wilfredguerin: <insultan> k, so you at least saw some of the early tech, bbs, and related stuff [17:30] <BarrettBrown> yep [17:30] <insultan> ouch... coin opens saying "im stuck inside this tiny video game" [17:31] <insultan> try something more potent and simple: [17:31] <insultan> vulnerabilities and backdoors are designed exploits in systems such as m$ with the primary porpose to sponsor major organized crime and terrorism [17:32] <insultan> remember, i was the primary factor for the mid 1990s proof that exploit systems and sponsorship of organized crime was an unneccessary burdon on common consumers [17:32] <insultan> and that the institutions were invalid in their attempt to treat your video game console as a defense contractor mainframe wilfredguerin: sorry for multiple boxes, webchat is being jammed wilfredguerin: yes, the entire DESIGN of those systems is to provide exploitability wilfredguerin: to make organized crime a SOFT TARGET wilfredguerin: it makes law enforcement easier and more profitable with less risk me: no prob, you're saying that there's intentionality in process by which early, for-fun-or-theory computers took on their crippled current state, relative to what they could have been? wilfredguerin: so, as the example with howard a schmidt, who ran ms product security for over a decade wilfredguerin: not really... the machine you are using is a fininte constrained system wilfredguerin: do you have much EE/asm background? wilfredguerin: all the computer can do is beep a certain set of ways me: None at all me: I was a writer wilfredguerin: ok, easier to explain ;) me: Got into this subject due to something that happened to me, couple of other people with HBGary thing wilfredguerin: the fundamental concept is this: wilfredguerin: a wire can only handle a certain range of power, a certain variability in scope, a profile wilfredguerin: not enough power, the signal doesnt get through wilfredguerin: too much power, the wire burns wilfredguerin: right? wilfredguerin: now the same range of validity exists for all systems wilfredguerin: some are more constrained and finite than others... butterfly effect etc wilfredguerin: in a computer, there is a range of options, all of the options for process operations are from a single finite set... add, increment, multiply, move data around wilfredguerin: of these, only a small % of the permutations are valid wilfredguerin: aka ... they do something wilfredguerin: so in these finite constrained systems, like most modern computes wilfredguerin: rs wilfredguerin: there is only a very small set of options that work wilfredguerin: it is fundamentally impossible to not know what works or doesnt, and it is impossible to not know that somethign doesnt work, mathematically wilfredguerin: these CPU systems were designed in the 1960s based on mathematical models that indicated what fundamental operations were needed to do most everything wilfredguerin: see RISC wilfredguerin: so, of the options, the machine can only do certain specific things me: and so it was intentional, is what you're confirming? wilfredguerin: anything it does must be explicitly designed wilfredguerin: its impossible not to be wilfredguerin: this is why DMCA was designed me: or am I misunderstanding? wilfredguerin: because these finite constrained systems are so simple, they beep 12 ways, literally wilfredguerin: any exploit, any transfer of your bank data to a terrorist wilfredguerin: MUST be designed as such wilfredguerin: and because the systems are finite and rigidly coded, these exploits or invalidities in software are very easy to track wilfredguerin: --- here branches 30 topics, name one ;) me: Fundamental leaps or variations on this principle in last ten years? wilfredguerin: the entire purpose of the system, this "video game" known as computer devices and internet wilfredguerin: over the last two decades wilfredguerin: remember, in the 70s computers were still hobby wilfredguerin: so some common use in the 80s, and in pops microsoft and the rest wilfredguerin: ps2 was removed from market because it was not vulnerable enough wilfredguerin: and the linux/nix systems are fundamentally flawed -- skip that wilfredguerin: so the CPU, because its a physical chip, can only do a set of things wilfredguerin: sneezing is not possible wilfredguerin: simplifying this... wilfredguerin: remmeber your mouse traip? wilfredguerin: the dilusional claim that USDOC wants you to have "equal opportunity"? wilfredguerin: its imposible. wilfredguerin: there is only one set of correct ways to run a computer system wilfredguerin: its designed that way wilfredguerin: ... wilfredguerin: so to keep the system open wilfredguerin: they designed a mandatory openness wilfredguerin: you can stick a floppy in any machine and not use m$ wilfredguerin: boot cd, etc wilfredguerin: however M$, a commerce entity, must be internally exploitable SO THAT YOU HAVE OPPORTUNTIY me: What level of overall influence on direction do you think In-Q-Tel has right now? wilfredguerin: iqt appeared only last decade... its really not relevant wilfredguerin: remember, google itself is run by US customs ... designed and built after the altavista issue me: Palantir only appeared more recently than that, already somewhat crucial wilfredguerin: the video game system itself is where the problem is... the ENTIRE system is designed for exploitability me: being younger and having perceived only last two decades, I probably have different conception of how fast something can make an impact me: right, I get that overall point me: which is something I missed previously wilfredguerin: remember, the telephone and telegraph systems took two centuararies to put in place... me: is there a particular article, paper you'd recommend for me to look at specifics of this case? me: of this dynamic, rather? wilfredguerin: look into the DMCA fundamental... M SHAMOS and howard schmidt wilfredguerin: this is really the root of it wilfredguerin: dmca was designed to protect these exploits that the fedearl institution mandated me: great, will do that first wilfredguerin: it also makes it illegal for you to KNOW that MIM wire exploits are designed me: then will probably have more questions for you on specifics me: jesus wilfredguerin: likely bunches ;) me: okay wilfredguerin: so, look ath the declaration of m shamos me: thanks again, gotta tend to something but will get back to you soon, and I'm always available at this e-mail wilfredguerin: "2600 shamos dmca" me: m shamos, gotcha wilfredguerin: this is usually on, msg whenever ;) wilfredguerin: more important, concentrate on howard schmit wilfredguerin: dt wilfredguerin: he designed ALL of the exploits wilfredguerin: even before internet was mainstreamed in 96 wilfredguerin: dmca 2600 shamos (eff) and howard A Schmidt wilfredguerin: keep in mind... "internet" as a propaganda system is still expanding, its only half way through the intended lifespan schedule ;) wilfredguerin: link just dropped, hopefully you got all of that wilfredguerin: barriticus: m shamos, gotcha me: this is usually on, msg whenever ;) more important, concentrate on howard schmit dt he designed ALL of the exploits even before internet was mainstreamed in 96 dmca 2600 shamos (eff) and howard A Schmidt keep in mind... "internet" as a propaganda system is still expanding, its only half way through the intended lifespan schedule ;) link just dropped, hopefully you got all of that me: all logged, will look up shamos tomorrow and go from there wilfredguerin: http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0630-shamos.html me: thanks again, this is useful stuff and will def have questions wilfredguerin: as mentioned in the obsama text pastebin wilfredguerin: but once you understand shamos lied for diebold/dmca wilfredguerin: you concentrate on SCHMIDT wilfredguerin: but please just stay alive wilfredguerin: http://pastebin.com/YPNKLzKG oBSama.com's old text... general timeline overview wilfredguerin: i am NOT finding the more insider docs... remind me later me: will do, really appreciate it wilfredguerin: thats just an easy entry point ;) it gets complex from there wilfredguerin: schmidt on its own, is a big enough explination to write 5 pages just to outline wilfredguerin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpNEYW7JF7Q&feature=plcp wilfredguerin: that was the wrong 2600 link... the testimony for diebold is a separate file wilfredguerin: sorry me: no problem wilfredguerin: that video original full should be on wh.gov re schmidt cyber