just be scamming people as well. torservers.net is legit and the owner is in regular contact with all of the Tor devs. They already host 10% of the bandwidth of the entire Tor networ.

156
Security / Re: Tor Blog on the user surge
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:45 am »
Thank you astor, kmfkewm. One further question: if we were to assume an adversary has control over some number of entry guards (which the government likely does), and has control over a similarly sized botnet as to what has been observed on the tor network currently (which the government likely could), would there be any advantage to using a botnet in conjunction with the entry guard exploit over just the entry guard exploit alone?

An attacker with this many nodes could do substantial damage to Tor. They could quickly trace hidden service to its entry guards (especially since they could add several relays without being detected, and they don't need entry flag to detect entry guards), the biggest bottleneck would be the number of relays they have on the network as well as how many circuit requests the hidden service can manage before it locks up or the Tor infrastructure it uses locks up. After tracing to the entry guards, the attacker could DDoS them easily with this many nodes (this attacker could easily DDoS the entire Tor network several times over). This forces the hidden service to pick new entry nodes (unless strict entry guards are set in torrc, in which case it will just be unreachable). The attacker can then trace to the new entry guards and once again DDoS them. They can continue to do this until the hidden service selects one of their entry guards, at which point they have deanonymized it.

The attacker could also make a large number of the botnet nodes relays, although none of them would immediately get the entry flag, and if the attacker added too many at once they would all be black listed. Not sure how closely the Tor devs are monitoring the directory authority servers but my guess is they are hesitant to let new nodes be added right now. So it is possible this attacker could become the overwhelming majority of Tor middle and exit nodes, but they wouldn't become the majority of entry nodes, all the nodes they add would be banned almost immediately, and there are probably automatic systems in place to prevent them from actually adding many nodes at all, all at once anyway.

The attacker could also carry out congestion attacks, how effective this would be would depend on how many entry guards they own. But this attacker could easily make it so that it is much more probable that their entry guard or exit node is selected by a user of Tor, simply by overloading some percentage of the nodes that they do not own.

So this attacker is what would be considered pretty strong. If they wanted to they could DDoS the entire Tor network indefinitely. They could also try to brute force their way to hidden services and they could probably deanonymize most of the ones that don't have strict entry guards set, although how much of the Tor network they would need to bring down first would vary, they wouldn't have any trouble bringing it all down if they needed to though. This attacker could also trivially censor any hidden service simply by brute force and becoming every HSDIR node. They could also carry out the inverse trawling for hidden service attack after doing this, but again this would require them to actually get some of their botnet nodes on the network as Tor relays and particularly entry guards. They could also flash flood middle and exit nodes, but would be detected doing so and prevented from it, either automatically after triggering some limit at the directory authority servers or shortly after doing so by the owners of the DA servers. They could slowly add nodes and get a large number of entry guards over time, but it would be a pretty slow process for them to do so without getting all of them blacklisted. On the other hand they could also prevent new people from adding nodes by flash flooding 1k or so nodes per day, which would result in all being blacklisted in addition to any legitimate new nodes added. They could flood 1k new nodes per day for over eight years with a botnet this size, which would effectively make it so that either Tor cannot let arbitrary volunteers add nodes anymore or they need to let the owner of this Botnet gain a massive internal presence in the network. Also they could increase the probability that clients use any entry guards or exit nodes that they do own, by congesting the ones they don't own.

So yeah pretty powerful attacker who could at best take Tor completely down or make it much harder for the network to grow (probably requiring node operators to be individually authenticated as real people in the future), and at worst could trace hidden services (probably now), eventually own enough of the network to carry out large scale deanonymizing attacks (probably not yet but over time is possible), and use congestion attacks to make it so they actually need to own fewer routing nodes to deanonymize people (they can use their non-relay Botnet nodes to increase the probability that their malicious Tor relays are used by targets).

I cannot really say this attacker is internal since we don't know how many if any relay nodes they operate, but they definitely have a big enough Botnet that they could potentially be (in that they have the potential to be) one of the most powerful internal attackers in the world. Of course a powerful external attacker could be even more dangerous though.

157
Security / Tor is now detected as a virus due to the Botnet
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:12 am »
Some Antivirus products have started detecting unmodified Tor executable as a Virus in response to this botnet:

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/94fe0e8a61c506fba45d14571a14dc259e1d52778cef8366ce8cbdcd871e28db/analysis/1378462188/

158
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Why I abandonded Libertarianism
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:38 am »
We'll free you from oppression with our new, improved and better oppression...

And how is it oppression? Are we oppressing the thieves because they cannot steal? The slave traders because we have freed the slaves? The only people oppressed by Totalibertarians deserve to be oppressed.

To totalibertarians, the only dissidents are thieves, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, robbers and similar. And yes, we will ruthlessly crush and oppress the dissidents.

159
Security / Re: Dissent: accountable anonymous group communication
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:05 am »
One thing concerns me a little.. "F" in your payload description.  I think I get why it's there (so you can know which of your friends has already seen it),

Yes, because of a few reasons. For one, because we don't want to waste bandwidth pointing people to things they already know about. For two, in the case of private messages between multiple parties, we want each party to know who the other communicators are, so they can tag responses to the message for each of them as well, and keep the coversation synchronized.

Quote
F. Information allowing the people who obtain the message to determine which of their other contacts have been pointed to the message

Quote
1. It can't be an actual list, because the payload stays static after its written. 

That is true. We could have it be an initial list of people who received the message, but if more people are pointed to the message there is no way to update the initial list. We need to keep tabs of who knows about which messages, otherwise people will waste bandwidth pointing their friends to messages they have already been pointed to a thousand times. Also, nobody will know who can already view a message they make a reply to, and thus things will become totally disorganized.

Quote
2. So it has to be something that your client can use to derive search keys and loop through your contacts, seeing who has received a link to
it via more searches.  The problem is, what are they searching for?  Are clients going to post a read-receipt?

Alternatively, we could make it so only the initiator of a post can authorize new people to see the resulting thread. Except what if somebody made a reply to the initial post that they don't want new people to see? We would need to add another level of control, public, deferred, private. Public posts can be pointed to by anyone, deferred posts defer to the starter of the thread in regards to who can be pointed to them in the future, and private posts cannot be pointed to by anybody. However, we really don't want to give users so many options because it will just make a confusing system for them. Nobody wants to mark every single post they make as [Public, Deferred, Private] and [Introduce, Hide]. But if only the initiator of the thread can invite new people to it, then we can have the initial list of people the message is sent to, and any new people who are invited can be included in a message sent by the person who started the thread.

But this will not work for public posts, because by their very nature we need to let anybody point people to them. But we do not want to have a hundred people point somebody to a post that they already know about, simply because it is a waste of bandwidth to upload and download the metadata packet, as well as a waste of processing power for the PIR-like servers etc.

What we could do for public posts is this. First of all let's remove section F from the payload and make it part of the metadata packet. When Alice makes a public post, she sends it to Bob and Carol. So she includes Bob and Carols name in section F (or perhaps a bloom filter or something will be better, we can think about the technical details of how to do this part next). At this point Bob and Carol both get the message from Alice, and they can determine that the message is viewable by Alice, Bob, Carol. Now Bob is having a conversation with Doug about the same subject, so he merges Alice's post perceptually with Dougs post to make a 'weave', but since Alice's post is marked public Bob decides to socially merge the weave together into a single thread. Now Bob points Doug to the original message, and his metadata packet includes that Alice, Carol and Bob can see it. At this point Bob needs to point Alice and Carol to the previous post by Doug as well, and when he does this he sends them the metadata packet including the pointer to the post from Doug as well as the information that Bob, Alice, Carol and Doug can see it. Now Doug likes this new thread and wants to include his contact Earl in the conversation. Since Doug already knows that the message can be seen by Bob, Alice, Carol, and Doug, when he points Earl to the messages making up the thread he includes in the metadata packet that the previously mentioned names can see these posts, and when Earl makes a response to the thread Dougs client points Alice, Carol, Bob, and Doug to the post by Earl, including Alice, Carol, Bob, Doug, and Earl in the metadata packet.

Something to that extent anyway, I kind of confused myself writing that honestly. Organization of multi party communications without a centralized administration or even forum, or even shared perception of what a 'weave' is, is going to be tricky, and is obviously something that still needs thought given to it. But I don't think it will be harder than it has been to implement all the crytpo crap we have done, or to implement all the crypto crap that we still need to do. 

Quote
And any time you only require (something from the Payload) and (a list of contacts) to pull that list of who has links, an adversary should be able to loop through *all* known contacts in the system and see if each has seen it.

Anybody who is able to decrypt a post needs to know who else has been able to decrypt the post so that they know to point them to any responses made to the post if they want to. On the other hand, we don't want people to learn that people they do not know have seen the post. There are cryptographic solutions to this problem. The problem being: Alice sends a message to Bob and Carol, and she wants Bob to know to send replies he makes to Carol if he knows who Carol is, but doesn't want Bob to learn anything at all about Carol if he doesn't already know who she is. 

Quote
It prevents you from resending the links to people who have seen the payload, but most of the downside of accidentally resending it to someone who's seen it (deep copies) is negated by the tiny size of the metadata object.  You'll know which of your friends were on the threads.

Yes the metadata can be quite small compared to the payload. However if 100 people point somebody to something that he already knows about, it could still add up and be a big waste of bandwidth and processing capacity of the PIR-like server as well. But even more importantly, there will be no way to organize threads if nobody knows who is a part of them. If Alice sends a message to Bob and Carol, Bob and Carol need to know that each other can see the message to be able to make replies to the original message that both of them can see. Otherwise Bob will only respond to Alice and Carol will only respond to Alice, and there is no group messaging taking place but rather a running conversation between Alice and Bob and between Alice and Carol about the same subject matter.

Quote
How would a public forum (aka newsgroup, whatever) work?  You'd need a way to search for all metadata objects tagged as belonging to that group, grab them, apply WoT/etc, then download payload for whatever you actually want.  But public forums aren't one-to-many messaging, they're one-to-ANY messaging, and that's actually significantly different from your described use case.

There are not group tags but rather individual tags between each user. Picture it more like E-mail I imagine. Okay, using usenet as example. Alice sends a message to a usenet newsgroup, and it is encrypted and tagged. This is the message on the PIR-like server. But now Alice needs to let her two contacts, Bob and Carol, know about the message. So she sends an E-mail to Bob with the tag of the message and the key to decrypt it, and a different E-mail to carol with the tag of the message and the key to decrypt it. She also says in her E-mail to Bob that she also sent the message to Carol, and in her E-mail to Carol that she also sent the message to Bob. So now Bob goes to the newgroup and finds the message with the tag concatenated to it, then he decrypts it and reads the message. Now when Bob responds to the message he posts a brand new message to the usenet group, and now he can either only tell Alice about the message if he does not want Carol to read it, or he can tell both Alice and Carol about the message. And the communication carries on like this, each participant makes a new post to the Usenet group and then E-mails everybody they want to see the post telling them its tag as well as the key to decrypt it. There is not a 'group' that Alice and Bob and Carol are part of, and there is no tag that is between them, rather they act like a group and can communicate like a group because they all know each others E-mail addresses and can inform each other about the posts they make in the 'thread' that they all know the other knows about. Does that make sense? 

Quote
The main reason that I think that public forums are so important to anonymous communities is that they're one of the few ways for new people to join in discussion.  Otherwise, while you might end up with your own slowly-growing circle of trusted friends, and that works great for you.  But the new guy can only talk to himself.  Plus, you need a plausible way to introduce your sockpuppets to your friends. :)

Yes there is some difference between this and a truly public forum like SR, it will be harder to bootstrap into a system like this. Hopefully not by much. If you can think of a better design please share it, right now we still need to finish the fundamental cryptographic systems before we even really start on the forum that uses them. Next on the list is implementing a PIR like system for message retrieval. Already done with mix code for forward messages, including a pretty sophisticated cryptographic packet format (will post my code in a week or so after I discuss this with some others who have contributed code as well, but I do hope to bring you and Astor and SS on board and release all the current code publicly)

Mix packet format implemented: https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gdane/papers/sphinx-eprint.pdf
Also have modified Sphinx to support Alpha Mixing which is implemented: http://freehaven.net/doc/alpha-mixing/alpha-mixing.pdf
Also have modified Sphinx to use bloom filter to protect from a potential timing attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter

So forward anonymity is totally done at this point, as well as a bunch of other stuff (IE: have the related ECC algorithms wrapped very nicely, Tor interfaced with, etc). Right now I am looking for the PIR-like system to implement. This looks interesting:

www.cs.berkeley.edu/~dawnsong/papers/2009%20new%20techniques%20a16-bethencourt.pdf

so does this

https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci12/one-way-indexing-plausible-deniability-censorship-resistant-storage

Both of these look like they will be a challenge for me to implement, thankfully some others helping have more skill than I do. Do you think you would be able to help implement either of these, after looking through the paper briefly? (in the case of the berkeley paper note that we would need to use the dictionaryless system, as we will not have a premade dictionary of words to search for, and in the case of One Way Indexing some modifications will need to be made as well). The berkley one at least needs a homomorphic encryption algorithm, thankfully there is this already done: http://hms.isi.jhu.edu/acsc/libpaillier/ , also there is a rough implementation of that PSS already implemented in I think C++ but it is not production worthy and I would probably just use it as a reference. However, something more similar to the one way indexing is probably better as it looks like we can prevent the PIR-like server from censoring specific content.


Quote
As an example (of a new guy, not sockpuppetry), I just showed up on SRF because I enjoyed browsing some of the security-related threads. I'm probably not the target market here.  Don't buy/sell on SR, haven't seen anything for sale there that fits my boring lifestyle.  But this place has an impressively diverse, open-minded crowd, and one that's actively *applying* anonymity technology.

Indeed :).

160
Security / Re: NSA has cracked most digital encryption, reports say
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:50 am »
This is why you use only one type of encryption when you absolutely positively can not have the payload compromised: OTP.  Maths say it can not be cracked, and even if your 4096-bit public key encryption cant be cracked today doesnt mean it cant be cracked tomorrow - see wired's article about a mathematician, google, and dkim for one example of this being applied in practice.

So to future proof your encryption the only way to go is OTP.  When you see someone you know, exchange pads, and you're good to communicate completely securely as long as the integrity of the pad is not compromised

OTP is great in some situations but the real problem with it is that you need to exchange keying material face to face, or over a quantum key exchange system, for it to actually be useful. So if you are a spy being sent to a foreign country, chances are you bring an OTP with you. If you are buying drugs from some anonymous vendor, it is totally useless.

161
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Why I abandonded Libertarianism
« on: September 06, 2013, 06:55 am »
Quote
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.[1]

Sounds great to me! We need a force to hold total authority over society and to control all aspects of public and private life. We need this force to prevent people from stealing, to prevent people for robbing and raping and murdering. Every single aspect of every individuals life should be under strict control, either to prevent them from doing bad things or to prevent people from doing bad things to them. See, Totalibertarians want your life to be under complete control and they want you to have no freedom at all to go against the principles of Totalibertarianism. But it is actually great, because they don't want to prevent you from doing much! Indeed, they want to let you do more and have more choices about your life than any other political organization ever has in the history of humanity! And yes, they want to hold total authority over society, but it is not a bad thing! They need total authority over society to prevent bad people from doing bad things and to prevent bad people from telling good people what they can and cannot do.

Quote
Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:

Sounds great to me! There should be no social or economic institutions that are not under the complete control of Totalibertarians. If society is not dominated by totalibertarians, we will have situations where certain groups, such as drug users, are sent to prisons as slaves of the state. We will have the majority of people saying that gay people cannot get married. We will have people robbing others with a cloak of legitimacy. None of this is acceptable and it cannot be tolerated in the slightest, and the only way to prevent these horrible things from happening is if Totalibertarians are in complete control of all social and economic institutions. Now being in complete control doesn't mean that they will do bad things, it means that they will prevent bad things from being done! That is the primary difference between classical totalitarianism and Totalibertarianism. Any form of totalitarianism that is not totalibertarianism is the epitome of evil, of intolerance and of war, so conversely Totalibertarianism is the epitome of Good, of Tolerance and of Peace.

Quote
    Elaborate guiding ideology.
    Single mass party, typically led by a dictator.
    System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police.
    Monopoly on weapons.
    Monopoly on the means of communication.
    Central direction and control of the economy through state planning.

Sounds mostly fine to me! Society should be guided by the elaborate ideology of libertarianism. Once we have made all things any reasonable person would consider acceptable to be legal, then there are no more slaves. There is no more worthy controversy against crimes. We must be so tolerant that only vile criminals would think we stand for anything other than peace and tolerance. Our system of laws must be so lax that there is no doubt that criminals are bad people, indeed under totalibertarianism there will be no accusations that acceptable behaviors are criminalized and therefore any claim of oppression will be unfounded. Indeed, people will not claim that we are oppressive but rather that we are too tolerant! This is the contrast between classical totalitarianism and totalibertarianism, in a classical totalitarian society the claim is that the powers are extremely oppressive, in Totalibertarianism they will claim that our tolerance is too great!

We must have only Totalibertarians in power. We can have a dictator, but it is better to have a council to prevent one of the dictators from straying from Totalibertarianism. There can even be different political parties that have power and their own forces, but they all need to be Totalibertarians ideologically and all must recognize their moral obligation to squash and power that forms and is not Totalibertarian, and to squash any of the factions of Totalibertarianism that stray from the ideology.

Secret police and violence are fine, and indeed our enemies must be treated ruthlessly. Anybody who strays from Totalibertarianism is a criminal and probably a terrorist or slave trader at that, and they need to be dealt with violently and harshly. Again, nobody can complain if they are doing nothing wrong, no ideology on earth is as tolerant as Totalibertarianism. No person on earth will say that we are violent to people who do not deserve violence, rather they will claim that we are not violent to people who they think we should be violent to!

A monopoly on weapons is not acceptable, people need to be free to have weapons, although it is debatable if we should let non totalibertarians have access to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Certainly the people have a right to guns and general weapons though.

A monopoly on the means of communication is not acceptable, and this is one of the areas where Totalibertarianism differs from classical totalitarianism.

Central direction and control of the economy is a must! The totalibertarian forces must ensure that the economy remains free from taxation, free from oppression, etc. So although we must maintain total control of the economy, we will use this control only to ensure that the economy remains free.

162
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Why I abandonded Libertarianism
« on: September 06, 2013, 06:29 am »
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).

Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.

HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...

Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!

So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.

Conform with our non-conformity or be dominated...

Do you think that we should allow the thieves to continue robbing? If the majority desires so? Should we allow the slave traders to continue to enslave people for their profits? If the majority so desires? People who do not conform to Totalibertarianism OUGHT to be dominated. Almost nobody even wants the level of freedom offered by totalibertarianism, so it is not like people can say we do not support freedom! In their minds our problem is that we support too much freedom! Under our rule not enough people are enslaved! We offer far more freedom than the masses desire, anyone who does not conform to our policies must be dominated for the good of human kind. We cannot allow for a democracy to dictate the laws, democracy is a failed experiment. The only way for a better society is for the entire world to be dominated by a benevolent force.

Totalibertarianism is Orwellian in a way. We will use the most advanced technologies and techniques in order to detect all dissent, which will be squashed like a bug. This means that robbers and slave traders and rapists and murders and violent criminals will not be safe, they will be immediately detected and imprisoned. We will have very little restriction on our enforcement agencies, and for once in the history of mankind it will be true when they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. We will wipe active dissidents (thieves, robbers, rapists, etc) off the face of the earth with an unprecedented ruthlessness.

Stalin would approve...

I doubt it, Stalin was a totalitarian not a totalibertarian. Our end goal is completely different, even if our means of obtaining it may be similar. Totalitarianism is actually really great and certainly the best system, it just needs the right people with the right beliefs to be running the show.

163
Security / Re: Tor Blog on the user surge
« on: September 06, 2013, 04:50 am »
selectively clogging up parts of the network can force clients toward nodes you control, but largely yeah it is better to have relays than clients if you try to attack the network. Unless you have some external position to view network links you cannot even deanonymize anybody regardless of how many clients you have.

164
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Why I abandonded Libertarianism
« on: September 06, 2013, 04:31 am »
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).

Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.

HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...

Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!

So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.

Conform with our non-conformity or be dominated...

Do you think that we should allow the thieves to continue robbing? If the majority desires so? Should we allow the slave traders to continue to enslave people for their profits? If the majority so desires? People who do not conform to Totalibertarianism OUGHT to be dominated. Almost nobody even wants the level of freedom offered by totalibertarianism, so it is not like people can say we do not support freedom! In their minds our problem is that we support too much freedom! Under our rule not enough people are enslaved! We offer far more freedom than the masses desire, anyone who does not conform to our policies must be dominated for the good of human kind. We cannot allow for a democracy to dictate the laws, democracy is a failed experiment. The only way for a better society is for the entire world to be dominated by a benevolent force.

Totalibertarianism is Orwellian in a way. We will use the most advanced technologies and techniques in order to detect all dissent, which will be squashed like a bug. This means that robbers and slave traders and rapists and murders and violent criminals will not be safe, they will be immediately detected and imprisoned. We will have very little restriction on our enforcement agencies, and for once in the history of mankind it will be true when they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. We will wipe active dissidents (thieves, robbers, rapists, etc) off the face of the earth with an unprecedented ruthlessness.

165
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Why I abandonded Libertarianism
« on: September 06, 2013, 04:06 am »
I made a flag for the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army, feel free to make shirts or similar.

http://postimg.org/image/3x7fh25aj/

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 249