Silk Road forums

from sociopath world

This will be interesting and relevant to many of you. A reader sent me this article about recent research performed on the moral leanings of libertarians, "Understanding Libertarian Morality: The psychological roots of an individualist ideology." As described by Reason:

    When it comes to morality, libertarians are often typecast as immoral calculating rationalists who also have a somewhat unseemly hedonistic bent. Now new social science research shows that libertarians are quite moral, just not in the same way that conservatives and liberals are.
    ***
    [T]he study found that libertarians show (1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle and correspondingly weaker endorsement of other moral principles, (2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style, and (3) lower interdependence and social relatedness.

    In his earlier work, Haidt surveyed the attitudes of conservatives and liberals using what he calls the Moral Foundations Questionnaire which measures how much a person relies on each of five different moral foundations: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the Harm and Fairness scales and much higher on Ingroup, Authority, and Purity scales. In this case, libertarians scored low on all five surveyed moral dimensions. “Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right,” notes the study. Libertarians scored slightly below conservatives on Harm and slightly above on Fairness. This suggests that libertarians “are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly.”

    The Schwartz Value scale measures the degree to which participants regard 10 values as guiding principles for their lives. Libertarians put higher value on Hedonism, Self-Direction, and Stimulation than either liberals or conservatives and they put less value than either on Benevolence, Conformity, Security, and Tradition. Like liberals, libertarians put less value on Power, but like conservatives they value Universalism less. Universalism is defined as “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature.” All three put high value on Achievement. Taking these results into account, Haidt concludes that “libertarians appear to live in a world where traditional moral concerns (e.g., respect for authority, personal sanctity) are not assigned much importance.”
    ***
    “Libertarians may fear that the moral concerns typically endorsed by liberals or conservatives are claims that can be used to trample upon individual rights—libertarians’ sacred value.
    ***
    “Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.”

Probably the most interesting part of this article, though, was the discussion of the Empathizer-Systematizer scale:

    The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as "the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion," and to systemize, or "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism.” They then add, “We might say that liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style, and libertarians the most ‘masculine.’”

Yes, tendency to systematize instead of empathize is something that libertarians, sociopaths, and autistics have in common.

Can you elaborate more on this? Will this be based on an existing anonymous/encrypted network or a completely new implementation?

Will use Tor for transport between mixes. Pretty much like this:

Users select a list of contacts for messages to go to, up to a certain number of contacts (probably thousands). 
The client automatically encrypts the message for each of the contacts, transparently to the client.
The client automatically tags the message with a pairwise shared secret for each of the contacts.

Client -> Tor -> Mix 1 -> Tor -> Mix 2 -> Tor -> Mix 3 -> Tor -> Encrypted Keyword Search

Contacts periodically query the EKS server for the shared secret message tags, allowing them to get the messages from their contacts. The EKS server does not know which messages the contact searches for or which messages the contact obtains.

Contact <-> Tor <-> Encrypted Keyword Search

The EKS servers are a cluster that mirror each others content

EKS1 <-> EKS2 <-> EKS3 <-> EKS4 <-> EKS5

Clients can connect to arbitrary EKS servers to obtain their messages, only one needs to be connected to at a time and they should be largely redundant. Clients sending forward messages can construct arbitrary mix pathes. Messages at mixes are alpha mixed giving clients the ability to select between anonymity and reliability. After a contacts client obtains a message, it automatically decrypts it, organizes it and displays it to the contact. The system can be used for private messaging, group private messaging more similar to chat, leaderless forum structures (which will essentially consist of several group private messages as threads, organized into forum structures client side by a set of rules the user makes) and blogs as well. Will probably have unlinkable contact strings as well as static strings for getting things like public blog pages, and probably even regular keyword search as well for finding arbitrary uploaded content.

If you don't want to get messages from a person you can ignore them entirely and your client wont even download messages they tag for you. You also have total control in who can see the messages you send. If you send a message to people not ignoring you, everyone you select gets the message.

Also plan to integrate something like Zerocoin if possible, originally the plan was to have code for centralized blind mixes and let people run them themselves but a distributed trustless blind mixing scheme is superior and Zerocoin has proven that this is possible. Control of Bitcoin will be totally integrated into the client, it will be as if you could click a Bitcoin button on the forum next to a persons avatar and select an amount of coins to send them, but also blinding will be integrated as well to make transactions totally unlinkable.

All identities are authenticated and tied to ECDSA-384 keys, all messages are encrypted with ECDH-384 and AES-CTR-256 and all messages going through mixes are layer encrypted with LIONESS.

So far the mixing part is done, Tor is interfaced with and networking code is done, the encryption is done and Bitcoin is interfaced with and the GUI is partially done. now it just needs somebody to implement the EKS algorithm, see if something like Zerocoin can be integrated to blind all Bitcoin transactions in a trustless way, and finish up the GUI and client side message sorting algorithms.

The big advantage is that it is not for illegal activity. It is for whatever people want to use it for. It is not illegal to run EKS nodes or Mix nodes, and if people use them for illegal things well the people running the infrastructure cannot tell or stop them. Also taking down a single mix node or EKS node will have little to no effect on the ability of the users to continue to operate as before, provided there is a single EKS node and a single Mix node it is still possible to use the system. 

I would be interested also on the techniques LE has used in the past if you can share some more stories, it seems they mostly use social engineering/honeypots for infiltration and not so much software security vulnerabilities from what I ve read. Was the latest javascript exploit the most tech-savvy attack till now?

FBI has used attacks like that before against individuals but I don't think they ever did against so many people at the same time before.

If anyone else wants to help fill in the history please do share any stories or info you feel is safe to share and wont piss others off either. Ozfreelancer wants to write something comprehensive about the online drug scene, and I think it is up to the people who lived through it to get her the details it is about time someone told our story

.

.

*Dr. Victor Cline did research that showed how men who become addicted to pornographic materials begin to want more explicit or deviant material and end up acting out what they have seen (5).

It is controversial if pornography addiction leads to a desire for more and more explicit material, and progression is not required by most standards to qualify for addiction to pornography, however I do think that progression is a common characteristic of pornography addiction, and many who view CP are actually not pedophiles but rather are pornography addicts. As far as acting out what they have seen, that is highly controversial as well, and would link to the "media and its effect on violence" as well as "access to violent pornography leads to lower rates of sexual violence" studies.

* Now this one will make your skin crawl—Dr. James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy, one of the nation’s most notorious serial killers, on the day before his execution. Bundy said that the “most damaging kinds of pornography are those that involve sexual violence . . . The wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings about behavior that is just, just too terrible to describe” (1).

Lol, funny that they quote Ted Bundy. Bundy was a sociopath he was trying to manipulate his interviewers when he discussed the effect pornography had on him, sociopaths are well known for such manipulations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

Multiple biographers,[314][315][316] researchers,[317] and other observers[318] have concluded that Bundy's sudden condemnation of pornography was one last manipulative attempt to shift blame by catering to Dobson's agenda as a longtime anti-pornography advocate, telling him precisely what he wanted to hear.[319] While he asserted in the Dobson interview that detective magazines and other reading material had "corrupted" him and "fueled [his] fantasies ... to the point of becoming a serial killer", in a 1977 letter to Ann Rule he wrote, "Who in the world reads these publications? ... I have never purchased such a magazine, and [on only] two or three occasions have I ever picked one up."[320] He told Michaud and Aynsworth in 1980, and Hagmaier the night before he spoke to Dobson, that pornography played a negligible role in his development as a serial killer.[321] "The problem wasn't pornography," wrote Dekle. "The problem was Bundy."[322]

*Two doctors noted in their research-based book, Pornography and Sexual Aggression, that “Certain [aggressive] forms of pornography can affect aggressive attitudes toward women and can desensitize an individual’s perception of rape. These attitudes and perceptions are, furthermore, directly related to actual aggressive behavior against women.” They also found that adult pornography was connected with each of the 1,400 child sexual molestation cases in Louisville, Kentucky, and child pornography was connected with the majority of them (21).

Highly controversial

*Another review of controlled studies found that extensive viewing of the type of pornographic material commonly sold at adult bookstores was positively correlated with an increased self-reported willingness to commit rape or other forced sexual acts (28).

Highly controversial contradicts other studies that access to violent pronography reduce rates of sexual violence.

*The Kingston Sexual Offenders Clinic in Canada found “an unexpected finding” when they conducted a study of their patients over a period of six years. “One of the rapists reported that he used consenting sex depictions to incite rape images in the process of preparing himself to attack a woman. Subsequent questioning revealed a further five rapists who made similar claims, and 10 of the 10 rapists who currently used (pornography) for enjoyment (not necessarily preparatory to offending) also said they used it to incite rape fantasies (22).

Rapists fantasize about rape when looking at pornography, so what.

*Another study says that a non-rapist population will show increased sexual arousal after having been exposed to “media-presented images of rape,” especially when the female victim demonstrates signs of pleasure and arousal. This exposure, they further claim, may also lead to a lessened sensitivity toward rape, acceptance of rape myths, and increased self-reported likelihood of raping and self-generated rape fantasies (11)(12).

Females have more rape fantasies than anyone else, it is the third most popular female fantasy:

http://www.care2.com/causes/rape-ranked-as-third-most-popular-sexual-fantasy-for-women.html

Rape Ranked as Third Most Popular Sexual Fantasy for Women

do you think this means all of these females want to be raped in reality? Oh wait that is impossible. It is impossible to want to be raped because being raped means you don't want it to happen. That paradox shows the clear separation between fantasy and reality, just as many of the people who look at child porn don't actually want to rape children outside of their fantasies.

*Dr. Dolf Zillman and Dr. Jennings Bryant showed that continued exposure to pornography had serious negative effects on beliefs about sexuality in general(sounds like kmfkewm), and on attitudes toward women in particular. They also found that pornography desensitizes people to rape as a criminal offense, and that massive exposure to pornography encourages a desire for increasingly deviant materials that depict violence (such as sadomasochism and rape) (29).

I will say probably repeated exposure to pornography causes a desire for more extreme pornography, at least in those addicted to pornography. However, this is highly controversial, as are all of the other points Dr. Dolf made.

* Individuals with a predisposition for aggression (i.e., men who are at relatively high risk for aggression) have shown to be particularly drawn to images of pornography and are more likely to expose themselves to such images in the future than lower-risk individuals. Moreover, a number of priming studies have shown that men with earlier risk characteristics may interpret sexually explicit material differently than lower-risk individuals, such that pornography activates and reinforces inappropriate cognitive representations (e.g., hostility toward women) and fosters the development of sexual preoccupation in these men (14).

Almost all men are into porn of one sort or another: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html

Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.

But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.

“We started our research seeking men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography,” said Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. “We couldn't find any.”

*A review study based on 81 research studies (35 using aggressive porn stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive porn stimuli), concluded that “the empirical research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with impressive consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward women and the perceived likelihood to rape.” The study also noted that 70 percent of the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure (25).

I am not going to keep repeating myself, but yeah I already gave links showing that these claims are highly controversial and hotly contested, as well as links showing that much of the research making such claims has been found to be biased and not legitimate.

*A study for the Canadian Department of Justice found that when they exposed individuals who were habitually “high-frequency porn consumers” to non-violent, dehumanizing porn, those individuals were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. The authors noted that the porn the individuals were exposed to was the kind that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos. The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material—20.4 percent of those who were exposed, versus 9.4 percent of those who weren’t exposed (25).

Those statistics seem fishy considering that 35% of college aged men say they might rape if they knew they would get away with it

http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

- In a survey of male college students:
· 35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it (ref 6,7).

You can see that there’s tons of info that backs up the connection between viewing porn and committing sex crimes. But, just so you get both sides of the issue, the porn pushers think they have evidence to support their point too. Here are the studies they always talk about:

Well, even in the social sciences the things this crazy Christian fundamentalist is talking about are highly controversial.

Well, the porn pushers love to talk about these studies because they seem to validate their points. What they don’t like to talk about is how the people who have since reviewed these studies have found some major flaws in the conclusions. It turns out that there are a couple of things that distorted the results:

Well, as my previous links show, the studies that this person is giving links to have also been reviewed and found to have major flaws in them.

First of all, at the same time that pornography was legalized in all of those countries, a lot of other sex crimes including peeping, “indecency towards women,” and certain types of incest, were also made legal. So with those things no longer considered a crime, it’s no wonder the crime rates dropped.

I guess we will need to look at the raw statistics then? Regardless in the study I linked to it mentioned only child sex abuse crimes not all sex crimes

And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. T

Second, Kutchinsky put rape in the same category as less serious sex crimes. That made it easier to hide the fact that serious crimes like rape actually increased after pornography was legalized in Denmark (5).

well as the above link shows, he only claimed that child sex abuse fell after access to child pornography was made possible. So there is no trickery going on with that statistic!

But no matter what people say to try to try and make pornography seem good or harmless, there’s enough evidence out there that says it’s not, especially when it’s in the wrong hands.

There is a lot of evidence that says pornography leads to lower rates of sexual violence and child pornography leads to lower rates of child sex abuse as well.

http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

The effects of pornography, whether violent or non-violent, on sexual aggression have been debated
decades. The current review examines evidence about the influence of pornography on sexual aggression in
correlational and experimental studies and in real world violent crime data. Evidence for a causal
relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual aggression is slim and may, at certain times, have
been exaggerated by politicians, pressure groups and some social scientists. Some of the debate has focused
on violent pornography, but evidence of any negative effects is inconsistent, and violent pornography is
comparatively rare in the real world. Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse
relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested
similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic
effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the
scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to
increased sexual assault behavior.

                                                                                                                                                                     

Photographers of molested children don't always molest children; sometimes they just watch.  Either way; they are victimizing innocent people BY taking photographs of the victimization.

That is a good point, I guess there is a distinction between molesting children and taking pictures of children being molested, but for now I will stick with saying both of them are bad and should be illegal. However, I do come to hold the idea now that it is less bad to take a photograph of a child being molested than it is to molest a child, because of the argument the Swedish Pirate Party guy gave about Google Glass. Certainly if someone is wearing Google Glass and happens upon a child being raped, no logical person would say that he is worthy of being arrested despite the fact that he caused images of a childs molestation to come into existence. However, we always will hold the child rapist responsible for child rape. So clearly there is a big difference between molesting a child and causing images of a child being molested to come into existence.

Except for the fact that such a genocide is not an on-going 'abuse' to which the victims are constantly being subjected.

Wow it must be fun to be able to base all of your arguments on the assumption that you are already correct. I think that is called begging the question. You guys use so many logical fallacies it should make you seriously fucking ashamed of your mental capacity for debate. How is it on-going abuse when someone looks at a picture of child molestation, but not on-going abuse when someone looks at a picture of the people killed during the holocaust? Your entire argument here essentially boils down to "I am right because I am right!".

Seriously dude you are just repeating hollow meaningless propaganda. You might as well tell me that viewing pictures of the holocaust is okay because the people depicted are not subjected to genocide every time the pictures are viewed, but viewing images of child pornography is wrong because the children depicted are molested all over again every time the pictures are viewed. You are just mindlessly repeating the baseless and quite retarded propaganda of the government and other freedom restricting groups. If the government told your dumb ass that every time someone views CP an atom bomb blows up and kills a million people, you would probably tell me that viewing pictures of the holocaust is okay because it doesn't cause an atom bomb to blow up and kill a million people every time you do it.

but people don't argue that the Jews depicted in holocaust photographs are executed all over again every time somebody looks at one of the pictures.

Well, actually, that's another matter of psychology and perception. 

No , no it is not. It has nothing at all to do with psychology or perception, at all. It has to do with reality, and the reality is that looking at photographs does not cause what happens in the photographs to happen all over again. Can you seriously fucking debate that? Are you so irrational that you think it is a matter of god damn anything other than objective reality, that photographs do not have magical voodoo powers over those depicted in them?

For instance, if a you or I were to look at pictures of the Jews who were executed, would it be posing actual 'harm' to those victimized?  Of course not.

Why not? They were subjected to horrible torture and then were killed and photographs were taken! If a child is subjected to horrible sexual torture and a photograph is taken of it, you will be screaming at the top of your lungs about how looking at that picture not only causes harm to the child all over again, but actually victimizes all children in the entire god damn world. Only a delusional person can possibly hold both of these beliefs, you absolutely must be suffering from cognitive dissonance to think that there is a difference between a picture of a Jew being tortured and killed and a picture of a child being tortured and killed.

But if we were, in fact, jerking off to those pictures... would there be a serious inherent mental issue with us?  I would say so.

Sure then we would probably be necrophiles or possibly just extreme sadists, both of these are legitimate diagnosis under the DSM (unlike hebephilia or ephebophilia).

Would we be people to be trusted around the corpses of Jews when no one is looking?  Perhaps not. 

Why not? Because there is a chance that we might do something bad with them? What if we only fantasize about such things but would never actually do it? You want to arrest people for precrime, because they might do something bad? Why not arrest all men because they might rape somebody. Why not arrest everybody who plays GTA because they might go on a fucking killing rampage. Do you think people who play video games where they mow down tens of thousands of civilians should all be locked up because they might go on a killing spree? Or do you think there is a difference between fantasy and reality? Because the same thing is true in a sexual sense, there is a difference between a persons sexual fantasies and their sexual reality. I would play GTA and get enjoyment from it, but I would never go on a killing spree killing innocent people in real life. Why is it so hard to accept that some people might enjoy jacking off to pictures of things that would be absolutely horrible if they did in real life, and that they would never do in real life?

And of course, if we're taking sensitivity into consideration at all here and not just being ignorant to the Jews who survived the Holocaust; you cannot tell me or anyone else in this thread(or anywhere for that matter) that looking at images of the Holocaust does not bring them great hurt. 

Sure nobody said to force the Jews to look at pictures of the holocaust and nobody said to force children to look at images of child abuse.

I don't believe there's much of a 'demand' for holocaust pictures in the context upon which your argument is based in regards the topic of CP.  If you believe these two examples of the human condition are so clearly analogous, I would(we would) love to see the argument for a demand in Holocaust images for the purpose of sexual or sadistic release.

First of all, you would be surprised, there are certainly sadists and necrophiles out there who have masturbated to pictures of general death and misery, and I am sure that at least some people have masturbated to pictures of the holocaust. Additionally, have you never heard of shock sites? They may feature images of murdered and otherwise victimized people, and some people really get off on looking at that shit, in a sexual way or otherwise. Such sites even make profit for collecting and hosting such imagery. Additionally, you keep falling back to the tired old "demand for CP translates into supply of CP argument" despite the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that the mere act of somebody looking at CP causes more CP to be produced. Once again, I am forced to bring up my PIR argument, in which it is possible for people to download and view CP without the possibility of any other party becoming aware that this has happened.