Google

Googling Freedom

The tech giant helps protect online privacy.

|

Project Shield
Google

The Internet plays an ever greater role in disseminating information among the opponents of authoritarian regimes. In response, governments are stepping up surveillance, trying to control access to inconvenient facts and opinions. So it's an appropriate moment for Internet giant Google, which has been criticized recently for collaborating with intelligence agencies, to step forward with new tools intended to help online users escape surveillance and control.

In October, Google announced three new initiatives to protect online freedom. Project Shield aims to defend websites against distributed denial-of-service attacks, which are often launched by hackers in the pay of authoritarian regimes. The company says the intended beneficiaries of the service include websites providing independent news and information about elections and human rights.

A second initiative, the Digital Attack Map, attempts to strip those electronic assaults of their anonymity, exposing the hackers to the sunshine. And individuals concerned about official barriers to online information can use uProxy, a browser extension for Chrome and Firefox that allows people living under authoritarian regimes to evade surveillance and censorship by surfing the Web via connections to users in other countries.

NEXT: The Brothel King: Dennis Hof on Prostitution, Spitzer and Weiner, Wild West Libertarianism, and "Pimpin' for Paul"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Google is by far the largest private spy agency in the world.

    1. Yeah, I’m a huge fan of Tuccille and generally agree with him, but the notion that Google is “helping to protect our privacy” doesn’t pass the most rudimentary laugh test.

      1. I laughed anyway. Google’s global ambitions are hardly a secret. They desire no less than majority control of the world’s information flow. Online, in your home, in your car, on the streets and stadiums and oceans, Google wants to be the finger on the lever. And people fret over the NSA. The NSA are pikers next to Google.

        1. Yeah, because Google can put you on no-fly-lists and share your info with the FBI or put you in jail.

          If you fear a company more than you fear the fucking massive government that actually tells that company what to do at times, you need to rethink your priorities.

          1. “Google can put you on no-fly-lists and share your info with the FBI or put you in jail.”

            They can? Huh. Because the NSA can’t do any of those things. They don’t have police powers. I’m surprised an intelligent fella like you didn’t know that.

            1. The NSA doesn’t have police powers, but sharing your private info with the FBI, TSA, DEA and other alphabet-soup agencies doesn’t require police power.

              Isn’t that obvious? Or are you being disingenuous?

              1. It didn’t get a lot of airtime but during the Boston Bomber timeframe a family found out just what they can do. LE knocked on the door of one family in real time during the house to house search and interrogated them about their online surfing. LE Officers wanted to know why someone had searched for pressure cooker bobs from their IP. The father of the house said because they had seen the news and were curious. Supposedly one of the LEs ( FBI IIRC ) agreed with him. Nothing much more came of it and I have seldom read about it elsewhere. Try google if you’re interested.

                It has come out that many LE busts of drug deals comes from NSA tipping off the appropriate authorities and the prosecutor being told he has to come up with a parallel investigation to present in court to hide the fact that NSA provided the tip off. Which is illegal I understand.

              2. Or are you being disingenuous?

                Rotbard is a sockpuppet for one of our regular trolls. Or else we got a new one. It’s hard to tell sometimes since they have anything original to say.

                1. *since they don’t have anything original to say

                  1. That said, I’d trust a known collaborator with government spying with my security about as far as I could punt them. It’s already been let out that most security software has built in backdoors for daddy government, and given their history, what possibly reason could there be for thinking Google would be any different?

                    The key difference is that I can tell Google to stick it’s security software up its ass and not use it. Maybe I never got my copy of the NSA’s internet TOS, but I’m pretty sure I never consented to their collection of my data like I did when I signed, say, the user agreement on my Gmail account.

                  2. “they don’t have anything original to say”

                    Addressing the fact that Google is the world’s largest private spy agency was pretty original, at least in these pages. Has anyone else here ever pointed it out? Nope. Too busy endlessly parroting the unoriginal NSA-hate. Broken record, thy pseudonym is PM.

                    1. Still not buying it. We use their services voluntarily; in exchange we tacitly agree to have our browsing preferences logged and our shopping habits catered to. I’m much less concerned about the world’s most intrusive advertising enabler than I am the mandates granted to the NSA in flagrant contravention of the fourth amendment.

                      Google isn’t bound by niceties like proscriptions on general warrants, especially since it’s their hardware and their algorithms, all of which we’re allowed to opt out of by not using their services. The only way to opt out of the Feds’ hegemonic surveillance regime is to invoke a pitifully weak 4A defense, ostensibly the binding protection against such intrusions, which you’ll lose.

    2. Google is by far the largest private spy agency in the world.

      Nah, Facebook has dossiers on one billion. Google just has your email and search history.

  2. uProxy seems to have a lot of ways that it could be attacked. If an attacker is monitoring everything, they could rewrite the initial request in the chat or email, and Man-in-the-middle it.

    Although I suppose if you weren’t worrying about a state, it could be useful for things like BBC streaming or Mlb blackouts.

  3. Salon: Commie or just commie-baiting? Suggests we nationalize the media

    In a socialist society run by and for the working people it represents, the mega-monopolies like Walmart, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the corporations that run the tightly controlled “mainstream media” will be a thing of the past.

    This is just the second paragraph. Buckle up for the rest:

    A democratic, accessible-to-all media will move to center stage in a socialist USA. In some ways this democratization of the media is already happening on the Internet. But the government’s ability to spy on and even turn off the Internet belies any real democracy. In a socialist democracy, working people will control the political process, the way in which they make a living, and collectively and individually, they will influence mass culture. The Internet will be a powerful and democratizing tool in this effort.

    Professional proletariat propagandists will speak truth to power. It shall be glorious.

    1. But what will the media be like in a socialist USA? There is no blueprint, but in a society that has erased corporate control, the articles in newspapers and magazines and online will not be filler between ads. There won’t be TV commercials for Coke, cars, or million-dollar condos. There will be no private corporations to create and sponsor the news.

      Yes, there is–it’s called Prvda.

      In a socialist society a portion of the media would be reserved for news disseminated by the democratically elected governing bodies, that is, working people elected by and for working people.

      But state ownership is not the only way media can represent the interests of working people, to speak with or through their voices. In most cases, the media would be owned and operated by working-class organizations?labor unions, neighborhood associations, and cultural centers.

      Nothing says objectivity like labor union-controlled news.

      To be sure, there will be no shortage of economic news in a socialist society. Some news will still come from local and national governments that set product-distribution quotas or help to negotiate them, sponsor trade and international exchange with other countries, and?if the world is still partly controlled by capitalist powers?organize defense against economic (as well as cultural, and possibly military) assaults. But most news reports in socialist media will come from working people themselves.

      So #FullCommunism then.

      1. if the world is still partly controlled by capitalist powers?organize defense against economic (as well as cultural, and possibly military) assaults.

        Wait. So the only countries that would ever want to attack our socialist utopia are the Capitalist ones? So I just imagined the Soviet Union’s constant warmongering?

      2. Discussions, debates, even battles will continue, and social justice committees will be elected by the union membership to look into complaints and to dig up and root out capitalist, racist, and sexist weeds that continue to grow.

        This guy actually seems to be arguing in favor of gulags.

        1. Jesus, I missed that part. But look on the bright side, a useful idiot like that would be among the first sent there as the new leadership consolidates its control and purges the Old Bolsheviks.

        2. Free Speech for the Dumb

      3. But what will the media be like in a socialist USA? There is no blueprint

        I suppose all those years that BBC or Swedish TV had monopolies don’t count, because there were still non-nationalized newspapers that carried actual ads.

          1. Yes, of course, but the fact that government had TV monopolies in so many of these socialist paradises like Sweden and UK is telling and probably not known by these socialist weasels.

            1. Sweden didn’t get its first commercial TV station until 1992 FFS.

        1. The state enforced monopoly of Ma Bell probably held back the Internet by 10 years or more.

      4. The mask has been completely removed. The progressives are now calling themselves socialists.

      5. But most news reports in socialist media will come from working people themselves.

        And what happens when the working people report things the authorities don’t like?

        1. It’ll be cool. Remember how the authorities welcomed the viewpoints of Solidarity in Poland?

        2. They go to jail. Or get shot.

    2. But what about bias? Can a newspaper or TV news program run by the autoworkers’ union, for example, provide critical reports about that union’s problems and weaknesses? When workers on one section of an auto assembly line feel that the line is moving too fast for safety?perhaps it has already caused some minor injuries, and they believe a major accident is inevitable?while union officials are publicly boasting about their plant’s speed and “socialist efficiency,” will the union’s TV program invite the complaining workers on the air to discuss their issues? Indeed, will “Autoworkers News and Views” on TV have a regular segment devoted to union members’ criticisms?

      Why not? Who better to discuss and debate problems inside a union than the members who live with and often suffer from those problems? If unions or neighborhood councils are truly trying to make things better for their members, what more effective tools than media outlets to spur such improvements?

      What.

      1. I think he means the tractorworkers union.

    3. You’re in the deep end, Salon. Just sink your head down, and stay there. All will be clear soon.

      1. To their reader’s credit, they are pretty ashamed that Salon allowed this to be published.

        Sure a lot of the comments are probably conservatives linked there by Malkin or Drudge, but there are some self-described progressives actively making fun of the article or complaining that it makes them look bad to be associated with the loonies.

        1. I hope it makes at least some of them think twice about their own side. In the 80s when I was a young Democrat raised in a commie hating, but union affiliated house hold, Democratic congressmen showing support for the Sandinistas certainly put an end to any association I had with that party.

          1. I had a community college professor that fucking lost it during one class when a student suggested the Sandinistas were authoritarian in the tradition of Cuba.

            Apparently as a college graduate during the 80s he spent time with them in Nicaragua and he talked about how noble they were and how they wanted to help the exploited workers and that Reagan-funded ‘right-wing death squads’ were the ones who committed most of the atrocities.

            1. You could hear the same bullshit being thrown around these parts for years from Joe. Somehow, the latest socialist revolution is different from all of the others in history. Its different this time, they only want to help the people.

              1. It is because they are the ones they have been waiting for !

                I know it’s true because the CnC said it when he was coronated.

            2. Just like ETA has all the Basque people’s best interests in mind. Especially when they threaten to kill people who don’t hide them when they’re running from Spanish police.

          2. No – the general sentiment is “wow, this guy’s an idiot, but we’re not socialists, we’re just liberals, so this really has nothing to do with us.”

            1. Almost makes you wish they’d subject the rest of their ideology to the reductio test to see just how fucking retarded it is.

        2. +100 if “reader’s” was intentional

    4. I’m sure Rufus can tell us how the CBC is accessible to libertarians.

    5. The government media will report on and discuss, for example, the major government plans for production, how to improve education, and more.

      They chucked the mask in the garbage a while back it seems.

    6. I can’t look away from it, but it’s wrenching to read it. Insane.

      If I tried to put together a satire like that, I’d think it was too over the top.

      Amazing obsession with work, too. Seems like the workers will be obsessed with what they labor at because they don’t have any other choice.

      1. If I tried to put together a satire like that, I’d think it was too over the top.

        What law is that, when you can no longer tell real argument from parody?

        1. Poe’s Law–a sufficiently accurate parody–without any obvious signs of humor or satirical intent–is indistinguishable from a genuine article of fundamentalist belief.

          First used to describe internet debates with Creationists.

    7. So the problem is not act of propaganda, but the wrong people are doing it?

      Is there any creature in the political arena so wilfully blind as a socialist or any of its variants? When their enemies do something, it’s terrible and evil and wrong. When the socialist does it, it’s for a higher cause and a greater good. Acts don’t matter, only outcomes, or more accurately, intents, because socialist desired outcomes never materialize.

      1. It’s all projection. As always. They are class warfare fanatics who fantasize about destroying (literally) their class enemies; therefore, they assume that everyone else does the same, because they are too sociopathic and of too limited intelligence to realize that not everyone thinks just like them.

        1. The Socialist knows people don’t think like them, and it fills them with fear and rage.

          And there will be stories of continuing struggles to make sure that the revolution represents the entire working class?especially struggles against the old but adhesive attitudes of racism and sexism. In a society where racism and sexism are as widespread as they are in the United States, they will not evaporate simply because revolutionaries nail a “closed” sign to the door of the New York Stock Exchange.

          It’s not enough for the Socialists to take control of all your wealth, or your ability to produce more wealth, they must control your mind as well. Thoughtcrimes such as “racism” and “sexism” must be stamped out. What is racism? I don’t like the way you looked at me! I didn’t get that job! Must have been sexism! You locked your door when I walked by! Racism!

          The Socialists claim to despise religion emulate all of the worst characteristics of its adherents.

          1. Oh, they’re religious all right. But again, the reason they want thoughtcrimes stamped out is that they themselves have them, and therefore assume that everyone else does. Because they can’t get those thoughts out of their heads, they seek to stamp them out of others’ instead. Because if everyone has them, then they’re not pieces of shit, and they can prove that by zealously trying to purge them from others.

            Just like a religious fanatic who becomes obsessed with purging others of “sin”; you know they’re doing it because they’re so full of those thoughts and impulses themselves.

            1. Projection, like you said. A shame they haven’t discovered practices like self-flagellation and mortification to purge themselves of their wickedness. Walk around barefoot, lash themselves on the back, wear hair-shirts (I think you could actually sell them on this if you said it was “environmentally conscious”), fasting, remain kneeling for hours at a time.

              1. A shame they haven’t discovered practices like self-flagellation and mortification

                They haven’t? What do you think the constant infighting about who is the most ‘privileged’ is? What about the oversharing articles about their pathetic lives on feminist blogs? What about the petulant temper tantrums and constant weeping over stupid bullshit?

                It’s all self-flagellation. They don’t literally beat themselves, but the constant emotional turmoil you see from pathetic progressives is just a modern version of mortification.

                1. What about the petulant temper tantrums and constant weeping over stupid bullshit?

                  It’s not quite the same. The idea (at least from the Christian angle and its hard to tell how much of this was cribbed from Neoplatonism) was that the spirit was essentially pure and that their personal failings came from the flesh. Lust, envy, greed, anger, all originated from the physical.

                  The idea of mortification was to relieve themselves of that turmoil, while demonstrating their piety for everyone to see (because there’s nothing more pious than putting on a show for others).

                  Stepping away from the religious angle into psychosexual, some masochists, aside from the sexual release aspect, experience a feeling of relief that someone is punishing them for their perceived failings.

              2. They totally do the self-flagellation shit. What do you think agonizing over their food (organic? fair trade? local?), one of the most primal things there is, is? It’s just like Catholics agonizing over another primal thing: sex. They agonize over how they use transport. They agonize over whether their clothes are made the right way. They agonize over everything.

                The problem is that they want to extend that agony to everyone else. I couldn’t care less if they torture themselves. When I start to care is when they want to do it to me too. Which they always do.

                1. The problem is that they want to extend that agony to everyone else. I couldn’t care less if they torture themselves. When I start to care is when they want to do it to me too. Which they always do.

                  Here’s why I think religious adherents, be they Catholics or progressives, always need to force their neuroses upon the rest of society. Imagine for a moment that you’re a crazy self-flagellant who is constantly whipping himself with a cord that has broken class entwined in the fibers. There are two possibilities. The first possibility is that you’re pathetic and insane and are doing this because of your madness. The second possibility is that God wants you to do it. By assuming that the second is true, you can make it seem like your insanity is respectable. However, since God wants you to do it, you now have to try and force other people to join you.

                  The same is true with progressives. Progressives are constantly obsessing over useless bullshit and making themselves miserable. Two possibilities: They are crazy losers who are ruining their happiness for no reason, or they are noble warriors defending the weak, the down trodden, and the environment. In the second case, they protect their own mental health, or whatever mental health these losers have left, but also have given themselves license to oppress their neighbors.

                  Once you convince yourself that mortification is necessary, it’s a short jump to forcing everyone else to do it.

                  1. I agree with you, but I would phrase it differently. If a person deep down knows they’re fucked up, they can do the hard thing and work on dealing with that. Or they can try and “fix” other people, because that allows them to pretend to themselves that they’re on top of their own problems because they’re addressing them in other people.

                    It’s not just projection, it’s laziness and fear. Working on yourself is tough and requires a certain level of internal honesty. Most humans are not very good at that, and find it vastly easier to get on other peoples’ cases for the things that they themselves have as problems. Then they can say to themselves that they are addressing these problems, but without the difficult step of actually looking closely at themselves.

                    There are also elements of self-hate. For example, if you are a “progressive” and hate the fact that you won’t give to charity voluntarily, you take out that self-hate on others by attempting to force them to give to the poor through taxes. It’s too difficult to face yourself, but that hate is there, so you transfer it externally to other people and take it out on them.

                    I do think that the most defining feature of anyone who self-flagellates is overwhelming self-hatred.

                2. The problem is that they want to extend that agony to everyone else. I couldn’t care less if they torture themselves.

                  It’s a shame they don’t torture themselves physically. They might actually feel better about life afterwards.

    8. I kept hoping the article would point out the example(s) of the socialist utopian model in action that we might emulate it. But no joy.

      It must coincidence that border agents, fences, and the like in nations like these are far more focused on keeping the natives from leaving than in preventing immigrants from entering.

    9. This is some good stuff:

      In a society where racism and sexism are as widespread as they are in the United States, they will not evaporate simply because revolutionaries nail a “closed” sign to the door of the New York Stock Exchange.

    10. To this idiot’s credit. There is a problem with bias in the media that needs to be addressed. And it will be solved the same way all industries that are required to police their own (doctors/lawyers) have solved it…

      Board certified journalists.

      There will eventually be a market for unbiased news, as a small portion of the population will realize that when all you know are lies, you know nothing. Some business will move to fill that demand. An enterprising media outlet (hopefully libertarian) will get a bunch of well thought of journalists together and pay them to write down a set of ethical guidelines for moral journalism. These individuals will form and sit on a board.

      That media outlet gets their journalists certified by the board and advertises as such. Other outlets will follow suit as competition demands.

      The board has the authority to to hear complaints made by customers and either sanction or decertify a given journalist.

      Problem solved…VIA THE FREE MARKET!

      1. That presumes that there is a market for unbiased news. I’m not so sure these days. Still, the market is fulfilling demands either way.

        1. I think there will be a market, albeit a niche at first. Information is worthless if it’s false.

          1. The problem is that a lot of the media’s incorrectness stems not from bias but a combination of lack of domain knowledge, time constraints and a low value placed on accuracy.

            I suspect the fix comes in the form of domain specific news, that can afford to specialize and better understand the topics they talk about all day.

      2. “Board certified journalists.”

        The problem then becomes “who certifies the certifiers” ?

        1. Their only function after the ethical guidelines are written is to determine if infractions were made and what punishments are fitting.

          I’d imagine the certification process would be in the form of a test, similar to the bar.

      3. There is a problem with bias in the media that needs to be addressed. And it will be solved [by]…

        Board certified journalists.

        What if there turns out to be a problem with bias in the certification board?

        Back it up as many steps as you want, but the problem of bias is always going to exist. Even when everyone agrees 100% on the facts, the presentation can (and will) be biased.

        An enterprising media outlet (hopefully libertarian) will get a bunch of well thought of journalists together and pay them to write down a set of ethical guidelines for moral journalism.

        Slight problem there in that most “well thought of” journalists are biased hacks. Bear in mind Dan Rather was the most trusted newsman in America. I don’t think the collective couple dozen libertarian journalists in the dark corners of the internet with as much mainstream credibility as the flat earth society are really going to be able to hold the rest to account.

    11. Looks like the article was removed from Salon.

      Funny that.

    12. A note for those starting to froth at the socialist =

      “Excerpted from “Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA” edited by Frances Goldin, Debby Smith, and Michael Steven Smith. Published by Harper Perennial, a division of HarperCollins Publishing”

      …a Subsidiary of News Corp.

      http://corporate.harpercollins…..ny-profile

      yes, Fox.

      the corporate overlords have also coopted the extreme-stupid socialists. It doesn’t matter what kind of dumb it is = Dumb Sells. its turtles all the way down, boys.

      1. FAUX NEWS! KOCHTOPUS! KKKORPORASHUNS!!!!!!

  4. Dallas News has an article about Wendy Davis which…uh…doesn’t make her look good.

    Jeff Davis said that was right around the time the final payment on their Harvard Law School loan was due. “It was ironic,” he said. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.”

    She moved out the day after her wealthy second husband finished paying off her student loans. What an empowered woman!

    1. yup…nothing says feminist quite like having a man underwrite your education and then dumping him.

    2. She didn’t build that.

    3. So to “tighten up her language” (paraphrasing her comment on the revelations), she let a man knock her up when she was young and fresh, broke it off with him and lived in a trailer. She then meets an older sugar daddy, Jeff Davis, locks him down with a baby, then uses him to pay for her last two years at TCU and cash in his 401(k) to pay for her Harvard career.

      This is Newt Gingrich-level “treating your spouse like shit.” But then, it is his fault. First, he’s a man and should know that marriage laws in America do men no favors. Second, he’s a lawyer, and should REALLY know better, especially when her father pimps her out to you.

    4. Holy shit, if she had an (R) next to her name and was on the other side of the abortion issue this would be getting non-stop Christ Christie-like coverage from cable networks with plenty of scorn and mockery from Maddow, Hayes, and other left-wing pundits.

      But because she’s a Dem she just needs to ‘tighten her language’ and Republicans are sexist meanies if they try to accuse her of lying.

      1. it is curious how many Dem women, presumably self-identifying as feminists, would have been nowhere without a man.

        1. It’s also curious how many empowered women are completely dependent on the government.

        2. See also, Hillary Clinton. Imagine how empowered women will be when she finally breaks through that glass ceiling and proves that, by fucking the right male politician and then standing by like a 15th century chattel wife while he puts his dick into anything that moves, you can one day ride his name and the nostalgia for the economy that existed during his presidency into a career of your very own!

          1. I’m just nostalgic for those sub-two-trillion dollar budgets.

    5. She moved out the day after her wealthy second husband finished paying off her student loans. What an empowered woman!

      She did give him a kid even though he does not understand what ironic means.

      1. Like they used to say, we’ve already established what she is, now we’re just negotiating the price….

  5. In a socialist society run by and for the working people it represents

    The world is littered with the sun-bleached skulls of such True Believers.

    1. Hold on, this one seems useful. His syntax is not really that bad for a propagandist. I’ll buy him off of you for a pack of cigs. What do you say?

  6. That article I linked to above is just but one piece of revolutionary truth and love from the soon-to-become Little Red Book of the coming Revolution, Imagine: Living in Socialist USA

    Summary:

    Imagine: Living In a Socialist U.S.A., edited by Francis Goldin, Debby Smith, and Michael Steven Smith, is at once an indictment of American capitalism as the root cause of our spreading dystopia and a cri de coeur for what life could be like in the United States if we had economic as well as a real political democracy. This anthology features essays by revolutionary thinkers, activists, and artists?including Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, civil rights activist Angela Davis, incarcerated journalist Mumia Abu Jamal, and economist Rick Wolff? addressing various aspects of a new society and, crucially, how to get from where we are now to where we want to be, living in a society that is truly fair and just.

    Order today on Amazon!

    But that’s not all! If you order right now with the promo code “New Soviet Man” you’ll receive a FREE Che Guevara t-shirt and copy of Mao’s Little Red Book. Amazon–The People’s Choice for Online Shopping

    1. Man, I thought that was going to be a Turner Diaries for the left. I am disappoint.

    2. incarcerated journalist Mumia Abu Jamal

      Science H Logic, he is a murderer, not a fucking “journalist”.

      1. Those are not mutually exclusive things, you know?

        1. Not in philosophy, but it works in this case. The phrasing also makes it sound as if he was incarcerated for political reasons rather than for, you know, killing someone in cold blood.

  7. To be sure, there will be no shortage of economic news in a socialist society.

    “Good news, everyone! The chocolate ration has been increased to three grams.”

  8. Discussions, debates, even battles will continue, and social justice committees will be elected by the union membership to look into complaints and to dig up and root out capitalist, racist, and sexist weeds that continue to grow.

    “Remember when I said I’d kill purge you last? I lied.”

    1. “Remember when I said I’d kill purge you last? I lied.”

      Probably wise, I was just going to be a wrecker until you got around to it anyway.

  9. Madonna calls her son Rocco’s boxing opponent a nigger on Instagram.

    I’m sure that the so-called mainstream media will be all over her for this one. Hahahahah lolololololololol.

    1. so madonna’s one of those ratbagging teafuckers I hear the progs blather about? Did not know that.

    2. But I heard Kmele use the same word multiple times Friday night.

    3. Critics questioned Madonna’s parenting skills online, prompting her to hit back, writing, “Calm down and get a sense of humour!”

      Humour with a u. Because she, like, totally lived in the UK and picked up that accent and everything.

  10. I freakin’ told you, Cyto, you naive boob, that it wasn’t his slip ups that got him caught. That was obviously a cover story:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01…..er.html?hp


    It is here that the government’s otherwise detailed account gets fuzzy. The F.B.I. has stated only that the main server was found in “a certain foreign country,” one that has a mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States. Through the treaty, the F.B.I. was given a copy of the server ? a “mirror” of it, in tech terms ? on July 23. The site continued to operate, so D.P.R. would not be spooked.

    What is unclear is how the feds knew where the servers were. Presumably, they were rented in some faraway corners of the globe ? Iceland, Latvia and Romania are likely, according to experts who have studied the I.P. addresses.

    Every bitcoin transaction has a permanent trail of identifiers. Any anonymity you may possess is a temporary luxury.

    1. Whatever tactics were used ? the F.B.I. would not comment ? they worked.

      Ends. Means. Justified.

      1. Whoops!

        “Bitcoin isn’t really a ‘coin’ as much as a distributed, public balance ledger,” Mr. Weaver added, “with every balance and transaction recorded.”

        Hence Bitcoin’s wry new nickname in legal circles: “Prosecution Futures.”

        I’ve had payments accepted in bitcoin, and I’m a fan of it, but there are people out there who don’t understand this above. They are practically utopian about its prospects for making them free and autonomous from the state.

        1. I don’t trust it, then again I really don’t understand who it works enough to be comfortable with it.

          I mean I’d hate to be rounded up in some dragnet for ordering something legal online with an illegal currency.

          1. Just keep your records in order, you’ll be fine. Too many businesses already accept it for that to be a real risk. They’ll take Matt Welch down before they bother with us.

            1. Is there not laws on the books against creating one’s own currency ?

              I think it’s been illegal for many years.

          2. You won’t be rounded up. The Feds will just seize your cash.

        2. No, what you don’t understand is ‘how BTC works’ or how DarkWallet and ZeroCoin works.

          1. I know I wont convince a True Believer like Cytotoxic, but those who are on the fence should take a look at this before you are tempted to follow him down the rabbit hole:

            BitIodine: Extracting Intelligence from the Bitcoin Network

            http://miki.it/pdf/thesis.pdf

            Its a short jargon free read, we’ll take a little more than hour.

            1. I just went to the conclusion…they ‘linked’ one (1) wallet with SR. No names. You do know that the ledger only stores transactions and IPs right? And that these can be scrambled with trustless mixing?

              If BTC were as open as you claim, everybody who used SR would be in jail.

              1. IP doesn’t go into the block chain, although if you’re on the network you could guess which nodes were broadcasting transactions.

                The other important thing is that if there start being crackdowns, zero coin (the extensions) can go right in, and mixing can be built right into wallet software.

    2. Um…Killaz…I’m halfway through the article and there’s this:

      When Mr. Green helped nob arrange the sale of a kilogram of cocaine, in early 2012, he did something that is hard to explain: he offered to act as a conduit and have the cocaine sent to his house. Mr. Green was soon arrested. He was quickly released and the kilogram was sent, as planned, to the buyer, presumably to prevent D.P.R. from realizing that one of his underlings had been caught.

      Dread Pirate Roberts did somehow learn of the arrest, but he still didn’t realize he was communicating with a federal agent who had arranged it. He was soon fuming to nob that Mr. Green had absconded with Bitcoins, and D.P.R. asked for help.

      Next time, try not to get so excited over what you think is vindication that you misread it and make an embarrassing post boast of triumph when the linked article actually makes it clear that DPR and others were caught by their slip-ups.

      1. I quoted the relevant portion. It wasn’t DPRs communication with Green who had slipped up, not him as you are trying to obfuscate, that was his downfall. Nothing he did to cover himself prevented them from mirroring the site and monitoring the servers that they were damn well already fully aware.

        1. Stop that. The article makes clear that the beginning of DPR’s fall was this fuckup. That’s how they knew what server to find.

          1. No, you stop it. You have willful blinders on what is being said here.

            DPR fretted over his communication with Green, but that was his normal course of business. Green fucked up. He was the weak link in the chain. You wont be able to engage in these activities without dealing with the Greens of this world. You can control your end of a transaction to a certain extent, but not his.

            The FBI made their request to a third party government in July, but read carefully:
            Through the treaty, the F.B.I. was given a copy of the server ? a “mirror” of it, in tech terms ? on July 23. The site continued to operate, so D.P.R. would not be spooked.

            What is unclear is how the feds knew where the servers were.

            Whom to target was known to them well in advance. The request was a formal legal one on an already established intelligence resource.

            1. This does not fisk me. At all. You have still failed to demonstrate that BTC was exploited to blow SR’s cover. Snitches bitches.

    3. What is unclear is how the feds knew where the servers were.

      Snitches, bitches. How else? I doubt, very much, that a bitcoin transaction can be traced into the Tor network. Maybe if he used an exit node, but there is no reason to do that.

      All of this “bitcoin isn’t anonymous” seems like a bunch of psy-ops to me, or just misinformed goldbugs that think bitcoin is a threat to their precious shahnee meddle.

      1. It really isn’t anonymous — if you know the recipient’s address, trace back through the transactions, figuring out what each is. Eventually you get to a purchase from Mt. Gox or similar. Subpoena them for who it is.

        The solution to that is lots of mixing, and being careful with addresses you use to send to who (software should do that for you)

      2. It really isn’t anonymous — if you know the recipient’s address, trace back through the transactions, figuring out what each is. Eventually you get to a purchase from Mt. Gox or similar. Subpoena them for who it is.

        The solution to that is lots of mixing, and being careful with addresses you use to send to who (software should do that for you)

      3. I’m interested in the mainstreaming of digital currency. So long as its more associated with Silk Road than making a take out order at Papa Johns it wont be the efficient transaction services I’ve been looking for since I was cast out of the American Express family (a bad business cycle at the time, not anything I did). So, not a goldbug, though I do respect the tradition.

        1. TMF/MATCH?

  11. If Google is so worried about privacy, why do they block access to their services from Tor exit nodes?

    And we need another YAPS?

    1. why do they block access to their services from Tor exit nodes?

      False.
      I just tested it. Works with no problems. Don’t spread FUD like that.

      1. There are many Tor exit nodes. Some of them may be blocked, some may not.

  12. HORROR

    don’t see anything but toxicity from the notion of a person with female anatomy feeling free to use the urinal in the boys’ rest room while a boy stands next to her and uses one, too.

    How will I ever sleep again?

    1. Can they actually hit the urinal when they pee and have their urine go down the drain?

        1. Naw there’s a hook and pull technique that they can do without anything. A friend of mine learned how to pee standing up because she thought it’d be funny.

          Scroll down to The One-Handed Method for more Experienced Women

          Women peeing standing up would radically increase the efficiency of ladies’ restrooms.

          1. They are . . . evolving.

          2. My wife read about this and tried it. Said the big problem was the initial release and the end dribbles. Said it worked fine in the shower, but she wouldn’t attempt it through the fly of a pair of jeans, but perhaps with more practice.

            1. Hmm, maybe we should start a trend where we post pictures of our significant others peeing in unconventional ways. It could loosen things up. One thread from yesterday was way to uptight for a Saturday afternoon.

          3. Scroll down to The One-Handed Method for more Experienced Women

            That link seems blissfully unaware that nearly every mens bathroom has sit down toilets.

      1. Next time you’re in a public lavatory ask yourself the same question about guys…

    2. That’s correct, and I expect to continue getting death threats and calls for me to be fired from my academic teaching position for saying so (because I have endured both): I believe that children have enough to deal with as they struggle to feel comfortable with their bodies, with the notion of privacy and with later changes involving puberty without urging them to grapple with the notion that their souls may have been born into the wrong bodies.

      Dr. Ablow does seem to have a flare for the dramatic.

    3. So if you’re a boy and you get a boner from observing the privates of a girl who “feels like” a boy, in the boys bathroom…does that make you gay?

      1. I believe the common wisdom is it’s only gay if your balls touch. Additionally an ex informed me that he frequent MMF threesomes with his roommate and random women weren’t gay because they high-fived like bros during the sex.

        So add “high-fiving like bros” to the list of ritual talismans such as “no homo” that make gay things not really gay.

        1. Got it. I think.

          So two in the same female orifice is most assuredly gay then? Regardless of the high fives?

          1. No, I’m pretty sure the high fives supersede the balls touching. I wonder just how powerful this magic is though. Could I be enjoying some wholesome sodomy one day and accidentally high five my partner turning it into straight sex?

            Maybe I can tell my parents I’ve gone straight if I just sprinkle high fives liberally into my sex life.

            1. Most people don’t understand that high-fives are only partially gay-proof. Only the fist bump is 100% gay-retardant. Emphasis on retardant.

            2. one day and accidentally high five my partner turning it into straight sex?

              Ewwwwww!

          2. 🙁 Sloppy seconds guy is like the perennial bridesmaid. Always on the chain but never in on the DP.

      2. It will probably make him a sex offender.

    4. In fairness as a child I use to have nightmares of girls coming into the boys bathroom and seeing me pee and seeing my little pee pee…..

      …that and lots of dreams about dolphins.

  13. From the “What the fuck did I just read?” file:

    I had no idea. But I had wasted enough time trying to elevate inadequate men into gods worthy of my devotion.

    “If not now, when,” the ancient teaching ended.

    Now? Not immediately. I did have a bagel with Luke that morning. But I saw myself laughing at his silly jokes, trying to pad his ego. I watched myself crossing my legs and playing with my hair. I saw myself trying to keep this man happy.

    I didn’t want to do it anymore. I was ready for something new.

    Leah Vincent lives in New York. Her memoir, “Cut Me Loose: Sin and Salvation After My

    Ultra-Orthodox Girlhood,” is out this month.

    “Hello. I’m crazy. What’s your name?”

    1. “What are you reading?” I asked, dropping down beside him. His attention made me bold.

      “Middlesex.” He showed me the cover.

      “Is it good?”

      “It is,” he said. “I’m Luke.”

      I took his hand, squeezing closer to him. “I’m Leah.”

      He smiled. “Like the princess.”

      “Which princess?”

      “Princess Leia, from ‘Star Wars.’ ”

      “Yeah, I guess so,” I said. “I’ve never seen it.”

      “Your name is Leah and you’ve never seen ‘Star Wars’?”

      “I’m vapid and boring. Pay attention to me!”

      1. We agreed to meet up two days later.

        (…)

        The moment was so intense I could not stop myself from moaning, “I love you.”

        Eyes wide, Luke told me he loved me too.

        Houston, we have a problem. On both counts. Though I have to say, it’s better when two idiots find each other and don’t bother non-retarded people.

        1. I feel bad for her because she grew up in a hyper-orthodox family that probably screwed her up badly.

          I don’t know what his excuse is. Middlesex is a good book, so at least he has decent taste on that count.

          1. Her upbringing is unfortunate, but once a person realizes that their upbringing was fucked (which she seems to have done), they need to reassess a lot of things and step back.

            Also, looking like a not-quite-hot Krysten Ritter doesn’t help.

    2. Luke turned on his side and put a sympathetic finger on my ribs. “I’m afraid you’re a little too intense for me,” he said. “I’m afraid that your hunger for this, for me, is your attempt to fill some hunger in yourself that only you can fill.”

      Said no man in the history of ever.

      1. Not true, I’ve said something surprisingly similar. It’s the least traumatic way I could think of phrasing “you’re a codependent nutter who needs to spend time by yourself instead of vampirically latching yourself onto the first guy who crosses your path after your last breakup”

        1. jesse, this is uncanny. That’s exactly what I said to your mom.

        2. Let me clean that up. The phrasing doesn’t sound like something any man would say. “You’re a little too intense for me”? “You’re hunger for this, for me, blah, blah”? Does he have someone in the bathroom writing his lines for him? That sounds like some stuff you’d hear on All My Children.

          I’ve told women that I’m probably not what they’re looking for and various other bullshit to get them out of the bed and the house. I guess that wording just led me to think that this was made up.

        3. Epi: How’d that go? I’ve been telling her that for years, but she keeps calling.

          AC: Ah, I agree with you, but there is the confounding factor of pretentious hipster douchebags. I can see one of them saying something like this and still being technically a man.

          1. How do you think it went, jesse? She did what she always does: she bit me. So I have to get another round of rabies and tetanus vaccine.

            1. You don’t need to get tetanus EVERY time, Epi. I think you’re just a masochist.

              But yeah, those rabies shots are a bitch. Speaking of bitches, why didn’t you muzzle her first. I know that’s part of your sex play because she just leaves her muzzles all over the house.

              1. The muzzles are for your dad, jesse. Sorry if that’s TMI.

                1. Oh…That explains quite a bit.

  14. I believe that children have enough to deal with as they struggle to feel comfortable with their bodies

    Yes, of course “Doctor” Ablow. If that really is your name. That’s why we should do everything possible to make sex a traumatic, terrifying and guilt-wracked mystery.

    1. Tbh, I’m an adult man and I wouldn’t be comfortable peeing in a urinal in the ladies’ room, and I have no idea why that would have anything to do with sex.

  15. Fact checking is for losers.

    Poaching (each animal has two and sometimes three ivory tusks) and habitat loss has whittled their population, today, down to about 4,800 across their entire African range. Almost 2,000 of them are in Namibia.

    Even though these animals are protected under a number of international treaties, very limited hunting of them is allowed by law. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora grants Namibia an annual export quota of five hunted black rhinos.

    I’m not particularly happy with the fact that any hunting is allowed in that country. But even if it is, I do not believe the Dallas Safari Club should be selling a permit to hunt, even in the name of conservation. It sends the message that trophy hunting — and that’s what this is — is humane and justifiable if it’s offset by some charitable act. The club has said the winning hunter will only be allowed to target troublesome, aggressive older males terrorizing other animals. If there are rhinos that are dangerous to the rest of the population, then killing it is an acceptable act of management. And it should be done by wardens in Namibia, not trophy-seeking recreational hunters.

    1. Only TOP MEN can do things, dontcha know.

  16. Google and Internet freedom go together like life rafts and boxes of rusty nails.

  17. ys the intended beneficiaries of the service include web

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.