WikiLeaks shares full text of Wolff’s Trump book

Provided by The Hill WikiLeaks posted the full text of Michael Wolff’s explosive new book about President Trump on Sunday.

The website’s official account tweeted a link to a Google Drive containing the full text of the book.

“New Trump book ‘Fire and Fury’ by Michael Wolff. Full PDF:” the tweet read.

The book has dominated headlines over the past week, with the White House saying it is full of lies.

“Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” claims that former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon thought the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer was “treasonous.”

Trump blasted Bannon’s remarks, saying the former aide had “lost his mind.”

Bannon called Trump Jr. a “patriot” and a “good man” in a statement Sunday, adding that he regretted not responding to his comments reported inthe book earlier. He did not deny the quotes.

The book has also raised concerns about Trump’s mental fitness. The president fired back at those questions in aseries of tweets on Saturday, calling himself a “very stable genius.”

WikiLeaks hasa long history with Trump. Trump Jr. corresponded with the site during the presidential campaign, and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner also received emails about Russia and WikiLeaks before the election.

Read the original post:
WikiLeaks shares full text of Wolff’s Trump book

Julian Assange latest: Wikileaks chief mystery over claims …

Another said: Look for something big on January 4th, 10th, and 20th.

A lot of us now believe Julian isn’t at the embassy any more. We believe he’s working with Trump.

Another asked: Is Julian on a plane headed to the US?? Im ready for him to let the truth be known!!

Quoting the lyrics to Paper Planes by MIA another user added: I got more records than the KGB. Meaning he’s got many more records in his possession.

It comes after the US Navy bizarrely tweeted Julian Assange from its official profile on Christmas Day to complete the series of oddities.

The navys account later tried to clear up any confusion, writing: This morning, an inadvertent keystroke by an authorised user of the US Navy Office of Information’s Digitial Media Engagement Team caused the trending term Julian Assange to be tweeted from the Navy’s official Twitter account (@USNavy).

The controversial figures account, @JulianAssange, mysteriously disappeared between 12-1am on Christmas morning.

Mr Assanges last tweet was on December 22, leaving no hint as to why the account may have been removed.

People trying to access Assanges Twitter account were directed to an ‘error message’ page before it reappeared later in the day.

It was then on New Years Day that Mr Assange appeared to return to Twitter, sparking fears he had died and the code was a dead mans switch.

Read more from the original source:
Julian Assange latest: Wikileaks chief mystery over claims …

Comparing Open Source vs Closed Source Software

Youre no technical guru and have been charged with finding a web content management system (CMS) for your business. Simple right?

So are you after anOpen or Closed source CMS?Um…Im looking to update my content multiple times a week to benefit our SEO and engage our audience beyond traditional marketing methods?Yes, ok. But are you looking for an Open Source CMS or a Closed Source CMS?Um. Im not really the technical guy…

Theres no need tobe intimidated by this technical jargon. The differences between Open and Closed source software are fairly straightforward and there are fairly clear pros and cons for each. There is no right or wrong answer to the question either. Your best option will largelydepend on your business and itsgoals. In the end, the main objective is to have access to aCMSthat iseasy for you and your team to manage on a day to day basis.

But lets start with a few basics to help you get in the conversation.

Open source software (OSS) is distributed under a licensing agreement which allows computer code to be shared, viewed and modified by other users and organizations.

Or in slightly more user-friendly language, open sourcesoftwareis available for the general public to use andmodify from its original design free of charge. What it means is that a piece of software can evolve and be iterated upon by otherdevelopers anywhere in the world. Ideally, this means that the software is improved over time, but it can often take plenty of interesting twists and turns with all of that evolution and canchange form and shape entirely.

Open Source feels inherently cool and well…open. In theory, it feels like what the Internet was supposed to be all about. But it should also comewith a warning label.Theres a fantastic fortnightly podcast about technology that I never misscalled Reply All. They ran an episode recently called Disappearedthats really worth a listen.

It delvesinto the idea of the open web and theprinciples of self-governance that drivethe ethos of open source software. Whilst an openand peer to peer oriented web is to be applauded philosophically, it can leave usvulnerable to rogue developers who choose to break things for their own benefit. Hence the need for a warning label.

Closed source software can be defined as proprietary software distributed under a licensing agreement to authorized users with private modification, copying, and republishing restrictions.

Or in layman terms, thesourcecode is not shared with the public for anyone to look at or change.Closed sourceis the opposite of opensource. Thanks Wikipedia 😉

Closed source is actually the sort of arrangement that you would expect from most businesses, protective of their product and keen to maintain control over their brand and the user experience offered to their customers. Think Apple rather than Android.

So, when considering open source or closed source (proprietary) software, what are some of the key differences to take into account before making a decision? We’re goingto take a look at service/support, innovation, usability and security in both open source and closed source software and outline the pros and cons of both software systems.

Generally, the key differentiators between open and closed come down to a few factors:

There are pros and cons of each and the direction you head in, will largely depend on your priorities for each of these 5 factors. Those priorities will help dictate when its appropriate to use open source and when to use a closedsource CMS.

One of the main advantages of open source software is the cost; however, when applied to OSS, the term “free” has less to do with overall cost and more to do with freedom from restrictions.

If you have the in-house capabilities and technical expertise to maintain the software, and resources to implement, train and provide support to staff, then open source may be most cost-effective for your organization. You should consider, however, the long-term costs of implementation, innovation, providing support, and investing in infrastructure as your company evolves, technology changes, and your needs grow.

** Update we recently took a detailed look at the costs of platforms with our postDo You Know The True Cost of Managing a Website?It will help you understand what are the true costs.

Open software providers are also increasingly charging for extras like add-ons, integration, and additional services, which can negate any cost-saving advantages in some cases. In the end, rather than being free, you are still paying for a service with open source software.

For a Closed Source CMS, depending on the complexity of the system, thecost can vary between a few thousand to a few hundred thousand dollars, which includes a base fee for software, integration and services and annual licensing/support fees. While the hard cost can be higher, what you get in return is a more customized product from a trusted brand, higher levels of security and functionality, continuous innovation, greater scalability, ongoing training and support and a lower requirement for technical skills.

Open source software relies on a loyal and engaged online user community to deliver support via forums and blogs, but this support often fails to deliver the high level of response that many consumers expect (and can receive with proprietary software).

These communities must also be found on the web and some would argue there is no incentive for the community to address a user’s problem.

Service and support are probably the greatest advantages of using proprietary software (closed). Ongoing support is a key selling point for users with little technical skills and one of the main reasons people choose closed source over open source software.

Support includes user manuals and pointsof contact for immediate assistance from viable companies with experts who are intimately familiar with the products and services

Open source software provides a large amount of flexibility and freedom to change the software without restriction. This innovation, however, may not be passed on to all users and it is debated whether customized changes to the original source code can limit the future support and growth of the software. Once more, open source software providers often struggle to attract large-scale research and development.

Some see the inability to view or change the source code in closed source software as a drawback when compared to the unrestricted flexibility of open source; however, this restriction ensures the security and reliability of proprietary software that is fully tested and offered to all users.

Once more, customized software is available for specific users. Unlike open source, proprietary software also attracts larger amounts of R&D in order to regularly offer new products and upgrades.

Like open source software, closed sourcesoftware also has dedicated online communities that share ideas and strategies through forums and surveys, fostering innovation and allowing the product to adapt with changing needs.

Usability is often a major area of criticism for open source software because the technology is generally not reviewed by usability experts and caters to developers rather than the vast majority of layperson users. User guides are not required by law and are therefore often ignored. When manuals are written, they are often filled with jargon that is difficult to follow.

For closed or proprietary software, usability is a high selling point (think Apple again) due to expert usability testing for a more targeted audience. User manuals are also provided for immediate reference and quick training, while support services help to maximize use of the software. Third party systems and developers are also able to use a variety of mechanisms to enhance “closed” source software.

Security of open source is often a concern for large companies because software is not always developed in a controlled environment.

With individual users all around the world developing the software, there is a lack of continuity and common direction that prevents effective communication. Once more, the software is not always peer-reviewed or validated, meaning that a programmer can embed a backdoor Trojan into the software while the user is none the wiser.

One way to reduce this potential risk is to adopt a reputable brand with a concentrated development team supported by a strong online community.

Proprietary or closed software is generally seen as more secure because it is developed in a controlled environment by a concentrated team with a common direction. This team is the only group that can view or edit the source code, it is heavily audited and the risk of backdoor Trojans or bugs are reduced (though no security can be flawless).

The keypros and cons of open vs closed source softwarelargely depend on your technical expertise and resources available to maintain and update the software. Consider the five points outlined in this article to get a better idea of the right software for your company’s needs now and in the future.

Read the original here:
Comparing Open Source vs Closed Source Software

Open Source Software Audit | Black Duck Software

When M&A (mergers and acquisitions) transactions or internal reviews are in motion, you need a fast, trusted, and comprehensive software audit. An open source software audithelps your business, legal, and engineering teams quickly find open source software and third-party code, along with associated licenses and obligations.

Each year, Black Duck performs hundreds ofaudits for some of the largest organizations and most active acquirers, as well as smaller companies. With Black Duck’sOn-Demand tools, using a range of code scanning techniques, our experts provide the most comprehensive analysis available.

By shining a light on unknown open source code and third-party components and licenses, Black Duck can alert your organization to potential legal, operational, and security issues. And, importantly, we provide the responsiveness, speed, and discretion required to reduce your risk, stay on-schedule, and keep the deals moving.

In addition to open source software auditing, Black Duck On-Demand offers anOpen Source Risk Assessmentto help your organization:

Contact ustodayto discuss Black Duck’s On-Demand Audit services.

Read more:
Open Source Software Audit | Black Duck Software

Cryptocurrency boom: Why everyone is talking about ripple

In recent weeks, ripple’s value has spiked, making it the second most valuable digital currency and bringing it newfound attention.

The relatively obscure cryptocurrency, also known as XRP, is now worth about $2.60 with a market cap of more than $100 billion, according to Coinmarketcap. In early December, it was trading at just 25 cents.

Even with the spike, ripple is worth considerably less than bitcoin. After a tumultuous December, bitcoin was trading around $15,000 late Tuesday with a market cap of more than $250 billion.

Related: Bitcoin boom may be a disaster for the environment

What’s different about ripple is its supply is largely controlled by just one company, San Francisco-based Ripple. There are reports of current and former Ripple executives becoming cryptocurrency billionaires from its recent boom.

Ripple launched in 2012 to facilitate global financial transactions. It differentiates itself from other digital currency platforms by its connections to legitimate banks. Companies that use the Ripple platform include Santander (SANPRA), Bank of America (BAC) and UBS (UBS).

In recent weeks, financial services companies in Japan and South Korea have adopted Ripple’s technology, helping boost the price of the cryptocurrency.

Related: What the big names of finance are saying about bitcoin

According to Stephen Powaga, head of research at investment firm Blockchain Momentum, ripple and other some other cryptocurrencies have relatively low transaction fees, which made them popular when people began looking for alternatives to bitcoin.

But unlike Bitcoin, ripple isn’t created, or “mined,” by users. The company has control.

It created 100 billion ripple coins initially, and 38 billion of them are in circulation at the moment. Ripple management can release up to 1 billion coins per month, which Powaga predicts could oversaturate the market.

“It’s somewhat concerning for me because if they chose to release them as quickly as possible, within a little over four years, you’d see more than a doubling of supply of ripple,” he said.

That could put pressure on its price.

“I’m not certain that some of the newer market participants are fully appreciating the potential for inflation,” Powaga said.

Related: Hackers take advantage of bitcoin’s wild ride

Cross-border payments that can take hours with bitcoin or days with traditional financial transactions can go through in a matter of seconds with ripple, the company says.

Like bitcoin, ripple’s payment network, RippleNet, uses blockchain technology.

A blockchain is a public ledger containing transaction data from anyone who uses the service. Transactions are added to “blocks,” or the links of code that make up the chain, and each transaction must be recorded on a block.

— Seth Fiegerman contributed to this report.

CNNMoney (San Francisco) First published January 2, 2018: 10:31 PM ET

Originally posted here:
Cryptocurrency boom: Why everyone is talking about ripple

Cypherpunk – Wikipedia

This article is about cryptography advocates. For the book by Julian Assange, see Cypherpunks (book).

A cypherpunk (UK /sfpk/ US /sfrpk/)[1] is any activist advocating widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political change. Originally communicating through the Cypherpunks electronic mailing list, informal groups aimed to achieve privacy and security through proactive use of cryptography. Cypherpunks have been engaged in an active movement since the late 1980s.

Until about the 1970s, cryptography was mainly practiced in secret by military or spy agencies. However, that changed when two publications brought it out of the closet into public awareness: the US government publication of the Data Encryption Standard (DES), a block cipher which became very widely used; and the first publicly available work on public-key cryptography, by Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman.

The technical roots of Cypherpunk ideas have been traced back to work by cryptographer David Chaum on topics such as anonymous digital cash and pseudonymous reputation systems, described in his paper “Security without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete” (1985).[2]

In the late 1980s, these ideas coalesced into something like a movement.[2]

In late 1992, Eric Hughes, Timothy C. May and John Gilmore founded a small group that met monthly at Gilmore’s company Cygnus Solutions in the San Francisco Bay Area, and was humorously termed cypherpunks by Jude Milhon at one of the first meetings – derived from cipher and cyberpunk.[3] In November 2006, the word was added to the Oxford English Dictionary.[4]

The Cypherpunks mailing list was started in 1992, and by 1994 had 700 subscribers.[3] At its peak, it was a very active forum with technical discussion ranging over mathematics, cryptography, computer science, political and philosophical discussion, personal arguments and attacks, etc., with some spam thrown in. An email from John Gilmore reports an average of 30 messages a day from December 1, 1996 to March 1, 1999, and suggests that the number was probably higher earlier.[5] The number of subscribers is estimated to have reached 2000 in the year 1997.[3]

In early 1997, Jim Choate and Igor Chudov set up the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer,[6] a network of independent mailing list nodes intended to eliminate the single point of failure inherent in a centralized list architecture. At its peak, the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer included at least seven nodes.[7] By mid-2005, al-qaeda.net ran the only remaining node.[8] In mid 2013, following a brief outage, the al-qaeda.net node’s list software was changed from Majordomo to GNU Mailman[9] and subsequently the node was renamed to cpunks.org.[10] The CDR architecture is now defunct, though the list administrator stated in 2013 that he was exploring a way to integrate this functionality with the new mailing list software.[9]

For a time, the cypherpunks mailing list was a popular tool with mailbombers,[11] who would subscribe a victim to the mailing list in order to cause a deluge of messages to be sent to him or her. (This was usually done as a prank, in contrast to the style of terrorist referred to as a mailbomber.) This precipitated the mailing list sysop(s) to institute a reply-to-subscribe system. Approximately two hundred messages a day was typical for the mailing list, divided between personal arguments and attacks, political discussion, technical discussion, and early spam.[12][13]

The cypherpunks mailing list had extensive discussions of the public policy issues related to cryptography and on the politics and philosophy of concepts such as anonymity, pseudonyms, reputation, and privacy. These discussions continue both on the remaining node and elsewhere as the list has become increasingly moribund.

Events such as the GURPS Cyberpunk raid lent weight to the idea that private individuals needed to take steps to protect their privacy. In its heyday, the list discussed public policy issues related to cryptography, as well as more practical nuts-and-bolts mathematical, computational, technological, and cryptographic matters. The list had a range of viewpoints and there was probably no completely unanimous agreement on anything. The general attitude, though, definitely put personal privacy and personal liberty above all other considerations.

The list was discussing questions about privacy, government monitoring, corporate control of information, and related issues in the early 1990s that did not become major topics for broader discussion until ten years or so later. Some list participants were more radical on these issues than almost anyone else.

Those wishing to understand the context of the list might refer to the history of cryptography; in the early 1990s, the US government considered cryptography software a munition for export purposes, which hampered commercial deployment with no gain in national security, as knowledge and skill was not limited to US citizens. (PGP source code was published as a paper book to bypass these regulations and demonstrate their futility.) The US government had tried to subvert cryptography through schemes such as Skipjack and key escrow. It was also not widely known that all communications were logged by government agencies (which would later be revealed during the NSA and AT&T scandals) though this was taken as an obvious axiom by list members.

The original cypherpunk mailing list, and the first list spin-off, coderpunks, were originally hosted on John Gilmore’s toad.com, but after a falling out with the sysop over moderation, the list was migrated to several cross-linked mail-servers in what was called the “distributed mailing list.”[14][15] The coderpunks list, open by invitation only, existed for a time. Coderpunks took up more technical matters and had less discussion of public policy implications. There are several lists today that can trace their lineage directly to the original Cypherpunks list: the cryptography list (cryptography@metzdowd.com), the financial cryptography list (fc-announce@ifca.ai), and a small group of closed (invitation-only) lists as well.

Toad.com continued to run with the existing subscriber list, those that didn’t unsubscribe, and was mirrored on the new distributed mailing list, but messages from the distributed list didn’t appear on toad.com.[16] As the list faded in popularity, so too did it fade in the number of cross-linked subscription nodes.

To some extent, the cryptography list[17] acts as a successor to cypherpunks; it has many of the people and continues some of the same discussions. However, it is a moderated list, considerably less zany and somewhat more technical. A number of current systems in use trace to the mailing list, including Pretty Good Privacy, /dev/random in the Linux kernel (the actual code has been completely reimplemented several times since then) and today’s anonymous remailers.

The basic ideas can be found in A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto (Eric Hughes, 1993): “Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. … We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy … We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. … Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and … we’re going to write it.”[18]

Some are or were quite senior people at major hi-tech companies and others are well-known researchers (see list with affiliations below).

The first mass media discussion of cypherpunks was in a 1993 Wired article by Steven Levy titled Crypto Rebels:

The people in this room hope for a world where an individual’s informational footprints — everything from an opinion on abortion to the medical record of an actual abortion — can be traced only if the individual involved chooses to reveal them; a world where coherent messages shoot around the globe by network and microwave, but intruders and feds trying to pluck them out of the vapor find only gibberish; a world where the tools of prying are transformed into the instruments of privacy.

There is only one way this vision will materialize, and that is by widespread use of cryptography. Is this technologically possible? Definitely. The obstacles are political — some of the most powerful forces in government are devoted to the control of these tools. In short, there is a war going on between those who would liberate crypto and those who would suppress it. The seemingly innocuous bunch strewn around this conference room represents the vanguard of the pro-crypto forces. Though the battleground seems remote, the stakes are not: The outcome of this struggle may determine the amount of freedom our society will grant us in the 21st century. To the Cypherpunks, freedom is an issue worth some risk.[19]

The three masked men on the cover of that edition of Wired were prominent cypherpunks Tim May, Eric Hughes and John Gilmore.

Later, Levy wrote a book, Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government Saving Privacy in the Digital Age,[20] covering the crypto wars of the 1990s in detail. “Code Rebels” in the title is almost synonymous with cypherpunks.

The term cypherpunk is mildly ambiguous. In most contexts it means anyone advocating cryptography as a tool for social change, social impact and expression. However, it can also be used to mean a participant in the Cypherpunks electronic mailing list described below. The two meanings obviously overlap, but they are by no means synonymous.

Documents exemplifying cypherpunk ideas include Timothy C. May’s The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto (1992)[21] and The Cyphernomicon (1994),[22]A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto.[18]

A very basic cypherpunk issue is privacy in communications and data retention. John Gilmore said he wanted “a guarantee — with physics and mathematics, not with laws — that we can give ourselves real privacy of personal communications.”[23]

Such guarantees require strong cryptography, so cypherpunks are fundamentally opposed to government policies attempting to control the usage or export of cryptography, which remained an issue throughout the late 1990s. The Cypherpunk Manifesto stated “Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act.”[18]

This was a central issue for many cypherpunks. Most were passionately opposed to various government attempts to limit cryptography export laws, promotion of limited key length ciphers, and especially escrowed encryption.

The questions of anonymity, pseudonymity and reputation were also extensively discussed.

Arguably, the possibility of anonymous speech and publication is vital for an open society, an essential requirement for genuine freedom of speech this was the position of most cypherpunks.[citation needed] A frequently cited example was that the Federalist Papers were originally published under a pseudonym.

Questions of censorship and government or police monitoring were also much discussed. Generally, cypherpunks opposed both.

In particular, the US government’s Clipper chip scheme for escrowed encryption of telephone conversations (encryption secure against most attackers, but breakable at need by government) was seen as anathema by many on the list. This was an issue that provoked strong opposition and brought many new recruits to the cypherpunk ranks. List participant Matt Blaze found a serious flaw[24] in the scheme, helping to hasten its demise.

Steven Schear created[when?] the warrant canary to thwart the secrecy provisions of court orders and national security letters.[citation needed] As of 2013[update], warrant canaries are gaining commercial acceptance.[25]

An important set of discussions concerns the use of cryptography in the presence of oppressive authorities. As a result, Cypherpunks have discussed and improved steganographic methods that hide the use of crypto itself, or that allow interrogators to believe that they have forcibly extracted hidden information from a subject. For instance, Rubberhose was a tool that partitioned and intermixed secret data on a drive with fake secret data, each of which accessed via a different password. Interrogators, having extracted a password, are led to believe that they have indeed unlocked the desired secrets, whereas in reality the actual data is still hidden. In other words, even its presence is hidden. Likewise, cypherpunks have also discussed under what conditions encryption may be used without being noticed by network monitoring systems installed by oppressive regimes.

As the Manifesto says, “Cypherpunks write code”;[18] the notion that good ideas need to be implemented, not just discussed, is very much part of the culture of the mailing list. John Gilmore, whose site hosted the original cypherpunks mailing list, wrote: “We are literally in a race between our ability to build and deploy technology, and their ability to build and deploy laws and treaties. Neither side is likely to back down or wise up until it has definitively lost the race.”[citation needed]

Anonymous remailers such as the Mixmaster Remailer were almost entirely a cypherpunk development. Among the other projects they have been involved in were PGP for email privacy, FreeS/WAN for opportunistic encryption of the whole net, Off-the-record messaging for privacy in Internet chat, and the Tor project for anonymous web surfing.

In 1998, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with assistance from the mailing list, built a $200,000 machine that could brute-force a Data Encryption Standard key in a few days.[26] The project demonstrated that DES was, without question, insecure and obsolete, in sharp contrast to the US government’s recommendation of the algorithm.

Cypherpunks also participated, along with other experts, in several reports on cryptographic matters.

One such paper was “Minimal Key Lengths for Symmetric Ciphers to Provide Adequate Commercial Security”.[27] It suggested 75 bits was the minimum key size to allow an existing cipher to be considered secure and kept in service. At the time, the Data Encryption Standard with 56-bit keys was still a US government standard, mandatory for some applications.

Other papers were critical analysis of government schemes. “The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party Encryption”,[28] evaluated escrowed encryption proposals. Comments on the Carnivore System Technical Review.[29] looked at an FBI scheme for monitoring email.

Cypherpunks provided significant input to the 1996 National Research Council report on encryption policy, Cryptography’s Role In Securing the Information Society (CRISIS).[30] This report, commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 1993, was developed via extensive hearings across the nation from all interested stakeholders, by a committee of talented people. It recommended a gradual relaxation of the existing U.S. government restrictions on encryption. Like many such study reports, its conclusions were largely ignored by policy-makers. Later events such as the final rulings in the cypherpunks lawsuits forced a more complete relaxation of the unconstitutional controls on encryption software.

Cypherpunks have filed a number of lawsuits, mostly suits against the US government alleging that some government action is unconstitutional.

Phil Karn sued the State Department in 1994 over cryptography export controls[31] after they ruled that, while the book Applied Cryptography[32] could legally be exported, a floppy disk containing a verbatim copy of code printed in the book was legally a munition and required an export permit, which they refused to grant. Karn also appeared before both House and Senate committees looking at cryptography issues.

Daniel J. Bernstein, supported by the EFF, also sued over the export restrictions, arguing that preventing publication of cryptographic source code is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. He won, effectively overturning the export law. See Bernstein v. United States for details.

Peter Junger also sued on similar grounds, and won.

John Gilmore has sued US Attorneys General Ashcroft and Gonzales, arguing that the requirement to present identification documents before boarding a plane is unconstitutional.[33] These suits have not been successful to date.

Cypherpunks encouraged civil disobedience, in particular US law on the export of cryptography. Until 1996, cryptographic code was legally a munition, and until 2000 export required a permit.

In 1995 Adam Back wrote a version of the RSA algorithm for public-key cryptography in three lines of Perl[34][35] and suggested people use it as an email signature file:

Vince Cate put up a web page that invited anyone to become an international arms trafficker; every time someone clicked on the form, an export-restricted item originally PGP, later a copy of Back’s program would be mailed from a US server to one in Anguilla. This gained overwhelming attention. There were options to add your name to a list of such traffickers and to send email to the President of the United States registering your protest.[36][37][38]

In Neal Stephenson’s novel Cryptonomicon many characters are on the “Secret Admirers” mailing list. This is fairly obviously based on the cypherpunks list, and several well-known cypherpunks are mentioned in the acknowledgements. Much of the plot revolves around cypherpunk ideas; the leading characters are building a data haven which will allow anonymous financial transactions, and the book is full of cryptography. But, according to the author[39] the book’s title is in spite of its similarity not based on the Cyphernomicon,[22] an online cypherpunk FAQ document.

Cypherpunk achievements would later also be used on the Canadian e-wallet, the MintChip, and the creation of bitcoin. It was an inspiration for CryptoParty decades later to such an extent that the Cypherpunk Manifesto is quoted at the header of its Wiki,[40] and Eric Hughes delivered the keynote address at the Amsterdam CryptoParty on 27 August 2012.

Cypherpunks list participants included many notable computer industry figures. Most were list regulars, although not all would call themselves “cypherpunks”.[41] The following is a list of noteworthy cypherpunks and their achievements:

* indicates someone mentioned in the acknowledgements of Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon.

Read the original here:
Cypherpunk – Wikipedia

A Former NSA Deputy Director Weighs In On ‘Snowden’ – NPR

This image released by Open Road Films shows, from left, Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden, Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill and Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald, in a scene from “Snowden.” Jrgen Olczyk/AP hide caption

This image released by Open Road Films shows, from left, Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden, Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill and Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald, in a scene from “Snowden.”

Two very different narratives on the former National Security Agency contractor unfolded this week. Both proved that the debate over whether Edward Snowden is a traitor or a patriot is in no danger of running out of steam.

First, on Thursday, the House Intelligence Committee wrapped up a two-year investigation of Snowden. An unclassified summary of the 36-page report pronounces him a “a serial exaggerator and fabricator” who “caused tremendous damage to national security.”

The week’s other narrative comes from Hollywood director Oliver Stone. The new movie Snowden opened nationwide this weekend and paints him as a hero.

Conspicuously absent from the debate is the NSA itself. The agency declined NPR’s request for an interview reacting to the movie. But Chris Inglis, former deputy director, agreed to see it and share his thoughts.

Inglis says he and Snowden have never met, which is the first of many bones he has to pick with the film. In it, there’s a scene where the NSA deputy director asks Snowden to go to Hawaii to lead an important project. The deputy director at the time, in real life, was Chris Inglis.

“It’s preposterous on its face. For many reasons,” says Inglis. “That a deputy director would reach down to a contractor who’s performing an important but relatively low-level function and ask them to take on a Jason Bourne-like activity? It simply exceeds all propriety.”

Chris Inglis allows that Snowden the movie will shape public perceptions about Snowden the man. It could shift public opinion on who’s the hero and who’s the villain, in the ongoing debate over the top-secret files Snowden leaked and what damage they may have caused.

The movie never claims to be a documentary. One of the opening shots announces it’s a “dramatization of actual events.”

Inglis is skeptical. “Dramatization to me means you add the occasional exclamation point. You bring in a musician to perhaps add some background music. But you don’t tell a story that is fiction.”

Asked what other aspects of the movie strike him as “fiction,” Inglis says it portrays NSA staffers as cavalier about people’s right to privacy, which he says is not true. Inglis also points to a scene involving an aptitude test. Snowden and his fellow recruits at the CIA yes, Snowden worked there, too are assigned to build a covert communications network. Average time to complete the test? Five hours. Not Snowden. He’s done in 38 minutes.

Chris Inglis rolls his eyes.

“Clearly [he’s] a clever person. But NSA makes a habit of hiring smart people. Extremely smart people. Also principled people. So he was clearly the former; turns out he wasn’t the latter.”

By now, you will have gathered where Inglis lands in the “Is-Snowden-a-patriot-or-a-traitor?” debate.

He served 28 years at the NSA, and he’s the first to admit he is not impartial. This week NPR has interviewed both Snowden supporters and critics, airing their views both on the new movie, and on a new campaign for Snowden to be granted a presidential pardon. Snowden declined our request for an interview, and again, so did the current leaders of the NSA. Inglis, who retired in 2014, says he can’t speak for the NSA anymore. But he says he personally is open to viewing Snowden and his motives as complicated.

“I do see him as a more nuanced character,” Inglis says. “Somewhere, there was an attempt or perhaps an intent on his part to do something noble.”

Inglis acknowledges that the NSA did not always strike the perfect balance between collective security and individual rights. He says the NSA should have been more transparent about its domestic surveillance activities since the Sept. 11 attacks.

“But broadly, when I stood back,” he says, “the story that was told [in the movie] was a gross mischaracterization of what NSA’s purposes are. And a gross exaggeration of Edward Snowden’s own particular role in that. To the point where you could come away from looking at that movie, saying why are 50,000 people at the NSA dead wrong? And one is absolutely correct?”

When the trailer for the movie came out back in April, Snowden tweeted, “For two minutes and thirty nine seconds, everybody at NSA just stopped working.” The suggestion being, the spy agency was busy watching.

“I don’t think that’s true,” says Inglis. “I think Edward Snowden wants to be important. Who doesn’t? Who doesn’t want to matter? But we’ve listened to Edward Snowden. We’ve heard what he had to say. We took that moment to examine to be introspective about, what it is he might be talking about that we need to take heed of and do something about. And then, having considered all that, as we must we’ve moved on. And so NSA is looking forward.”

In real life, Snowden remains in exile in Moscow. His visa to stay in Russia runs out next summer, and it’s not clear what he’ll do next. He communicates via Twitter and video link. This week Snowden weighed in, via video, saying he hopes the film will reach a new audience on, quote, “the issues that matter the most.” He also said, “I love my country.”

Originally posted here:
A Former NSA Deputy Director Weighs In On ‘Snowden’ – NPR

Navy explains ‘inadvertent’ tweet about Julian Assange | TheHill

The Navy on Monday sought to explain why it tweeted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s name, attributing it to an “inadvertent keystroke.”

“This morning, an inadvertent keystroke by an authorized user of the U.S. Navy Office of Information’s Digitial Media Engagement Team caused the trending term ‘Julian Assange’ to be tweeted from the Navy’s official Twitter account,” the Navy tweeted.

“The inadvertent tweet was briefly posted for a few second before it was quickly deleted by the same authorized user. The inadvertent tweet was sent during routine monitoring of trending topics.”

This morning, an inadvertent keystroke by an authorized user of the U.S. Navy Office of Information’s Digitial Media Engagement Team caused the trending term “Julian Assange” to be tweeted from the Navy’s official Twitter account (@USNavy). (1/2)

The inadvertent tweet was briefly posted for a few second before it was quickly deleted by the same authorized user. The inadvertent tweet was sent during routine monitoring of trending topics. (2/2)

WikiLeaks responded to the Navy’s statement, posting a screenshot of the original tweet.

Here a screenshot of the deleted @USNavy Christmas tweet about @JulianAssange. Note the use of quotation marks.https://t.co/Asfw6cH6C7 pic.twitter.com/7Gg6mVOoCx

The incident came after Assange’s account briefly disappearedfrom the social media platform before returning Monday morning. It is unclear why the account briefly disappeared.

Go here to read the rest:
Navy explains ‘inadvertent’ tweet about Julian Assange | TheHill

Christmas Mystery: Did Julian Assange Delete … – thewrap.com

In a Christmas Day mystery, the official Twitter account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was deleted.

And while the internet was rife with conspiracy theories about Twitter disabling the account, it initially appeared that the account was disabled externally between midnight and 1 a.m. GMT, according to Gizmodo.

According to an archived version of his @Julian Assange Twitter account, his most recent tweet was posted on December 22: A knowledgeable public, is an empowered public, is a free public.

Also Read: Wikileaks Asked Donald Trump Jr. to Tell Dad to Contest 2016 Election Results

Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012 to avoid extradition to avoid a rape accusation from Swedish prosecutors, has long used the social media site to communicate WikiLeaks plans.

The WikiLeaks Twitter handle as well as one associated with his cat, @EmbassyCat, are still functional on the site.

Twitter has not responded to TheWraps request for comment.

Still, the internet being the internet, many speculated darkly about Assanges disappearance from one of his favorite online media.

Over the years, Republicans particularly Donald Trump supporters have done a 180 (or a full 360) in their remarks about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. When he leaked on Hillary Clintons campaign in 2016, some Republicans said he was doing America a great service. But now the Trump administration is poised to attempt to convict Assange and WikiLeaks for their leaking activities. Here are fivetimes Trump and his supporters have flipped on the matter.

In 2010, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said this about Assange: He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

In 2016, though, Palin changed her tune. She posted an apology to Assange on Facebook. I apologize for condemning Assange when he published my infamous (and proven noncontroversial, relatively boring) emails years ago, she wrote.

Way back when, Fox News host Sean Hannity said what Assange was doing was waging his war on America and called for his arrest. He also said WikiLeaks stealing and publishing classified documents put lives at risk, as Media Matters reported.

When Assange started leaking emails from the Clinton campaign, though, Hannity became very friendly. He even brought the WikiLeaks founder onto his show for an interview, saying America owes you a debt of gratitude.

Back in 2010, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Assange was a terrorist. Information warfare is warfare. Julian Assange is engaged in warfare. Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism.

Once WikiLeaks turned its attention to Clinton, though, Huckabee was ready to discuss Hillary Clintons criminal enterprise, as he called it, on Hannity. He didnt, however, have anything to say about where the leaks came from or whether the leakers should be brought up on treason charges.

Trump had strong words for Wikileaks in 2010. As CNN reported, in an interview with radio host Brian Kilmeade, Trump said of Wikileaks, I think it’s disgraceful, I think there should be like death penalty or something.

During the campaign, though, Trumps support for WikiLeaks was hard to miss. He tweeted over and over again about things WikiLeaks documents about the Clinton campaign, and said at one campaign rally in October, WikiLeaks has provided things that are unbelievable.

While Trump repeatedly tweeted about documents released by WikiLeaks aimed at damaging Clinton, he also tweeted it was the dishonest media that claimed he was in agreement with WikiLeaks.

Republicans were fans of WikiLeaks during the election, but now the U.S. is looking to charge members of the organization

Over the years, Republicans particularly Donald Trump supporters have done a 180 (or a full 360) in their remarks about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. When he leaked on Hillary Clintons campaign in 2016, some Republicans said he was doing America a great service. But now the Trump administration is poised to attempt to convict Assange and WikiLeaks for their leaking activities. Here are fivetimes Trump and his supporters have flipped on the matter.

Go here to see the original:
Christmas Mystery: Did Julian Assange Delete … – thewrap.com

Cryptocurrency stocks holding gains despite bitcoin pullback …

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Stocks that surged in recent weeks because of the cryptocurrency mania have managed to hold onto most of their gains despite the recent retreat in the price of bitcoin and scepticism from market participants.

A Reuters analysis of 17 stocks of companies that have made blockchain or cryptocurrency announcements showed an average gain of 224 percent through Thursdays close from they released those statements.

For example, shares of Long Island Iced Tea Corp jumped nearly 300 percent on Thursday after the beverage maker said it would rename itself Long Blockchain Corp to reflect a new focus on blockchain technology.

The moves are reminiscent of the tech boom, when the market value of companies such as Zapata and Books-A-Million rose sharply after they announced an internet business or an updated website. After the dot-com bubble burst, many of the companies went out of business or became much less valuable.

Theres been a continued surge of crypto headlines, said Michael Antonelli, managing director at Robert W. Baird in Milwaukee. Its gotten more worrisome as more companies have changed their names. Its the kind of stuff you saw back in the dot-com era.

Many of the crypto stocks came under pressure on Friday, as the price of bitcoin tumbled below $12,000 to put it on track for its worst week since 2013. Riot Blockchain dropped 15.3 percent to $23.36, and Overstock.com, which announced in August that it would accept major alt-coins as payment, was down 6.5 percent at $63.05.

Even with the declines on Friday, bitcoin itself is still more than double from its price at the start of November while the stocks are still well above their prices before the companies made cryptocurrency announcements.

While the stocks are susceptible to price moves in bitcoin itself, analysts caution investors should make sure the company has a credible business model.

It is a buyer beware time, said JJ Kinahan, chief market strategist at TD Ameritrade in Chicago.

Long term it may hurt these companies because if bitcoin does settle down to being a product that trades like most products and doesnt have crazy moves every day, it is going to make people look at these companies and ask what is really going on here.

Reporting by Chuck Mikolajczak; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn

Go here to read the rest:
Cryptocurrency stocks holding gains despite bitcoin pullback …