November 2016 - luv-talk

Take action: Don’t send 267 people back to offshore detention
by Peter Ross 28 Oct '18

28 Oct '18

http://bit.ly/1R3MiYB Maybe Australians can avoid another "Sorry" fifty years later this time. Thanks Peter

2 2

systemd
by Andrew McGlashan 30 Nov '16

30 Nov '16

Hi, I understand that systemd is a done deal for most and many know my position. But.... this "Open Letter to Linux" back from August 2014, really hits the spot in so many ways; I could not have put it better. I'm happily using Devuan these days as a replacement myself. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/12/459 Cheers AndrewM

2 1

Desktop Mood?
by David Turk 30 Nov '16

30 Nov '16

Yes you read right… Desktop Mood, not mode. I was pondering if anyone has done, or more likely aware of some good research, on how the computer or tablet or phone background can have on a persons mood. The colours, the pattern, or picture, etc. Does having a picture of loved ones^^ make a difference? ^^Can include pets. Does an outdoor scene do it for you? And how close to reality does it have to be? i.e. Do Mountain scenes cut the mustard for you, or does it have to be your local park? Thoughts? Or you could be like me… Boring :)

4 3

You're invited to our first Inner Melbourne Arduino, etc meeting at RMIT
by David Turk 27 Nov '16

27 Nov '16

You're invited to our first meeting ever: https://www.meetup.com/Melbourne-Beginners-Arduino-Projects/events/23582136…

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Is it possible to make tracking the meta-data not just illegal but impossible ?
by Peter Ross 18 Nov '16

18 Nov '16

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote: > “We have to find ways to protect not only the content of the text message or > the phone call, but to disguise the fact that the communication > happened at all,” (Ed Snowden quote) Well..a kind of Tor for mobile devices? Imagine many people are running something like Asterisk, at home or as a VM. Your phone is looking up the "nearest" server, establishes a secured connection and uses the server to call. Does it work in principle? What are the challenges? I would also think of a 'web of trust', maybe using PGP to chose and establish connections. So I am storing well-known PGP keys which identify friends; servers I trust. I can chose to trust friends' friends - maybe the degree of trust (level of separation). BTW: I have interest in it, if there are others who think it is a good idea, and worth to do some serious brainstorming to figure out a good solution.. I am up for it. I have the feeling a lot of the technologies are out there, it is just a matter of getting the plumbing right. Regards Peter

4 6

Re: [luv-talk] Is it possible to make tracking the meta-data not just illegal but impossible ?
by Peter Ross 15 Nov '16

15 Nov '16

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:48 PM, David Tulloh <david(a)tulloh.id.au> wrote: > No, each client communicates with an Open Whisper server. The call > initiation data is all encrypted. > > Open Whisper knows who is talking to who, but doesn't record it, there > have been US court proceedings to back that up. Your telco knows that > you are using Signal and when, but nothing further. Hi David, that is true. I should have double-checked and re-read instead of relying on my faulty memory. Sorry about it. What I do not like, though, is the centralized approach. As soon as you take that one down, it is gone. Worse if you can compromise it (and the users still trust it) Besides, it is only affecting parts of your communication. I would prefer an approach which is holistic (protecting all data) and truly decentralized. Privacy of communication should be the normal, not the exception. E.g. the German constitution has an Article 10: Privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications. (1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable. (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0057) These days, it is practically gone, and it starts with the new "normal" of OS providers to send all kind of data to their servers (Microsoft, Apple, Google) The only right people get furious about seems to be an outdated article of an ancient American constitution so that people keep shooting each other. Regards Peter

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Is it possible to make tracking the meta-data not just illegal but impossible ?
by Peter Ross 15 Nov '16

15 Nov '16

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, David Tulloh <david(a)tulloh.id.au> wrote: > Solution: > > Install Signal by Open Whisper Systems > https://whispersystems.org/ > > It solves the original problem posed and is easy to use. It only encrypts the phone conversation, nothing else, I believe. All phone conversation metadata is visible for the telco, if I am not mistaken. Regards Peter

1 0

(forw) [skeptic] On the art of becoming an uncarved rock (was: Please allow me to introduce myself...)
by Rick Moen 12 Nov '16

12 Nov '16

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com> ----- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:56:53 -0800 From: Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com> To: skeptic(a)linuxmafia.com Subject: [skeptic] On the art of becoming an uncarved rock (was: Please allow me to introduce myself...) Organization: If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already. Quoting Eva Durant (durant.eva(a)gmail.com) > what can I say? Maybe the unwashed were a tad disappointed with Obama? > Remember, he was elected twice... Just doing a Futurelearn course on "The > mind is flat" - we are very fickle us humans - maybe in the US even more > so... > never mind. He won't be able to do much either. > Unless that 0.1% really got madly panicky and ready for a 1984. Dear Eva: There's a perceptual bias that people unfortunately labour under, that says that definitive election results can be expected the same day, and that whatever's available the same day needs to be considered the outcome. This attitude of impatience doesn't mislead people 95% of the time -- the times when the margin of victory is clear, early on. In the other 5% of cases, there's really no alternative but to wait -- and people really don't want to hear that. They want elections to be settled on Internet time. When elections are close, or when elections are atypical and difficult to model, this bias leads people into adopting early, shaky guesses as if they were fact. Here in most-placid, Democratic Party-dominated California, it's been obvious all along that the state's bloc of 55 Electoral College votes would go to the Democratic Party ticket (which ended up being Clinton/Kaine). But even here, it's actually not even remotely possible to fully model and predict the statewide vote on Election Day -- if only because of the several categories of ballots that are counted only slowly _after_ Election day: all mailed-in ballots, all provisional ballots, and all early-voting ballots. To picked mailed-in ballots as an example: As long as a mail-in ballot has been postmarked by election day and received within three days, it must be counted, by state law. However, as it happens, the third day will be Veterans' Day, a Federal holiday with no mail delivery, with the effect that mail-in ballots received even by Monday, November 14, 2016 are valid and must be counted. So, California's Secretary of State cannot even in principle know fully what the results of the election are until _six days_ after Election Day. I'm really not familiar with the specific situation in the other 49 states plus District of Columbia, but I'll bet there are similar problems everywhere else -- and this is not what those of us conditioned to a 24-hour news cycle and instant Internet-timescale results want to hear. But it's the cold, hard, unpleasant truth: In a close election, you just have to wait. Days, maybe even weeks. It _is_ apparently a close election. The interim results are (mostly, in many places) all we have yet, and are at best poorly reliable and subject to upset by later, better data. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to take go on holiday and wait for futher developments, remembering that nothing actually need be settled until Monday, December 19th, when the Electoral College casts its votes. Meanwhile, I'm going to resume watching 'Borgen', the Danish show about the story of an effective, powerful, rational, intelligent female head of government. Catch y'all on the other side. -- Cheers, A woman's place is in the House, Rick Moen the Senate, and the White House. rick(a)linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ skeptic mailing list skeptic(a)linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/skeptic To reach the listadmin, mail rick(a)linuxmafia.com ----- End forwarded message -----

2 2

Wikileaks, Hackers, Russia and the US Election
by David Turk 10 Nov '16

10 Nov '16

Opinion: Wikileaks has lost my respect, as they backing Julian Assange's revenge attack on the USA. Not that I favour either candidate. Opinion: I have to think this was Julian Assange's plan all along? http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/11/07/07/59/hillary-clinton-emails-no-ch… The FBI's review of new emails did not uncover any wrongdoing by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the bureau has not changed its July recommendation not to charge her, Director James Comey has said. More... Julian Assange's Most Incendiary Interview: "Hillary Clinton Is The Central Cog Of The Establishment" | Zero Hedge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/julian-assanges-most-incendiary-in… Opinion: It seems his plan is just to destabilise USA politics full stop. More... http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4570745.htm EMMA ALBERICI: So just back to the FBI, it says it hasn't found anything, obviously, that troubles them in particular. But a number of Hillary Clinton's email had been leaked through Wikileaks and we hear most recently suggestions that Chelsea Clinton's $3 million wedding was paid for at least in part from the Clinton charitable foundation, presumably revelations like that will hurt as well? KIM BEAZLEY: White noise really now in that part of the debate. I think one of the countervailing effects of the leaks as a source, it is quite clear, according to the heads of all 17 American intelligence agencies, that this is a product of penetration of the system by a Russian hackers and then distributed, probably with the Kremlin support. And Americans do not like being manipulated by foreigners, and particularly Russians. So that at least has had some degree of an offset, so when people come out with statements about Chelsea's wedding or whatever, then they say, well, do you want to dance for the Russians? That is the sort of countervailing pressure on that. But talking about unprecedented things, the unprecedented presidential element of the campaign, and the unprecedented involvement of Russia in domestic American politics. EMMA ALBERICI: Over the weekend you said that Wikileaks was leaking on behalf of Putin. Did you mean they were somehow in cahoots? KIM BEAZLEY: Well, I think the materials were placed in their hands clearly by a leak from the Russians. The decision as to how to deploy it would have been calculated by them too. Contrary to the claims of what they are about as whistle blowing and, and, and transparency, these haven't been dumped, you know, one could believe that if the day they received, they dumped it, which is what they normally do. Instead it has been parcelled out tactically. And in the parcelling out of it tactically is what lends voracity to that claim. Opinion: Yes I have seen Wikileaks media report from this morning, and I’m still not convinced.

5 7

Not even a plurality
by Rick Moen 10 Nov '16

10 Nov '16

With 92 percent of the vote tallied, Secretary Clinton leads Trump in the popular vote by 230,000 votes, and that gap is expected to widen. That doesn't change the outcome, but proves that the inevitable talk about a 'historic mandate' from that sleazemeister campaign director Kellyanne Conway and others is just more Trumpian bullshit. Clinton, not Trump, was the American people's actual pick -- but that's just not the way the electoral mechanics works. As always, ending the recurring embarrassment of the Electoral College putting into office someone who was not the nation's majority or -=even=- plurality choice will not happen, because the prevailing faction always feels an incentive to preserve and perpetuate the election mechanisms that put them there.

2 1