Author: RidgeCook

While preparing Sunday morning biscuits and gravy, I stepped away from the pallid protestations of Sunday Morning talk shows and ventured into the thicket with Glen Beck.  Yes he is a deep right wing yahoo, but I wanted to hear some words about the new President without the usual cast of worthless, empty suits.

And for the 1/2 to an hour I listened, he delivered.  Point by point, he and his panel used commonly available facts and called all the assertions of Trump and his spokespeople lies.  Out right lies. Callers would dial up and try to justify the statements and they wouldn’t have it.  And they saw no real reason to lie about crowd size or any thing else at this time. It didn’t matter but Trump and team couldn’t help themselves.

Next segment was making fun of left wing celebrities, Paltrow was the convenient target (and jeeeez, what a target).  Then the women’s marches.

And there they had a point.  Some of them were worthy of ridicule.  Silly signs and vagina hats.  They have been the talk of the country.  I have heard of that from co-workers.  One commented that Madonna made a career out of acting like a whore she shouldn’t be surprised if men (Trump) treated women like one.  I may not agree with that sentiment but it does resonate outside Hollywood and NYC.

Anyway, I think the women’s march did not achieve much because it was portrayed as not serious.  Costumes, silly signs, a parade like atmosphere.  The civil rights marches of the 60s and the anti war marches were taken seriously as the people in them were serious.  They dressed in serious Sunday or business clothing. The spokespeople used calm measured tones in their arguments.  Citing moral and civil law.  For the anti war protests, the dress was different but limited fooling around. Once again, the spokespeople were often (not always) not shrill or over the top, presented their case well, etc….  When not, it just gave ammunition to the forces of war and oppression;  the country recoiled and we got Nixon.

In both instances, control was attempted on the deportment and content of the marchers; showing the nation they are serious people.

Many may not like it but image matters.  Acting like you are in a gay pride parade, dreaming up funny/disrespectful signs or dressing like a Sunday hike in the woods may make sense to you, but not to the people you want to influence and bring to your side.  All you do is provide ammo for the right wing’s derision and scorn from  the rest of the country.

If you think Trump and his team attaining positions of power is a serious problem, then act  like its serious when opposing it. The rest of the country will then be inclined to listen and you couldn’t be dismissed as “typical liberal out of touchers”

Ridge

Just a FYI for those interested as some are uneasy with the new Administration.  Mostly concerned with activities outside the US, but also have sections dealing with inside the US in association with the FBI and LEA.  

There are similar guidelines for the FBI and procedure manuals for digital evidence collection.  But really, with the advent of NSL’s there is no area that the Feds can’t secretly reach into.

R

https://cryptome.org/2017/01/cia-spy-us-citizens.pdf

This was coming.  an Appeals court ruled that forcing an arrestee to place his finger on a phone to unlock it is no different that compelling a paper fingerprint record or a DNA sample.

Once again, this is what your physical characteristics are not WHAT YOU KNOW, thus not subject to Fifth Amendment protections.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/court-rules-against-man-who-was-forced-to-fingerprint-unl
ock-his-phone/

So the moral of our story.  Don’t use biometrics in securing any digital devices if you have data on them that may be misunderstood or used against you in court.  Fingerprints or even facial recognition. A longer than 4 digit pin would be best.  They can be hacked but take time and a lot of money, even then may not be admissible in court.

If you are using powerful encryption programs to secure your data, then use the appropriately strong passphrase to protect it. Ideally one that equals the entropy of the symmetric algorithm used for that encryption.  That way, rainbow tables will take the years of guessing that brute forcing the key will take.

My fave description of a passphrase generator-
http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html

An overview of current court rulings as to opening or decrypting digital devices and data.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/should-the-miranda-warning-be-expanded-to-encompass-passc
odes/

Ridge

And now for something completely different.

Some folks using TOR to log into a child porno site (taken over by the Feds) got a bug dropped onto their system that revealed real IP#. This action was based on ONE out of district warrant. (One warrant to cover the whole US and hundreds of people – not quite what the Founders intended I think).  Several cases dismissed or evidence ruled out in various circuit courts due to improper warrant.

OK, about 135 got arrested.  Some copped plea deals.  Others fought in court.

Fed Judge, on one defense council’s motion demanded source code of the bug.  Perhaps to determine if it was prone to error in identifying real IP#s.

But Fed prosecutors won’t give it up and would rather not appeal the motion and drop the case.  I guess their argument is that rather some kiddie porn aficionados go free than reveal a tool to spy on the citizenry.  Fed Prosecutors and FBI work hand in hand, but since the “Patriot” Act, FBI works hand in hand with NSA, and other TLAs using tools meant for out of country deployment.  Said TOR shredding bug could have origins in FBI Labs, Ft. Meade, Cheltenham, or lord knows where else.

“In this case, US District Judge Robert Bryan eventually ordered the government to hand over the NIT’s source code. Since that May 2016 order, the government has classified the source code itself, thwarting efforts for criminal discovery in more than 100 Playpen-related cases that remain pending…..”

Unless the “network investigative technique (NIT),” is used extensively in terror investigations (over riding public morality and kiddie porn usage), the only other reason I can see for classifying it would be its use by intelligence agencies. Protecting “sources and methods”.

It presupposes either control of the path to the targeted website/data source (Man in the Middle attack) or control of the site itself to drop the bug on the client accessing the data.  In this case they controlled the kiddie site.  Do they control or have compromised ISIS sites? Other radical sites?  The network leading to them?  I certainly expect one or two of those.  As anyone with a lick of sense would try to protect themselves accessing those sites, TOR would be one tool used and a means to negate that protection would be a valuable asset.  But if so, why in the hell give to the Flatfoots so they can chase masturbators?

Maybe it was meant as an “investigative” tool, to develop the cases independently; just like NSA helps DEA inside the US.  As long as none of the intercepts cross the shadow of a Federal Court.  It would be just like US Attorneys and FBI to ignore any limitations and now their teat is caught in a wringer AND revealed a TOR beating tool to any and all worldwide interested parties.

R

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/feds-may-let-playpen-child-porn-suspect-go-to-keep-concea
ling-their-source-code/

Was glancing through the economist, Brad Delong’s website the other day and he had a very perceptive article about what kind of president Trump could turn out to be by comparing him to Reagan.  Its worth a read but he had a very striking passage in it.

–excerpt—–

“Reagan did not campaign for and enter the presidency thinking that he was going to more than double the national debt relative to GDP. That was not what he thought his agenda was.

Reagan did not campaign for and enter the presidency thinking that he was going to push the value of the dollar up by 70%, and thus deal a death blow to a surprisingly large component of American manufacturing–and thus both start the process of the erosion of the living standards of America’s blue collar workers and destroy communities of engineering practice that we really should have nurtured, encouraged, and expanded. That was not what he thought his agenda was.

Yet those were, in historical perspective, two of the three largest consequences of Reagan’s policies–with the launching of the explosion in income inequality that has created our Second Gilded Age being the third. That last was supposed to be part of an acceleration of economic growth: a richer rich, yes, but a rising tide that would life all boats; we got the richer rich, we did not get the rising tide.

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/trump-and-the-us-economy-q-what-do-you-think-will-be-the-sing
le-most-important-outcome-of-the-trump-presidency-for-th.html
—————-

This is a very concise, historically accurate accounting of the Reagan Presidency as seen from 40 yrs in the future.  As modern GOP gives lip service to St Ronnie, should they answer for those failings?  Was it incompetence or purposeful damage to the US and it citizens?  Has to be one of the other.  If the troubles of today can be shown to be a direct result of policies pursued and supported by the then GOP, policies that are still very much in vogue, that may be a way to assault Fortress Republican.

Ridge

OK, I don’t usually do this, but the owner and name sake of a supposed “Progressive” website just posted that tens of thousands retired  miners and wives/widows should lose their meager pension and health care because Trump won those states.  

Other words, let them suffer because they didn’t vote the way their betters told them.  Maybe that will teach them a lesson.  

Poor dumb white trash hillbillies, that will show ’em.

For an avowed Democrat to even consider this must display the bitter disappointment he feels.  I can only assume he was promised a White House position (“Director of Online Outreach”?) and he painfully feels the loss of prestige and authority.

From previous experience, I can say there is no surprise in the comments.  Its the usual ignorance and arrogance  but for the “figurehead” of such a prominent site in the Progressive Community to come out and say outright, “Screw them” ….well.

This attitude displayed by many in the online part of the Democratic Party does not bode well with any type of appeal for those votes.  Because everyone who ever worked with their hands and has retired, or nearing retirement; is WATCHING.  If the Democratic Party doesn’t fight tooth and nail, then the remaining Union membership will see where they stand with the Party and will increasingly vote against them.

In a political, strategy, rebuilding sense…this has to be the goddamn dumbest thing I have seen since HRC opened her mouth during the campaign.

If the Party does not go all out for this, then maybe its time for a NEW political party.  Nothing says that parties have to last forever.  If they don’t have a natural constituency or can gain one, then why does it exist? Just to enrich consultants?

I tell ya, when I saw this, I was stunned.

Ridge
———————
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/12/1610198/-Be-happy-for-coal-miners-losing-their-health-ins
urance-They-re-getting-exactly-what-they-voted-for

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/12/1610261/-kos-shitting-on-working-people-is-no-way-to-be-a
-Democrat

With the increase of drone use, by both hobbyists and commercially, many are concerned about their personal or business privacy.  So as you could expect, there has grown an industry to detect and defeat those drones. From the simple 10 gauge goose gun to specialty ammunition for shotguns that deploy nets or bolos to entangle the blades to attack drones that disable or capture their targets with nets, to these guys.

“The rifle, called the DroneDefender, uses a radio pulse to disable a targeted drone within 400 meters.  The gun causes the drone to think it’s out of range and enter emergency protocol, either causing it to land, hover or return to its point of origin.

http://www.battelle.org/our-work/national-security/tactical-systems/battelle-dronedefender

https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX4XXLb_Vuw

Because the DroneDefender jams communications between the drone and the operator, it can also prevent any onboard self destruct mechanisms from going off.

Drone Shield is a company who is marketing both drone acoustic detection and then using portable radio interference to block controller commands.  Taking it over to land or return to point of launch.  God knows how much these things cost; but if you are serious about privacy around a facility; just fold it into the security overhead.

https:www.droneshield.com
videos galore.

Unfortunately, none of the electronic counter measures are FCC approved (I think).  Like with cell phone jammers, they are sticklers about radio interference.

Ridge

Of course if you just like to hear the “BANG” and see a falling target, there are these

Ammo-
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/01/21/shot-2016-als-technologies-drones-beware/

DRONE MUNITION
http://snakerivershootingproducts.com/ammunition/

Though membership is rather amorphous, I’m glad my people are getting the recognition so long denied.  According to some,  if you don’t attend Yale and suck up to old money with your feelings of inferiority, you qualify.

http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/10/10/being-a-bumpkin/#more-103515

Ya know, you have to be from a certain time and place to really get the meaning of ‘white trash” or even deeper, “po’ white trash”.  It has to be said with a certain tone.  Half way sneer, half way pity.  Unfortunately, its become short hand for the fly over country and Trump voters.  That is incorrect.  There are respectable poor black folks.    There are respectable poor white folks.  They all go to church, pay their bills and take in their grandkids.  Then there are ‘white trash’  They don’t bother to better themselves (according to other’s standards).  They don’t present themselves well.   They don’t work at being who they aren’t and don’t do masks.   All the things respectable white and black folks strive for.  Sometimes drink or pills are involved, but not a defining feature-just added spice.

In current culture, Appalachia seems to be their breeding ground; though certain western areas have sprung up as well. And there is a real attitude online about anyone who didn’t attend college and work in an office park or sit in coffee shops in hipster clothing or ….whatever…  .  Whole swaths of the continent has been written off because they,  WTs, (hey, did I just invent a meme?) might not share their delicate sensibilities in politics, social questions, or tastes in technology.

Underlying the faked misunderstanding of “why Trump?” is the condescending attitude and the unspoken “white trash, what do you expect.” scorn.  You would not believe some of the commentary I get when posting in other places about the issues HRC had in Appalachia and the fly over country in general.  If they applied the same responses to inner city poor or folks along the SW border, posts would have been flagged, posters banned, and holy hell raised.  But since, “they are poor dumb hillbillies who don’t know better, we can say whatever we want.”  After all they will never have to interact with one; just suffer the political results when WTs get pissed at the rest of the country.

Leading up to and especially after the election, there has been an undercurrent of exploration of this group, like anthropologists discovering a lost tribe, in the general media.  Smarmy semi-academic articles, book reviews, and
“Gee whiz, will you look at that!” type of thing.  But then again, its been happening for 100+ yrs. In the 1880s, the NY Times sent a man into deepest, darkest WV to interview the Hatfield Clan.  Took him 3 days on horse back from Charleston just to titillate the readers back home.  (Now takes an hour in a car).  So it has a long history.

The next thing is a White Trash Caucus in Congress and an organization for recognition of this subgroup in the media.  Maybe a sympathetic feature in NYTimes Sunday Mag followed by a media tour on Public Radio?  Personally, I demand a break out panel at the next DNC conference.

Anyway, I’m energized and ready to struggle for our place in the Democratic Political Sunshine.  Maybe picket an upscale mall in Connecticut to draw attention to our plight?  They will love the WalMart fleece ware and spit cups as we block Neiman Marcus.  So brothers and sisters, climb into your Ford Ranger with the mismatched colored fenders and join in the fight.  

Ridge

As the Democratic Party moves forward, some lessons need to be learned from the actions and performance of the last Presidential Candidate.

I have posted here and other places about that candidate’s tendendcy to “shoot” her mouth off without thinking of the electoral consequences.   A noble quality for the pure of heart, but that usually isn’t the definition of a politician running for national office, whose goal is to influence people and win votes.

Her comments about the coal industry and “deplorables” could have been miscontrued and taken out of context; but they  just provided more questions for those who may have been sitting on the fence plus provided more ammunition to the GOP for ads and social media. It may have been a factor in the Ohio and Penn.

Another example is HRC’s comment about firearms in Oct 2015.

———-excerpt———-

“Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday….

The Australian government purchased more than 650,000 guns from citizens in the compulsory 1996 buyback program….

Clinton criticized rival candidate Bernie Sanders for his record on guns at the first Democratic primary debate on Tuesday.

She announced a new gun control plan earlier this month that did not mention a gun buyback. A Clinton spokesman did not immediately return a request for clarification on Clinton’s stance on guns….

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-l
ooking-at

————————-

The Australian Gun law was a compulsary buy back of semi-automatic firearms and put severe restrictions on ownership or purchase of other types. A “need” is required to allow private ownership and self protection is not seen as a need.

That recent rulings as to the 2nd Amendment would make a similar law impossible seems to have escaped the legally trained candidate; but not this article’s authors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251

That idea for the US may play well with certain constituencies, but probably not others…especially states that have large numbers of voters who enjoy field sports.  And while many equate semiautomatic arms with military style weapons, they are also the mechanism used in hunting rifles and shotguns…going back to the 1920s and 30s.

Just a few data points-Deer Hunters only (not counting bird and small game hunters which may or may not be covered by the same license)

Wisconsin
400,000+ licensed firarm deer hunters (2013)
Trump over HRC margin 22,177

Michigan-
700,000+ lic firearm deer hunters (2015)
Trump over HRC margin 10,704

Penn-
750,000+ lic deer hunters (2015?)
Trump over HRC margin 68,236

Were Clinton’s statements the reason she lost those states?  I doubt it.  Was it one more brick in the wall seperating the candidate from her hoped for electorate?  Probably.  I know it was trumpeted on not just the NRA sites but field sport magazines and web sites.  

Of course, a Clinton campaign spokesperson tried to walk back the candidate’s statements, or at least the characterization by her opponents. “She doesn’t mean confiscation” (though the Australian law demands it with compensation); but the words had already escaped her teeth.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/257333-clinton-aide-hillary-not-in-favor-of-gun-con
fiscation

But after other flubs and posistion switches, who was inclined to believe her once the issue was out there?

There are multiple states (outside the urban coastal regions) that enjoy shooting sports. Millions of hunters, hobbyists, competition shooters, etc… Fos some it is an important part of their recreation and family tradidtion.  They also vote.  Are military style weapons necessary?  I don’t like them but some do. Anyway.  The firearm industry has used Democratic Candidates as punching bags and straw men to promote and market firearms to the fearful.  Share prices of manufacturers dropped when Trump was announced the winner; they were expecting another sales bonanza if HRC got in.

So what posistions toward firearms will the future national Democratic Party take that will appeal, or (at the very least) not alienate, those millions of voters?

R

Recent debates at another site bring up the idea of closing Democratic Party Primaries.  Why should those who won’t sign on to the National Party be allowed a say in its candidate.

To paraphrase, -The role of the Democratic Party is to build the Democratic Party.- Great  because building a Political party just for the sake of building a party does nothing.

The purpose of the Democratic Party is to serve the Nation and its non-millionaire citizens.  And the best way it can do that is to win elections; local, state and federal.  

The purpose of the Democratic Party is not to serve, build and enhance the institution of the Democratic Party; but since the 1930’s, its role is to help those citizens of the US who don’t have armies of lawyers, tax accountants, and public officials on the payroll.
It is not to strengthen the self associated group called the Democratic Party who may, or may not reflect the interests of those non-millionaires.

It has been argued that the Party did not reflect those interests effectively and it is such Institutional thinking that has brought the disaster of 2016.  Scorn has been heaped on those who joined the Party in name only to vote or run as a Democrat.  Well, guess what.  You have a better chance of advancing Democratic non-millionaire goals with them on board than not. 

Shutting them out of a primary does nothing but apply a negative stigma to the Party in their mind.  By allowing a “registered” independent to vote in an open Democratic primary, engages them in the process and increases the likelihood that will look on the eventual candidate favorably.  Unless they are a complete failure like some.

And you know, with the increase of technology, one’s public political party registration is easily found and is used as a sub-rosa filter for jobs, credit, housing, employment advancement.  Many who rely on the public for their income register as independent so as to appear neutral.  So that “registered” independent may have grown up in a Democratic home, been attracted by its policies, etc.. but due to personal/economic reasons cannot be known as such on the voting rolls.

So, if its your stated goal to build a self perpetuating Fortress Democratic Party which only allows and rewards insiders and long timers who follow a rigid policy dogma; checking off each approved position in the approved manner, you will get the result of 2016.

If you want a big tent broad enough to win a majority of states with a safe margin, then that will have to include “registered” independents.  Blocking them is just another tool of solidifying influence and policy positions in an increasingly smaller and smaller Democratic Party.

Ridge