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 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 249
826
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Trancendal suicide. Not depressive suicide.
« on: July 07, 2013, 10:52 am »
Quote from: joywind on July 07, 2013, 09:59 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on July 07, 2013, 08:40 am
Actually it will be most similar to how things were before you were born.
I was never born to begin with. I always am. I don't die because I was never born.

whoa man that is some deep shit.

827
Security / Re: BTC Price drop
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:46 am »
I think it is funny that somebody thinks it is a bad omen that the liberals dislike Bitcoin. Of course they dislike it, hell they dislike it even more than the conservatives do. Liberals hate the idea of people having a way to avoid taxation or to make income that they cannot easily tax.

828
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Trancendal suicide. Not depressive suicide.
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:40 am »
Actually it will be most similar to how things were before you were born.

829
Off topic / Re: Hardest you've ever gone on drugs? (Discussion)
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:29 am »
Would have to be a ketamine binge for me. I don't know exactly how much I used but once I spent about a month sniffing ketamine all day. I probably went through nearly 100 grams over a month though, toward the end I was sniffing probably 500mg+ per line every hour. Actually it stopped working almost entirely toward the end I could hardly k hole at all anymore. I also suffered from k pains through out the month, but kept at it, because I am hopelessly addicted to ketamine when I have it, and I was living with a friend who had a fuck ton of ketmaine and who let me use as much as I wanted. Pretty much my rule for ketamine these days is to not allow myself to be in possession of more than 5 grams at a time.

830
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Trancendal suicide. Not depressive suicide.
« on: July 07, 2013, 08:02 am »
All scientific evidence currently most strongly supports the notion that when you die your ability to perceive and think cease to be, causing 'you' to enter a state most similar to extremely deep sleep, although even more so. There is no scientific evidence for an eternal soul, and all religions promising eternal life after death have been thoroughly debunked and believing in any of them is essentially the same as believing in arbitrary bullshit. One of the leading theories of the end fate of our universe is that it will enter into a state of heat death, in which change ceases to be. This means that our universe is likely not cyclic, and there will not be a new singularity formed or a new expansion, and therefor there is no chance that you will reemerge from the singularity again after you die. The probability that a neural network making up your consciousness will be recreated in the remainder of time up until heat death is likely to be infinitesimally low. Pretty much your only hope for life after death is a multiverse with eternal inflation. However, in many multiverse models it is predicted that there is already at least one other life form equal to you somewhere in reality, and considering the fact that your ability to perceive doesn't seem to stretch to this clone it seems likely that after you die here you will not suddenly be able to see through the eyes of your counterpart in the multiverse. Also, the multiverse is not even proven and it probably never will be, and many physicists see the notion of a multiverse as being more religious than scientific.

Near death experiences are not the same thing as death experiences. If you want to experience a near death experience I suggest that you snort approximately 250 miligrams of ketamine, which will also probably have the added benefit of giving you temporary relief from depression lasting for some weeks, as you are probably actually depressed if you are contemplating suicide, even if you claim otherwise. Other than that I would lay off of the psychedelics for a while because you don't want to get so far out there that you kill yourself trying to have a spiritual experience.

Failing that you may want to consider joining a cult, your beliefs seem to map with heavens gate pretty well, unfortunately for you they already blasted off into heaven on a spaceship hidden by a comet.

831
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Victims of the war on drugs
« on: July 07, 2013, 04:14 am »
Quote from: wackmanblu on July 07, 2013, 01:47 am
kmfkewm - You reek of paranoia, you talk about propaganda and enslavement, of an unbearable system of oppression that can only be overthrown with violent rebellion .... essentially because society isn't moving quickly enough on the drug front. C'mon. We both know you're a champagne revolutionary. If you had to pull the trigger on someone you'd likely shit your pants first.

A. It is pretty well established that the US government spends billions of dollars a year on propaganda targeted at its own citizens

B. It is pretty well established that drug users, and others who are not doing anything against libertarianism, are systematically hunted down and enslaved

C. It is pretty obvious that writing letters is not going to stop this from happening

D. I am upset about far more than the drug war. We are also taxed which is theft, we also have all of our rights routinely violated, people are sent to prison for looking at the wrong pictures, etc. I am upset because the government has restricted the freedom of and enslaved the entire population.

E. Although I do not plan to go on a suicidal DEA killing rampage, I certainly would have no issue with pressing a magic button that causes all DEA agents heads to instantaneously explode. 

Quote
The biggest secret is that there are no secrets, not really. You talk about "them" and "The Government" as if "they" are just out to "control" everything - like out of some kind of Hollywood thriller movie. You know those are just scripts right?? Governments come and go year after year, there is no Grand Dictator running a secret police force out to "get" everyone. Your unwavering crusade for anarchy; it isn't really based on anything other than fear, and your fear has clearly bred hate when talk about death to entire group of people that are charged with law enforcement today.


I mean, I can list a lot of things that the government tries to control. They try to control my ability to use drugs, they try to control what I can spend my money on by spending it "for" me, they try to restrict what I can look at, they try to restrict a fuck load of my life actually. This is all quite objective as well, you merely need to crack open a law book to see what all "they" are trying to control. Governments come and go year after year sure, when is the last time the USA had a president who was not part of the democrat or republican party? 1850! We have the choice between religious extremists and communists, and you make it seem like this means that we have freedom. Yay, we get to pick whether we are ass raped with a broom handle or a giant dildo! If we would prefer not to be sodomized we can of course write letters to our rapists asking them to please stop, I am sure they will listen. My unwavering crusade for anarchy is inseparable from my unwavering crusade for total freedom from oppression. It is not at all based on fear. The people who are afraid are the ones who support having a strong government, they are afraid of poverty and discrimination or of tolerance for those who go against their religion, and they need a powerful government to force others to conform to their political ideology. That is the difference between liberalism and conservatism versus libertarianism, liberals want to force people to accept others and force people to support others and conservatives want to force people to conform to their religious morality, whereas libertarians only want to force people to stop forcing other people to do shit! It is not possible to compare libertarianism to conservatism or liberalism because they are truly inverse ideologies, libertarianism is about freedom whereas liberalism and conservatism are just two different flavors of oppression. Also, I agree that there is no grand dictator, it is more like a council of power elites, encompassing the richest corporate leaders, the political aristocracy and their generals in military and law enforcement. The common man is given only an illusion of freedom, an illusion that you are experiencing to the point that it has caused you to be truly delusional.

Quote
Yeah, life ain't perfect, every now and then in real life a corruption scandal occurs and shows us that greed, ego, deception and avarice are an inherent human traits. There is not one country on earth where corruption on some larger scale does not happen. No matter what political system you propose you will never get around this. In light of this alone I would think it would be self-evident that a democratically elected government is better than the Feudal tribal system you propose. If you think that corruption will not play a part in your society simply because you say it won't, well, this confirms my suspicions that you are in fact a whiny scared little bitch with a comic book ego.

Sure corruption would be present even in a libertarian society. And the defenders of liberty would try their best to stomp it out. Corruption in the current system is not even considered corruption because corruption has essentially been legalized and normalized.

Quote
And my "adolescence relationship to the government"   what? Are you proposing that if choose to respect a democratically elected authority than I'm like a child to a parent. wha? Is this what the world looks like to you? Maybe you have "dad' issues.

Your adolescent relationship with the government is characterized by the fact that you seem to want to ask the government permission and hope that they listen to you. I don't want to ask the government for anything, and I hope that when they try telling me shit that a force arises that tells them restricting freedom is bad, and if they wish to continue trying to restrict freedom I hope that they are violently dealt with until they stop. I don't want to negotiate with terrorists.

Quote
Sorry; your Nazi Germany Schtick is just old now. The only purpose it serves is to showcase extremism, and images of fear and paranoia. I mean really - you equate the current US style of government with a Nazi regime and you really mean it, straight faced.

The current US style of government may be more similar to East German Stasi rather than Nazi Germany, but the Nazi analogy still holds.

Quote
You accuse me having an "idealist fantasy Utopia" vision of government - I don't, there is no utopia which is what you don't seem able to understand, all you know is that your vision is 'better' than anything else and you don't need to bother examining anything that you don't think is cool enough to belong in your simplistic, rigid, little box of ideals. Just kill people instead.

Yes kill the people who wish to oppress others. I don't have the patience or the desire to try to convince vicious criminals that they should stop being vicious criminals. The government has declared a war on drugs so why is it that all of the casualties are drug users and innocent bystanders? You seem to want us to be massacred while protesting our death and enslavement in a peaceful manner. I want the war on drugs to live up to its name, currently it is the massacre of drug users.

Quote
You still talk about Martyrs with the voice of a radical, like your crying tantrum is paramount to everything else. Other people lives don't matter cause YOUR vision should take precedence over everyone else and you will resort to violence for all,  if you don't get your way.

The life of drug law enforcement officers do not matter to me. If there was a magic button I could press that resulted in the deaths of all hardcore supporters of the war on drugs, and I could press that button to end the drug war, the button would be pressed without a nanosecond of hesitation on my part. I do not hold these vicious criminals in higher regard than I hold myself, and I refuse to masochistically suffer at their hands like you seem so keen for us to do.

Quote
I maintain that if you feel your fundamental values aren't being represented by any government party then start your own. This would take conviction, integrity and lots of grassroots support. It would be hard work, it would not be as cool as yelling for death and destruction. Just an FYI.

Yes and then I can get all of the drug felons to vote for me....oh but wait drug felons are not allowed to vote. There goes your fantasy of a democracy.

832
Security / Re: In reality, computer forensics are often worthless for evidence
« on: July 07, 2013, 02:09 am »
Defense attorneys should definitely try to swing this. Particularly people who have been arrested for sharing CP on the Gnutella network, and convicted based entirely off of forensic analysis of their drive. If the forensic technicians did not rule out the attack in the .pdf I linked to, then the integrity of their analysis is clearly compromised and I would imagine that the evidence should be thrown out, especially if they no longer have a copy of the drive for further analysis or if they conclude that they cannot differentiate between someone who intentionally downloaded and shared CP and somebody who fell victim to this attack. I have never heard of somebody trying to use this particular attack as a defense in court (although some people have tried to use a virus defense, they often fail as there is no presence of a virus detected. Somebody skilled in hacking and forensics needs to demonstrate that the inability to detect a virus does not rule out forensics coming to an incorrect conclusion). In fact, I doubt that anybody has even considered this as a defense. The presented attack has always been in terms of turning Gnutella into a DDoS botnet (get arbitrary nodes to download files from a website to drain its resources), I don't know if anybody has considered the implications this attack has in regard to establishing guilt in cases involving illegal file possession and transfer.

833
Security / Re: In reality, computer forensics are often worthless for evidence
« on: July 07, 2013, 01:24 am »
I am not really talking about CP in this thread, it is just the best example of why computer forensics are often worthless for establishing guilt. I view as little CP as  possible as it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

834
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Victims of the war on drugs
« on: July 07, 2013, 12:07 am »
Quote from: wackmanblu on July 06, 2013, 05:29 pm
kmfewm - I love you man, you are without a doubt my favorite extremist. You're very smart, academically inclined., and probably a 23 yr old poli-sci student who has all the answers in a cartoon-ish black and white world of 'Jew' and 'Nazi' characters. You provide simplistic scenarios to complex human situations. You probably have big 'ol bunny eyes and a beautiful round head. Oh, if I could only pinch those naive young cheeks whilst gazing on you with awe and wonderment ... *ahem* on with my rebuttal;

I find it rather hilarious that you think I am naive, considering you seem to think that writing letters expressing dissatisfaction with our enslavement is the quickest way to obtain freedom. You have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. The entire system is stacked against us. Can I teach a pro legalization class at public schools? Can I tax people and spend the money promoting drug legalization? Do I have friends making trillions of dollars, large parts of which they donate back to me, due to drug criminalization? You seem to advocate that we fight a shark in the water.

Quote
Yes, laws can be "muddy as fuck", that is why the courts exist, to interpret them as best they can, as given to each case presented. It is not perfect, many many miscarriages of justice have occurred, in my country as well as yours (I'm assuming you're an American), but it is so far the best system I can see. Do you have a better one in mind? One that doesn't result in dictatorial tribalism gone amuck ?  Please share.

You think that I live in a cartoonish world but you have an extremely cartoonish view of how the government works. My guess is that you probably watch School House Rock 'I'm just a bill' for your evenings entertainment. The laws are intentionally muddy as fuck so that they can apply to anything the government wants them to apply to. Many of the laws that are not muddy as fuck are interpreted away by secret courts anyway. Of course the system I prefer is militant libertarianism, where a large and powerful group uses whatever force necessary to enforce the ideals of libertarianism. However, I can think of a great many systems far superior to what is currently in place. I would prefer a direct democracy that requires a substantial percentage of the population to back something prior to it being made law. I think that computers and encryption systems should be used more frequently in voting processes, giving everybody an easy ability to vote. I don't think that there should be a president or a congress. I don't think there should be state laws either. Let's implement a secure voting infrastructure and then strike all laws from the books. Then we will let people propose laws by getting a significant amount of support for the law to be considered. If a law is nominated for consideration, it is put up to a vote for a period of two weeks. If 80% of the people who vote on the law vote in favor of it, then it is passed as law, otherwise it is not passed as law. There must be a period of four years prior to a law being reevaluated after it is put into place or rejected. Courts should be changed as well, the first thing the jury should decide is whether or not the alleged crime is something that they consider should be criminal. If 80% of the jury determines that it should be criminal, then the case can proceed, otherwise it is dismissed immediately. The jury should also decide the appropriate sentence for the crime, not the judge and not any federal or state mandates. 80% of people will agree that it should be illegal to murder, it should be illegal to rape, it should be illegal to steal, etc. You will be much more hard pressed to find 80% of people who think somebody should go to prison for smoking marijuana. If 20% or more of the population doesn't think something should be illegal, it probably shouldn't be. Currently 50.00000001% of people (well, roughly, considering electoral college) determine some percentage of the leaders who are put into power, and the leaders put into power can essentially do whatever the hell they want. The leaders put into power also get to select some of the other leaders put into power. Currently we vote on who gets to be a part of the aristocracy, we rarely get to directly influence anything ourselves.

Quote
I don't believe that any law is God-like (they can and do change often) but I generally respect the laws of my country, most of them anyway, I do smoke a blunt here and there and if I got caught I would respect the law and pay the fine, just as I would a parking ticket. I'm hardly apathetic to my government, I make sure I hold them accountable to their actions by participating in the system, not screaming for blood and death. If there is an obvious wrong committed by my government OR something I disagree with I protest it and more often that not the government listens. NOTE - this does not mean I always get my way, part of what defines living in a democratic and free country means that I don't get my way all the time.

Your relationship with the government is apparently that of a young adolescents relationship with his or her parents.....

Quote
Equating the Jehovah Witness religion in Nazi Germany with drug dealing in the US is .. ludicrous. I can't seriously comment on it.

It is exactly the same thing. Drug users know that what they are doing is illegal , they are not forced to do it, it doesn't harm anybody and is a crime against the state, and if they do it they could be sent to prison. The Jehovah Witnesses knew that what they were doing was illegal, nobody forced them to do it and they were given a chance to promise to never do it again, what they did caused no harm to anybody and was a crime against the state, and if they continued doing it they were sent to concentration camps.

Quote
I agree with you when you say that if we write "fifty fucking letters tomorrow (sic) it wouldn't change a single god damn fucking thing". Yeah, you'd probably be regarded as a fanatic by whoever had to read all 50. BUT if we each write 1 letter and the support base was broad enough and we followed it up with demonstrations and an effective lobby group, well, you bet your sweet ass things would change. This is called 'activism' (not slactivism where you just add your signature to some chain email) and it's proven effective for instigating change in many countries word wide.

All the letters in the world are not worth the over a trillion dollars that the government and private industries make from the war on drugs. You are extraordinarily naive as to how the world really works, you are quite an idealist but it is rather disgusting to me because you are a statist idealist. The reality is far, far, far removed from your idealistic fantasy utopia.

Quote
If some impressionable kid reads your spewing hatred of the DEA, gets fired up and decides to go and knock a few off, he will probably be killed or imprisoned for a long time - and you would regard him as a martyr?? Sounds a bit like some other hateful extremists we know.

Yes, somebody who is willing to sacrifice their life to make a political point against an oppressive force is indeed a hero and a martyr. People die for political reasons all the time. When US soldiers do it they are called hero's , when non government actors do it they are called terrorists, but it is all propaganda. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The only difference is one of them has the approval of a powerful government.

Quote
I agree with you again on the wasteful spending of tax dollars on the US's 'War On Drugs". No doubt it has been funded at the expense of other social programs and that is a tragedy. So sure, in that sense we're all victims (my country also spends disproportionate amounts on drug enforcement). My point here was to say that this so-called war is a losing battle in that someone like myself - an occasional user of recreational drugs - can still find and enjoy dope. I've never had my door kicked in by Nazis, been incarcerated, overly-fined or repressed for my pro-drug opinions which BTW are no secret to anyone who knows me IRL. So no, I would not say that I (and by extension most other drug users I know) have ever been a victim of this war.

Well lucky for you that the Nazis have never kicked your door in! On the other hand, I cannot count all of the people I know serving life or essentially life sentences for drug charges with all of my fingers.

Quote
If you don't have faith in either one of your 2 established political parties to accurately reflect your values you are free to start your own grass-roots movement. It has been done before, the Tea Party comes to mind, the Parti Quebecois and Reform Party in Canada (there's even a Marijuana party, no shit, Google it) . Perhaps the 2 main established parties would recognize the core of your support (assuming you have any real support for your ideals) and start to integrate those principles into their ideology. Too hard you say? Too much energy for non-guaranteed results? Yeah, you should just kill people instead right?

The two main political parties already have ingrained and fortified the opposite of my beliefs into their political ideology.

835
Security / Re: Getting an apartment with no job, just drug money..
« on: July 06, 2013, 11:09 pm »
Usually they want first and last months rent plus a security deposit. Oftentimes they want proof of income as well, but this is not always the case. Most places have 6 or 12 month leases but I have seen a rare few that will rent on a monthly basis. The places that rent by the month usually charge significantly more per month than the places that rent by the half year or year (something like 100-200 extra dollars per month), but they don't care if you can prove income or not since you pay as you go. Paying for a 6 month or 12 month lease up front in cash is not unheard of but it is usually done by rich kids or young people freshly hired into jobs with big signing bonuses. It is even possible that paying for it in cash up front could get you flagged as a drug dealer or producer, I have seen plenty of propaganda that instructs people that paying for a place up front in cash is a warning sign. I would maybe look for a place that rents by the month if you are able to afford the premium cost. I had a friend who needed to get a place for only three months because he was traveling soon but his current lease had expired, and he managed to find a place that leased by the month. Of course it might look suspicious as hell if you rent by the month and stay at a place for a year lol.

836
Security / Re: In reality, computer forensics are often worthless for evidence
« on: July 06, 2013, 10:29 pm »
Quote from: thecatinthehat101 on July 06, 2013, 03:59 pm
Idk did you see the Jodi Areas Trial? She stuck that digital camera in a washing machine and ran it through a full cycle and the police still retrieved most of the pictures using computer forensics??

I think it depends on how bad the police want the evidence and what lengths they will go to get it don't you?

Sure in that case something that could be considered computer forensics was useful for obtaining evidence. A key difference is that they obtained evidence that was in itself incriminating, ie: the photographs. If somebody has pictures of them raping kids and the police use computer forensics to obtain the pictures, then the pictures are evidence. If somebody has pictures of somebody else raping kids, and the police use computer forensics to obtain them, they are not going to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person knowingly possessed the pictures, even if the forensics indicate that they did.

837
Security / Re: In reality, computer forensics are often worthless for evidence
« on: July 06, 2013, 10:23 pm »
Quote from: fuckmadagascar on July 06, 2013, 03:33 pm
This is a really great read to reconsider our preconceived notions of computer forensics. However, I'm not a fan of all these percentages being thrown about. 2% in the original post could be 20% as far as I know, with no statistics to back that up.

Also, keep in mind - will these matters be enough to convince a jury?

You are right I should not have used hard statistics because I am only going off of anecdote and guessing. I don't know if 2% of people busted with CP are framed or 20%, but I do know for a fact that it is possible to frame somebody for CP in such a way that forensics will come to the wrong conclusion. I also don't know if somebody having CP + their IP logged by LE + forensic analysis will lead to a conviction in 99.99% of cases, but I think I can find a statistic of over 96% of CP cases end up in a conviction, and also I can find numerous stories of judges dismissing charges when traffic analysis is the only evidence against a suspect. I believe that all of my other uses of percentage were clearly figures of speech (ie: it doesn't matter if 100% of computer users can do it or only the top 1%, doesn't really make a claim to the exact % of computer users capable).

I would hope that it would be enough to at least discredit forensic reports! If it can be demonstrated that forensic analysis is incapable of distinguishing between a system that was used by the owner to download and share CP, and a system that was hacked into or otherwise manipulated into downloading and sharing CP, I think that is enough to discredit forensic analysis. That leaves us with traffic analysis, which already is not considered enough to secure a conviction, the presence of CP which cannot be proven to have been intentionally downloaded or distributed, and a forensic analysis that has been discredited. That doesn't seem like it should be enough to convict somebody to me, certainly it would not convince me of somebodies guilt beyond a reasonable doubt let alone a shadow of a doubt.

Quote
I understand what you're saying as I'm utterly paranoid about computer/network security bordering on the unhealthy. Nothing like securing and locking down your computer while tweaking..not fun..but that's a story for another day. Really though in your example if Bob got convicted than he must of had a shitty ass lawyer and he should of called Saul.

I highly disagree. In my example Bob is, from the perspective of computer forensics, indistinguishable from somebody who intentionally downloaded and shared CP. Something like 96% of people arrested on CP charges are convicted. If Bob could have gotten off unless he had a shitty lawyer, then it seems to me that nearly everybody could get off, other than the people who incriminate themselves (through confessions or spontaneous verbalization, both of which are, admittedly, surprisingly common). I don't know the exact percentage, or even a ball park figure, of those who are convicted based upon the results of computer forensics alone, but if Bob can get off with a good lawyer then ALL of them should get off as well.

Quote
All BS aside though I disagree with you that computer forensics are often worthless for evidence. They have worth. In and of itself it shouldn't be enough to convict someone and we have our warped legal system to blame for that. How much evidence is left behind depends on what system you run and your security measures. Windows leaves a lot of evidence behind and you can just follow the trail and usually you find something worthwhile. Linux I'm not sure about as just got into it.

If a serial rapist could spontaneously change his DNA to that of arbitrary humans, would you still say that DNA is useful for evidence? If there is an over the counter tool that somehow allowed you to simply clone the barrel of a gun and modify the barrel of your own gun such that it leaves impressions identical to the cloned gun, would you still think that ballistic imprint correlation is useful for evidence? I can see that in some cases computer forensics are very useful for evidence, but the fact is that the analysts are relying on there not being a malicious agent trying to mislead them. It is similar to writeprint analysis, if no countermeasures are taken writeprint analysis can achieve accuracy in the high 90%'s, however if somebody intentionally tries to mimic the writeprint of somebody else the technique is easily tricked. So it is not true to say that writeprint analysis is worthless, but it is true to say that it is fairly trivial to write something such that it looks like somebody else wrote it. The writeprint analysts are hoping that the large majority of people don't attempt to make their writeprint look like that of someone else, just as the computer forensic analysts are hoping that there are not malicious agents trying to make it look like random people committed computer crimes. So no computer forensics are not worthless, but when it comes to establishing guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt they are entirely insufficient. The full point I am making is that the evidence that Windows leaves behind can be fraudulent such that forensics cannot possibly determine if it is indicative of guilt of a user of the physical PC. Also there are many different skill levels of forensic people working for LE, and in many cases forensics technicians are not trained well enough to do an in depth analysis.

Quote
What percentage of vendors on SR do you think if they're PC's were seized would have physical evidence on there?

For vendors on SR it is less of a concern because for them the evidence is the possession of drugs and the act of dealing the drugs. It is possible to frame somebody for drugs sure, but I imagine that LE would watch them such that they establish their involvement in drugs prior to arresting them. They will not determine a vendors IP address and then raid the vendor and convict them based upon discovering drugs. More likely they will put the vendor under surveillance and watch them pick up drug packages, watch them send out packages and then intercept them and determine that they contain drugs, and then raid the vendor (that is what happened to Enelysion anyway). In the case of CP, they detect an IP address involved with it and then they raid the person and secure a conviction based upon the presence of CP and a forensic analysis of the system.

Quote
The other thing is if that child porn was not intentionally downloaded by Bob but by Alice then you should be able to trace where those files came from and if not that seeing that they were inserted into Bobs PC would raise a reasonable doubt. When you download something it's a different action then say me inserting it into your PC. I understand using the proxies, hacked wi-fis but there's still always going to be a trace of some foreign activity. Now whether or not it's found by LE forensic I guess is the question. Are they're ppl that can totally mask that activity, I'm sure they're is.

For example look at the attack against Gnutella. It allows Alice to trick Bobs client into downloading any file from the internet. It is not really a different action for Bob to search for an mp3 and be sent an mp3 than it is for Bob to search for an mp3 and have his client manipulated into downloading CP. In this case forensics would probably be able to differentiate if they were trained well enough, there would likely be logs of Bob searching for various things and the CP would not be included. If it takes Bob a while to be raided though it is possible that logs would be gone by the time he is arrested, but the CP would still be present. It has been a few years since I studied forensics on Windows systems (I pretty much gave up that quest after determining that FDE is the nail in the coffin of traditional computer forensics...well I also stopped using Windows lol), I would need to refresh my memory a bit prior to determining if forensics could differentiate between a file the gnutella client is tricked into downloading versus a file it intentionally downloads. However, this was just a basic example of how somebody could be framed. A skilled hacker would not use such an attack if they determine it would leave a trace. There are certainly people who can penetrate into a system, carry out actions and then leave without a trace being left to indicate that the system was penetrated.

838
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Victims of the war on drugs
« on: July 06, 2013, 02:21 pm »
Quote
No Jay.
I'm not a fan of this "war" but it can be stopped. If anyone here decides to go public (and by this I mean stop hiding behind anonymity) and take up the cause to speak out against criminalization of drugs I will back you all the way. Many, many people will. More than any list of victims you can ever individually post here.

If anybody involved in things here gives up their anonymity they will probably go to fucking jail, and even assuming that they do not go to jail, what do you expect them to accomplish? There are already groups protesting prohibition and they are accomplishing very little. Marijuana is sort-of legal in two states after decades and decades of struggling against state oppression, millions of broken lives later. I don't know about you but I want drugs to be legalized in *my* lifetime I don't want them to be legalized in two hundred more years when I am long dead and gone. The most effective way to protest the war on drugs is to cause mass casualties in those who enforce the drug laws. Nobody gives a fuck about people protesting or writing letters, they are just ignored. People cannot ignore a hundred DEA agents dying at the same time, not to mention that results in one hundred less people to enforce drug laws.

Quote
The best thing you can do help your cause isn't some vague reference to "Kill all LE", that is playing right into the hands of people who would make you out to be unstable and violent;  it's to become politically active. Always vote, write letters to your representatives, take a stand and let people (co-workers, friends, family)  know what it is. Organize a community group and protest. These are all things you can do before calling for death. 

Yeah we can vote for the Democrats who don't want to legalize drugs, or for the republicans who sure as fuck don't want to legalize drugs, or for the libertarians who have absolutely zero chance of ever being elected. Voting sounds like a massive waste of time to me. You might as well say that we should start building a tower to reach the fucking moon. My representatives don't give a flying tenth of a fuck about any letter that I write to them, and the fact that you think they do demonstrates an extreme naivety on your part. The only people I would willingly associate with already hold the same beliefs as I do, I try to avoid Nazi's whenever possible. So none of your fantastic advice has worked historically, and it appears that it will never work, so is it time to start calling for death yet?

Quote
No Jay.

EVERYBODY is not a victim of this war. I'm not. You're still alive and posting online so presumably you're not incarcerated.

Everybody is a victim of the war on drugs. Drug users are the most obvious victims, as we regularly end up locked in prison or dead because of the war on drugs.
Innocent people like the ones in my first post are also victims of the war on drugs, and there are thousands and thousands of them. The entire country is victimized by the war on drugs, a trillion dollars has been spent fighting a completely pointless and doomed to fail war that has accomplished jack fucking shit. What could we have spent a TRILLION dollars on instead? Maybe eradicating poverty? Maybe having a better education system? Better healthcare system? I mean, I am against taxation entirely, but it sure seems like we could have spent a trillion dollars on something more useful than building a bunch of prisons to lock up harmless drug users. So all of the poor stupid and sick people are victims of the war on drugs as well. 


Quote
Keep in mind that impressionable people do read these posts. How would you feel if some stoned kid decided to make a stand and got his ass shot off based on some shit-talk you posted online?  Your ideas of revolution and armed insurgency are not new, people have been getting pissed off at authority for valid reasons since the beginning of time.  In the past a bunch of farmers would storm the castle with pitchforks (which is about the jist of your plan) and the King's men would come out and shoot them down. Serious rebellion  takes hold when people are truly repressed. When their basic needs are withheld by a ruling class. Not because they or someone they knew couldn't  smoke their dope.

Honestly if some stoned kid decides to make a stand and blasts a bunch of drug enforcement agents straight to hell, I will consider him to be a martyr and a hero. You are really condescending toward drug users, and extremely statist, and it makes me highly doubt that you yourself are actually a drug user. We are not oppressed only because we cannot "smoke our dope" we are oppressed because we are sent to die in motherfucking prisons by armed to the teeth paramilitary troops who spy on us and treat us like motherfucking enemy combatants. We are shot and murdered, we are under constant attack and thousands of us die from overdoses because of these assholes. So you can blow them all you want to, but the fact is they are fucking murderous sociopathic killers and the more of them that die the better off all rational human beings will be.

Quote
The best chance at changing your world for the betterment of your own circumstances and avoiding a lot of unnecessary death is to simply lobby for your cause. Real wars have been fought for your right to do this. Many people have already died so that you or I can make a case for what we believe is important.

Personally I'd rather just smoke a J and chill than buy a gun.

Personally I would rather just smoke a J and chill than buy a gun as well, I am also sure most Jewish people in Nazi Germany would have rather just chilled than been sent to death camps! Your suggestions in reality are completely useless gestures, we could all write fifty fucking letters tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single god damn fucking thing and you have to have your head shoved up your ass so far that I question your ability to breathe if you think otherwise.

Quote
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the war on drugs. I think it's one of the biggest wastes of life, money, resources, time ... etc. Don't even get me going on wrongful convictions and mistaken raids that end in innocent deaths. What I am saying is (and sorry if I got a little hot under the collar), is that I'm amazed at how quick people are to condemn others to death based on revenge.

Maybe condemning them to death based on revenge is taking it too far. Maybe we shouldn't hunt down every single DEA agent, snitch and informant and execute them like we are Mossad and they are Nazi war criminals. But condemning others to death for our freedom is obviously in our right to do. If we knew that killing one thousand DEA agents would result in complete legalization of drugs, we would be fools to not start killing them immediately! Maybe the best strategy will end up being killing them until we are free and then punishing the survivors until we have justice.

Quote
I know a lot of lives have been ruined, but it's not like dealers and growers and manufacturers of dope didn't play a part in their own demise. They all knew that what they were doing was deemed illegal and that if they got caught there would be punishment (severe punishment in the US). They knowingly took risks and some got nailed. They are also players in this game. To spin it any differently is a lie.

Being a Jehovahs Witness in Nazi Germany was a crime, and all of them knew it. They were offered the opportunity to renounce their faith and spare themselves from punishment, however many of them continued to practice their faith and refused to renounce it. They were then sent to concentration camps and killed. You are literally arguing that because they knew the risks of continuing to practice their faith, and yet they continued to do so, that THEY are responsible for being gassed at concentration camps, rather than the Nazi war criminals. It is just abso-fucking-lutely disgusting to hear such insanity and it is honestly just offensive to me that you actually think in this way.

Quote
As far as LE and death go -  here's the rub - They will do exactly what we tell them to do. Notice I said "we" as I still consider myself a part of society for all it's shite and benefits. If societal attitudes were to change (and they are) then people will pressure politicians to decriminalize, oh say, medical marijuana, which has already happened. Guess what the next step is? Once your Grand-daddy passes on (who probably equates weed with psychotic violent destruction) then the door is open to normalize other types of drugs.
So one day when you go down to your local coffee house / drug emporium and get royally stoned out of your head (legally and responsibly of course) you may look at the guy next to you and he may be a cop also getting royally buzzed (off-duty of course). You may find you like this guy who's just living his life. He might even have stories to tell of the bad old days of 'prohibition'.  Now imagine pulling out gun and killing him dead. OR you could just get high and debate why humanity is so flawed.

One day a Jew may go down to his local library and find an ex Nazi war criminal reading a book. Now if the Jew is in Mossad he will quite possibly pull a gun out and shoot him dead, but in any case I don't think he will perceive him as somebody who is just like him living his life. Hell, the Nazi probably even has stories from the bad ol' days of the holocaust.


839
Security / Re: In reality, computer forensics are often worthless for evidence
« on: July 06, 2013, 12:26 pm »
Yes it is outside of the skill level of the average computer user, but in many cases it is inside the skill level of a novice hacker with a bit of a technical background and some time to spend reading some .pdf files. The attack against Gnutella that allows the attacker to cause nodes to download whatever the hell they want is trivial to implement, and it is sufficient of an attack to get the targets convicted for CP trafficking. Of course, there are other extremely advanced vectors that could be utilized as well, some of which will result in a system that is *forensically indistinguishable* from a system owned by somebody who actually downloaded and shared CP.

But it doesn't really matter if it can be done by 100% of computer users or only the top 1% most skilled computer users. The simple fact of the matter is that it can be demonstrated that computer forensics can be entirely misleading, it can be demonstrated that CP can end up on somebodies computer in such a way that forensic technicians have no choice but to say that the CP was intentionally downloaded and distributed, and in hundreds of thousands of CP cases the integrity of the evidence used to convict the so-called offender is 100% dependent on there not being somebody trying to frame the person convicted, or even random people. They don't allow traffic analysis by itself to secure a conviction (judges dismiss cases where the only evidence is from traffic analysis), but traffic analysis + the presence of CP + a forensic analysis showing that a user of the seized PC intentionally downloaded and distributed CP is enough for a conviction in 99.99% of cases. This is despite the fact that the presence of CP and a forensic analysis showing that a user of the PC intentionally downloaded it is just as prone to failure as traffic analysis. Due to people using open and hacked WiFi, plus people using proxy exit nodes, hacked cable modems, plus ISP's / websites / police / etc not being 100% accurate when it comes to keeping logs, the justice department has essentially determined that traffic analysis by itself can only be used for intelligence. Perhaps there needs to be a massive botnet that creates systems forensically indistinguishable from those owned by CP collectors before the justice department will realize that even the presence of CP and a forensic analysis showing how it got there are not reliable enough to be considered evidence either.

840
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Victims of the war on drugs
« on: July 06, 2013, 08:34 am »
Quote from: wackmanblu on July 03, 2013, 10:40 pm
Quote from: SealTeam6 on June 29, 2013, 06:50 am
To say you're not a victim means you are disconnected from the rest of humanity IMO.  Maybe you are interpreting the word victim differently than me.  Everything has an effect, open your eyes and maybe you will see that one day!

SealTeam - I'm not following you at all. What's your point? That all of us are victims and if I disagree then I'm "disconnected from the rest of humanity" - this is a very vague reference to ... some kind of teen rebellion thing. I maintain that I have not been victimized by anyone or anything. I get up and go to work, I pay taxes, I enjoy my life, sometimes I do drugs. I don't always agree with what my taxes fund but I do respect the legitimacy of an elected government to do what they believe is best. If enough of us don't like it we simply vote them out. If our lobby was big enough and organized enough then we could legalize soft drugs tomorrow. The problem is youth doesn't vote, if they did we would have had Amsterdam style coffee houses everywhere by now.

I know that's not as cool as saying "Fuck the politicians and kill all the police" but the alternative - picking up a gun and playing God - is ludicrous. The war on drugs is a farce and there have certainly been some victims, but I'd guess the majority of people in jail for drug related offenses knew that drugs were illegal before they started dealing.

For the record, my definition of a victim is someone who has been forcefully and negatively subjected to the will of another without any recourse.  And no, governmental laws do not fall under that definition as we all have a say in electing who gets power and their laws are transparent - meaning that police can't just pick you up for unclear reasons, if they do there are laws to protect you from being persecuted. Additionally, no western government will prevent its citizens from emigrating if they don't like the laws where they live.

I take it that when the elected politicians say it is time to gas the Jews that you will be supporting them still? You are one of the people brainwashed by the law. You don't care what the law is, you only know that the law is God. People like you are the most dangerous people in the world. You don't seem to have problem with the government picking up guns and playing God, but heaven forbid the people do it! Seriously, could you possibly fit more government dick into your ass?

PS: Ever heard of analog drug laws? You make it seem like the law is so crystal clear but in reality it is muddy as fuck. Ever heard of obscenity laws? Also are you aware that US federal law applies to US citizens regardless of where they reside? The only way for a US citizen to escape US law is to legally renounce their citizenship and then emigrate outside of the US. Man you really irritate me with how hardcore into the law you are, it sucks seeing brainwashed people who have chugged as much of the kool aid as they possibly could.

Seriously, you seem to think that if a country consists of two Nazi's and a Jew that the Jew should march right into the gas chamber if that is the 'will of the people'. Don't you ever get sick of being a Nazi apologist?

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 249