Sunday, February 19, 2012

Online Anonymity with Tor

I doubt many people in the general public have inspected their browser request headers recently. An edited version of a request from my own browser is below:

See the line "" in the list? The redacted portion is a unique identifier that would allow a remote site to ask Roger's which subscriber initiated a certain request. Depending on which ISP you have it is quite likely that you provide identifying information to every single page you request.

However, doing the same with the Tor Browser Bundle installed and active yields the following:

For all the details you'll have to read the Tor site on your own. Here is the the download page for the Tor Browser Bundle.

Why am I telling you this? Because, as a recent post highlighted, I'm soliciting leaks from the Harper government. I want you to know that if I do receive something I should be able to keep my identity very hard to trace by using Tor at a variety of public WiFi sites.

Similarly, if our recent Vikileaks30 account had of been using Tor the IP address returned would not have identified the user as coming from the House of Commons.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Soliciting Harper Government Leaks

This post serves two purposes. First, I'm willing to collect leaked information in a way that does not directly reveal either my identity or the identity of the revealing party. Second, this outline serves as a relatively private manner of information exchange for anyone to use.

Leak to Canada II

You have information you would like to leak. You would like to be anonymous. I would like to receive said information without you learning my identity either.
  • I can’t guarantee to leak all material received.
  • I can’t specify in advance how any leaked material may be distributed.

Instructions: Tor and Hushmail

First, you will want to install Tor, as discussed in this post, so that web sites you visit will not be given your IP address or other identifying information.

Then, set up a free Hushmail account while using Tor. When you create a free Hushmail address you do not need to provide identifying information. However, the first thing you should do when you set up your account is to use the preferences -> reading option to disable loading of images, colors and formatting (just in case you access Hushmail without using Tor).

This will allow you to set up a Hushmail account and leave an anonymous comment in my blog without letting Google or I know anything about you. Later, when I moderate your comment I will delete your message so that your Hushmail account is not revealed. I will then email you from my Hushmail account (assuming you left a hushmail account address) and we can exchange information in a reasonably secure manner.

Security Thoughts

In the event that a serious investigation was undertaken you would want to consider the issue of who would have access to the information to be leaked. This can often help identify the leaking party. 

You would also need to consider whether or not the material would be important enough to have the affected parties entice Google or Hushmail to trace back our activities (in the event that my own identity was eventually compromised).

Update: Removed alternate leak methodology and added use of Tor when using Hushmail.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

OilGate: Selling our Sovereignty

Harper's government is guilty of projection if nothing else.

Yesterday's article in the Ottawa Citizen clearly points out how foreign interests have taken ownership of the oilsands from the inside:
Defenceless: Canada has no idea what foreign activity...
But what Harper and Oliver inadvertently opened up was a nasty and troubling question that nobody in Ottawa is particularly happy to hear people asking. Just what legally constitutes a foreign activity in Canada that is detrimental to this country's national security interests these days, anyway?

As it turns out, Canada is practically incapable of answering that question with any enforceable coherence. When it comes to the recent and rapid-succession manoeuvres that have given Chinese state-owned entities the spigot key at critical flow points in Canada's oil and gas industry, mysteries abound. But it is now clear that slowly but surely, Canada's regulatory defences have been almost completely hollowed out.
However, I'd argue that there are worse things than projection when it comes to the issue of foreign interests. Much worse indeed.

I'd like to believe that our government was only inept, but I can't.

As the article above noted it was only recently that the Harper government was bemoaning foreign ownership of a mining company. This same group then allowed ministers to exercise their own discretion when making a determination of what was in the national interest. This is a recipe for disaster.

Our government is not inept. Our government is criminally complicit and has gone out of its way to court a relationship with China and Sinopec. We have our government declaring ordinary citizens "radical" and "enemies of the state." This is simply unconscionable and in all likelihood represents more projection on behalf of our ruling junta.

My concern is why the 180 degree turnaround?

There are two things that I can easily imagine given the nature of international intrigue. We are either looking at enough financial incentive to overcome personal ethics or we are looking at enticement, threat or blackmail. I suppose one could consider it ideology -- but ideology rarely does a 180, does it? No, far more likely a country desperate for access to oil, such as China, to make it impossible for our government's ethically challenged high level bumpkins to not give them what they want one way or another.

Regardless of your ability to follow me on my route to conjecture I think you should agree that selling control  of our oil, our national treasure, to a foreign entity directly controlled by a communist country, represents an action by "enemies of the state."

What are CSIS and the RCMP doing?

If they aren't trying to look after our national interests, to determine what influences have caused such a massive turn around in policy and foreign control of vital resources, then they aren't doing their jobs. I can guarantee you that the USA and in particular the CIA is all over their national security interests surrounding access to Canadian oil.

If our own government doesn't find a way to get itself on the right side of this issue we'll end up a surrogate battlefield for US and Chinese oil interests.

What kind of government puts Canada into such a position? One that has been compromised.


I realize I do not have anything approaching definitive proof. I also am not an investigative journalist or an organization that has the capability, or the need, to be able to answer the questions I ask.  It's the raising of the questions that is the key...

Friday, February 3, 2012

Hacks and Douchebags

Well, well, well. It gets more interesting all the time.

Here we have a hack writing an opinion article who's real purpose is to blame unions for the ills facing our economy in terms of the Caterpillar situation.
Nasty As Caterpiller May Be
Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, vowed to mobilize workers from across the province to help the CAW stop “scabs” from crossing their picket lines. There was the usual handwringing in the press that the dispute could become “volatile,” journalistic code for violence. All of this was discussed as if it were the most normal thing in the world, in the 21st century, to be resolving disputes by the use of hundreds of big heavy men to prevent or intimidate others from going about their lawful business: physical force, in other words.
Now, I don't call him a hack because I'm necessarily pro-union. I think there are other issues at work that are very worthy of discussion if you wish to pretend to offer an economic analysis:
  • A strong Canadian currency hurts us.
  • Desperate levels of incentives from US quarters hurts us.
  • And yes, higher wages do certainly hurt us.
Blaming the unions for all our problems, or government efforts to compete with US subsidization, is the problem I have with all this.

As if this isn't bad enough we have douchebag economists making appearances for some back patting on this trite little article.

I think I see something here. We are having partisan viewpoints being spun, or at least positively commented on, from both the educational and media arenas.

We're being invaded by hacks and douchebags. Lucky us.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Joe Oliver: Confirmed Denier

It's time to pick a side. Joe Oliver is a denier.

In case you live under a rock here is the basis of the issue at hand.
Do you believe?
Mr. Speaker, we really do have a minister for the 19th century because the Minister of Natural Resources fails to understand the impact of Conservative inaction on jobs, on the environment and on future generations. Instead, he attacks people who actually care about the environment. It makes me wonder if the minister actually believes in climate change. Is the minister a believer or a denier?
Now, Mr. I-can't-be-bothered-to-answer referred to theology when asked this question. What does all this mean? It means nobody has any gonads.

Joe Oliver isn't man enough to state his ridiculous stance.

The media isn't brave enough to state outright that this ignoramus is a denier.

Let's take a look at what happens if we brand Joe as a denier. Either he gets upset and corrects the concept or he does not. If he doesn't, and he believes in climate change and subsequent damage to economy and species, then he has zero ethics and deserves to be anywhere but in a leadership position. Or he stands up and says he is not a denier. Then he either has to address climate change issues or he has zero ethics and deserves to be anywhere but in a leadership position.

Somebody grow some 'nads and stick a fork in this asshole, he's cooked.

The alternative is for media cowardice to allow this idiot to play both sides of the issue and avoid having to stake a claim.


In case you can't see it already. Joe is caught between a rock and a hard place. To embrace his denier stance he must face ridicule by serious science worldwide and embarrass Canada. To embrace science he must shame his base and promote policies based on science.  Neither is a winning position.

If Joe is too much of a coward to represent his opinions, or the opinion Harper wishes him to express, then he needs to be stuck in a stance fitting with his behavior. He is a denier. He refers to climate change as a matter of ideology.

Now, for you media participants out there, get out there and drive this home.