[Noisebridge-discuss] TOR re: Anti-piracy / anti-Pirate Bay law currently in Congress

daravinne daravinne at gmail.com
Fri Aug 8 17:53:23 UTC 2014


gmail is showing me this guy's g+ profile picture and his face is *really
really shiny*.  even in the thumbnail.

also tl;dr "i don't understand that the name of an organization doesn't
imply a singular consciousness that coincidentally has the same name as the
organization"



On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:37 AM, openfly <openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd
> wrote:

> Dongs
> On Aug 8, 2014 1:22 PM, Thomas Stowe <stowe.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, because you know, that's what this was about... /s Not Noisebridge
> being a bunch of narcissistic assholes, who are generally well, assholes
> and wrong if the ideas aren't coming from themselves.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> Phone (Mobile, SMS & Voice Mail): +1 (210) 704-7289
>
> E-Mail/GChat/Live: stowe.thomas at gmail.com
>
> Skype: ThomasStowe
>
> Social Accounts: Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/thomascstowe> &
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=47613162&trk=tab_pro> &
> Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/readhere>
>
> Web Presence: Portfolio / Resume <http://www.thomasstowe.info/>
>
>
> [image: http://]
>
> [image: http://]about.me/tstowe
>   <http://about.me/tstowe>
>
>
>
>
>
> A conscience reminder to unintended recipients of this e-mail: The
> information transmitted in this communication is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged information. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination,
> copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
> this information, or any part thereof, by persons or entities other than
> the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> Furthermore, this material may be copyrighted and any type of publishing of
> such without being the rights-holder or written permission by
> the rights-holder is forbidden by US and some International laws. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and please
> destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
> attachments.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Pirate Matt <bugsglo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *facepalm*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, openfly <
>> openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah.  Pretty much I made it half way through and decided this home has
>>> some serious character flaws.  And is probably borderline delusional in his
>>> narcicism. Take it from me I once tried to start a cult of worship of
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2014 12:14 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden <jeffreyatw at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > EXCEEDINGLY VERBOSE, DECLINED TO PERUSE
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Thomas Stowe <stowe.thomas at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Noisebridge! I'm just taking the opportunity to well, some might
>>> say address my being wronged (treated very poorly) via your list by one of
>>> your members some few years ago. Personally, I'm just going to go there and
>>> say that this is an "I Told You So!" e-mail. Because, well, some of you
>>> treated me poorly, and well, you deserve at least that much. Maybe it's not
>>> the most constructive choice, but well, the more people that know, the more
>>> that I feel better. :-) Maybe I'm a bit of an egotist, but that's not
>>> exactly insulting to me. I am superior to most people, which is why I keep
>>> superior company for the most part. That goes with the whole
>>> not-worth-my-time thing.
>>> >>
>>> >> So, as the title stated, I decided to talk about it a little bit some
>>> time ago. You made it obvious that you weren't worth discussing it with,
>>> and you decided to make the Noisebridge-Discuss list a hostile place, which
>>> is why I left it and won't return. It wasn't the first time I'd noticed
>>> problematic personalities @ NB. I've included my article and a good part
>>> our original interaction from the list archives (
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2010-September/016627.html ),
>>> including my "crazy, unfounded speculations" to paraphrase Jacob, about the
>>> nature of global surveillance and our general ability to compromise the TOR
>>> network by highlighting it's weak points. Yes, I was right. Yes, you're a
>>> douche, and that douchery makes you a dumbass, dumbass.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now that there're more than concepts put out there, and attacks have
>>> moved beyond what I was doing but not publishing, I hope you realize that
>>> sometimes, instead of going out of your way to insult people, it might be
>>> better to do more than make remarks and sarcastic suggestions if you want
>>> the information. Even if you think that they can't possibly be right,
>>> because *gasp* that would make them smarter than you or make you feel
>>> inferior.
>>> >>
>>> >> Follow Leads. Ask Questions. I had better things to do, like try to
>>> find a job, rather than  than point out the obvious and search for
>>> vulnerabilities that will help, well, not me. If I'm going to do unpaid
>>> work, it'll be to people who deserve it, or abused puppies. My health
>>> hasn't been all that great, with dental issues and arthritis that I'm well,
>>> too poor to get treatment for at the moment, and the same was then. I've
>>> made progress, and have more free time, but still, not for assholes.
>>> >>
>>> >> I felt that Jacob, of all people and those others, who like him, and
>>> perhaps because of him, were predisposed to attack anything I'd said. And
>>> thus not even worthy of my time. I had a couple of drinks tonight and
>>> decided to finally get around to writing this e-mail.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, I'm sure some of you were jizzing in your pants when you
>>> bought BlackHat tickets, or perhaps you couldn't go and wanted to the
>>> research and outcomes from the now-pulled CMU researchers. I doubt you even
>>> remembered that interaction.
>>> >>
>>> >> After that interaction, I wrote this. I decided to publish it about 2
>>> years later, as I do sometimes. I wrote up much more after discussing it
>>> with other security-educated individuals after it was published, but I'm
>>> more interested in watching the TOR network burn and be reborn due to it's
>>> use by so many pedos, cybercriminals and trash. TOR will have to change in
>>> nature and philosophy before anyone should give a fuck about it IMHO. It
>>> won't stay relevant, mostly because the philosophy is counter-productive,
>>> encourages "Freedom" for anyone, including those that prey upon others.
>>> The"Digital Wild West" is argued for mostly by proponents of "A Human Right
>>> of Privacy", and political components in nations where peoples are being
>>> oppressed.
>>> >>
>>> >> I agree with the latter. I've never assumed we have a right to, or
>>> that we had, regardless of rights, Privacy. I'm privacy-agnostic whether
>>> that be because of lexical fingerprinting algorithms, servitor-type
>>> intelligent agents or well, design flaws, In fact, I've always known
>>> differently, for reasons that I'm not going to disclose. You all can wonder
>>> about that. It won't make me any money or get me a job to explain it to
>>> you, or make me feel any better. ;)
>>> >>
>>> >> That you didn't play nice, Jacob & Co., and reacted like a group of
>>> bipolar shrimp, just makes you obviously gullible and perhaps a bit stupid.
>>> Hell, that was obvious from the start given your lack of emotional
>>> intelligence. Go work for Google, take their "Search Inside Yourself"
>>> class. You need it.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/search-inside-yourself-googles-life-changing-mindfulness-course-2014-8
>>> >>
>>> >> I made sure to space the text of this e-mail out so well, you would
>>> actually take the time to read, this time. ^_~
>>> >>
>>> >> I wrote this article, published and copyrighted by 2600 Magazine.
>>> Feel free to drop me an e-mail at my 2600 e-mail addy if you doubt it. And
>>> no, it's not a super-secret identity, I've held it since I was 16 years
>>> old, and used it on EfNet IRC from the time I was 12. These days it's just
>>> another of my pen names.
>>> >>
>>> >> My article.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anonymity and You, Firefox 17 Edition(Link)
>>> >> 2600 Magazine, The Hacker Quarterly, Winter 2013-2014
>>> >> by l0cke (l0cke at 2600.com)
>>> >>
>>> >> I want to address this recent thing going on with the Firefox exploit
>>> used to break Tor’s anonymity. Anonymity is important to have. Privacy is a
>>> right, if not a privilege, and definitely not a privilege that can be taken
>>> away for an arbitrary reason.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Someone had asked me years ago about how to track someone down over
>>> the Internet at one point and I said, “Just get someone to click a link or
>>> use an exploit like the Chinese were using with Flash to track down
>>> dissidents.” I’m not surprised. I’ve made my opinion on it well known to
>>> many parties and I’ve kept my mouth shut about it because at every turn
>>> privacy activists or programmers tell me that “Tor isn’t broken and your
>>> attempts to point out our flaws are asshattery,” whether motivated by
>>> wanting to keep things like that secret or to comfort themselves and others
>>> who use the service. There are many means one could use to break Tor’s
>>> protection, including taking advantage of OS and software components or by
>>> using analysis to make educated guesses about the location of both Tor
>>> users and Tor services.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no such thing as true anonymity, though one might be able to
>>> set up a VPN or proxy like JonDonym, or another instance of Tor, or maybe
>>> even chain them without much, if any, technical knowledge whatsoever to
>>> prevent vulnerabilities like this from hitting. One could also make Tor the
>>> operating proxy for all of one’s Internet traffic on a machine or entire
>>> network via firewall, or by using a special app that only allows traffic
>>> through that proxy and/or VPN and disconnects any traffic outside of it
>>> before it reaches the physical network connection - or via software on the
>>> router/firewall that drops anything not going to Tor or whatever anonymity
>>> service.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I’ve pointed out to many security software developers that the
>>> security of the Tor software just isn’t there. I suggested that either
>>> there was something in the code or something the code interacts with that
>>> was exploitable. What it was, I don’t know. But take everything that’s
>>> connected to software you use as an extension of that software. This recent
>>> event proves that even more. I know people who think there are magic
>>> services that make one anonymous. There aren’t. And with our knowledge now
>>> of PRISM - if someone can see the traffic on both ends and just match up
>>> timestamps and file size transfers, then guess what? You’re on candid
>>> camera, a lead to be pursued by someone wanting to track down who received
>>> or transferred those files or both. By files, I mean even web traffic.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Five things to take into account that aren’t being done right now in
>>> any anonymity service:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) No Real-Time Communication. A true anonymous service would be like
>>> old FTPMail. It will send a request at a randomized time that has nothing
>>> to point it back at the user. An even smarter one will send or receive
>>> traffic at a time that’s generated based upon human psychology, i.e., no
>>> porn requests at night or on weekends.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2) Fabricate Clues to Location. Create blocks of downtime that have
>>> no reason because one’s downtime can show one’s location.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 3) Do Like UPS. Make the anonymity node perform the request - it
>>> sends and receives all data so that it’s not parsed by the web browser
>>> directly. Think the way a parcel service delivers mail.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 4) Sterilize All Content. Perform transforms on text - the easiest is
>>> to translate text from an original language through several others. I’d go
>>> one step further because this can be reversed and use a mathematically
>>> generated dictionary or array using dictionaries, thesauri, and the like to
>>> add even more randomness. Plus it’d look kinda crazy and reminiscent of
>>> leetspeak. “Thee hast better not g0nn4 speek dat 2 dem, boy” for “You’d
>>> better not tell them that,” etc.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Sterilize images, audio, video, and the like as well - at least
>>> insofar as what created the container, any information in the images, etc.
>>> Killing lighting and replacing it with a solid color would be good too -
>>> filters so that someone can’t use the sunlight or stars to tell where one
>>> is based through an image or video. Also, creating blocks over all people
>>> in images and blocks over any visible text in any language.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Sterilize all hypertext and code - any kind of code or markup or
>>> uncommon phrasing that might be found if reposted as a fingerprint (i.e.,
>>> using “hast” a lot in text instead of “has”) or processed by a computer
>>> like the code that created the GET request.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 5) Use or Adapt Third-Party Tools. For now, use whatever you can on
>>> top of your anonymity services. Use NoScript and make sure that DNS
>>> requests don’t leak. Make sure that whatever IP protocol you use is stable
>>> and doesn’t send information to servers you request to. Don’t take a
>>> program author’s word for anything, ever. Test against tools that benchmark
>>> and look for those things or figure out how to test them yourself. Also, be
>>> wary of services that may contact another server for certificates or
>>> verification - HTTPS ends up connecting to an index to verify the
>>> certificate a site gives. If you’re not careful, some tools can contact DNS
>>> servers you already use. Use a plugin that makes sure that a proxy (like
>>> Tor) is always enabled if connecting to a site. Some services, even when
>>> working, have a big flaw: the operator. If you forget to turn on the
>>> anonymity service or ensure that it’s running, that’s on you.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe that’s why TorButton is no longer a standard option in Tor.
>>> Become a programmer in spirit if not in mind. To do any less is to invite
>>> disaster. Learn how these things work and chances are if you think of some
>>> new way to do something, someone else has or you can figure out how to
>>> adapt their work to your own use.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I’d go so far as to make it impossible to easily upload or download
>>> images via Tor, even if it means you have to kill all forms of compression
>>> or make them readable by a “processing node” that handles the no-real-time
>>> rule as well as sanitizing the stuff, killing all content that isn’t text
>>> or isn’t hypertext to be sanitized and shown as a special local
>>> only-viewing-markup in JSON or XML. That might not stop people from
>>> creating new versions of uuencode out of text or hypertext, but it would
>>> make easy access to sending and receiving child porn harder. ■
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Our original interaction. Note the date, then Google when the rest
>>> came about. Years later.
>>> >>
>>> >> [Noisebridge-discuss] Anti-piracy / anti-Pirate Bay law currently in
>>> Congress
>>> >> Thomas Stowe stowe.thomas at gmail.com
>>> >> Mon Sep 27 23:04:15 PDT 2010
>>> >>
>>> >> Previous message: [Noisebridge-discuss] Anti-piracy / anti-Pirate Bay
>>> law currently in Congress
>>> >> Next message: [Noisebridge-discuss] Anti-piracy / anti-Pirate Bay law
>>> currently in Congress
>>> >> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >>
>>> >> Wow, the only assertion I made was that TOR is compromised and you
>>> basically
>>> >>
>>> >> just told everyone to completely ignore what I've said. Look, I know
>>> you're
>>> >>
>>> >> passionate about TOR and that's great - you guys made a really cool
>>> suite of
>>> >>
>>> >> software but don't take this wrong when I say this because I don't
>>> mean it
>>> >>
>>> >> as a personal slight. You're naive. You think that it's okay to run
>>> an exit
>>> >>
>>> >> node and it's wrong to push people in the direction not to run exit
>>> nodes,
>>> >>
>>> >> even in the case that they will have their computers taken and have
>>> charges
>>> >>
>>> >> pending against them and be forced to spend money out of pocket to
>>> promote
>>> >>
>>> >> anonymity. That's a dream that we all have - no consequences. The
>>> reality is
>>> >>
>>> >> that things do happen to people and I don't really care if the guy
>>> from
>>> >>
>>> >> Germany became a developer for TOR after he had gone through hell
>>> with the
>>> >>
>>> >> law. The relevant fact is, he did go through hell with the law and
>>> everyone
>>> >>
>>> >> sane looking out for their own survival should consider that not
>>> running an
>>> >>
>>> >> exit node would be and is a good decision. It's stupid to endanger
>>> yourself
>>> >>
>>> >> for a cause that's dead before it's gotten off the ground.
>>> Personally, I'm
>>> >>
>>> >> not going to a privacy-martyr and I don't think anyone else should
>>> ever
>>> >>
>>> >> consider it. Are you saying that with the TOR code not being
>>> compromised
>>> >>
>>> >> that it equates to saftey? Can't TOR developers find users causing
>>> problems
>>> >>
>>> >> or possibly a law enforcement exit-node honeypot set up to be used to
>>> catch
>>> >>
>>> >> users causing problems? With encryption export laws, current
>>> attitudes of
>>> >>
>>> >> law and requests made to companies and groups dealing in security by
>>> >>
>>> >> governments, are we wrong to hold the TOR network suspect because we
>>> don't
>>> >>
>>> >> understand or haven't looked at the source code? I believe your
>>> statement
>>> >>
>>> >> regarding that there is no backdoor but I still won't take your word
>>> for it
>>> >>
>>> >> and I honestly don't have the time to look over the code or search for
>>> >>
>>> >> novel, new exploits that have yet to be found that would reveal TOR
>>> users'
>>> >>
>>> >> identities. I didn't state that there is one, I said that there I
>>> don't
>>> >>
>>> >> trust it and there might possibly be one. That's an opinion,
>>> logically based
>>> >>
>>> >> upon other events that are ongoing in global use of the Internet and
>>> >>
>>> >> technologies. <sarcasm on> But you're right, "TOR anonymity" is more
>>> >>
>>> >> important than my possible legal fees or spending a week in jail
>>> until it's
>>> >>
>>> >> figured out that it wasn't me accessing whatever it was that I could
>>> be
>>> >>
>>> >> arrested for. <sarcasm off>. But then again because you refuted me by
>>> >>
>>> >> stating that everything I stated was bullshit and of course you
>>> proved your
>>> >>
>>> >> point by stating you're a TOR dev so you must be right by way of
>>> having
>>> >>
>>> >> authority on the subject. I don't find you to be objective in your
>>> >>
>>> >> criticism, but "that's only my opinion" based upon you being a dev
>>> and how
>>> >>
>>> >> passionate you seem to be. If I was going to make a claim like "it's
>>> >>
>>> >> backdoored", I would've posted code to back it up and not speculated
>>> based
>>> >>
>>> >> upon many other things in the world. It's not as if our government
>>> were
>>> >>
>>> >> capable on spying on all of us if they wanted in many ways, is it? :P
>>> I'd
>>> >>
>>> >> say my statements are correct, sane and hold the best interest of TOR
>>> users
>>> >>
>>> >> who might run an exit node first and the EFF and their "campaign for
>>> >>
>>> >> privacy" second but really showed that I care for both.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I sometimes wonder if people think that poking fun at my signature or
>>> >>
>>> >> stating that it's idiotic means a damned thing beyond that they were
>>> pretty
>>> >>
>>> >> much mentally masturbating to the fact that they could insult the
>>> fact that
>>> >>
>>> >> I have it in my e-mails. Glad I could help you get off. It's not so
>>> much an
>>> >>
>>> >> ice-breaker to me as one might think as it is a tell of where your
>>> mind is
>>> >>
>>> >> and where you come from that you'd waste energy and time on it.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at
>>> appelbaum.net>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > On 09/27/2010 10:31 PM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > > I am sure you are right that TOR has been compromised.  I would
>>> suggest
>>> >>
>>> >> > > taking a look at the source
>>> http://www.torproject.org/download.html.en.
>>> >>
>>> >> >  You
>>> >>
>>> >> > > can download it there and then confirm or deny this.  It should
>>> be fairly
>>> >>
>>> >> > > trivial for you to do this.  A lot of other projects are open
>>> source as
>>> >>
>>> >> > well
>>> >>
>>> >> > > that you can use for encryption on top of tor (a vpn service over
>>> tor for
>>> >>
>>> >> > > example if you are super paranoid)
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > Yes, feel free to audit Tor - we'd love to hear about any bugs or
>>> issues
>>> >>
>>> >> > that you've found.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >>
>>> >> > > Other than that you are right, you
>>> >>
>>> >> > > should NEVER do something that you wouldn't do in the open over
>>> tor or
>>> >>
>>> >> > any
>>> >>
>>> >> > > other service.  It is just douchy and well wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > What? He's basically incorrect in everything that he's said - he
>>> knows
>>> >>
>>> >> > basically nothing on the topic, offers no evidence, makes tons of
>>> bogus
>>> >>
>>> >> > assertions, and then encourages people to stop helping. WTF?
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > There are lots of reasons to use Tor:
>>> >>
>>> >> > https://www.torproject.org/torusers.html.en
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > All the best,
>>> >>
>>> >> > Jake
>>> >>
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >>
>>> >> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> >>
>>> >> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> >>
>>> >> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> -------------- next part --------------
>>> >>
>>> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> >>
>>> >> URL:
>>> http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100928/90afca5a/attachment.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >>
>>> >> Previous message: [Noisebridge-discuss] Anti-piracy / anti-Pirate Bay
>>> law currently in Congress
>>> >> Next message: [Noisebridge-discuss] Anti-piracy / anti-Pirate Bay law
>>> currently in Congress
>>> >> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >> More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Tom
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Phone (Mobile, SMS & Voice Mail): +1 (210) 704-7289
>>> >>
>>> >> E-Mail/GChat/Live: stowe.thomas at gmail.com
>>> >>
>>> >> Skype: ThomasStowe
>>> >>
>>> >> Social Accounts: Facebook & LinkedIn & Twitter
>>> >>
>>> >> Web Presence: Portfolio / Resume
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> about.me/tstowe
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> A conscience reminder to unintended recipients of this e-mail: The
>>> information transmitted in this communication is intended only for the
>>> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>>> and/or privileged information. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination,
>>> copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
>>> this information, or any part thereof, by persons or entities other than
>>> the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>>> Furthermore, this material may be copyrighted and any type of publishing of
>>> such without being the rights-holder or written permission by
>>> the rights-holder is forbidden by US and some International laws. If you
>>> received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and please
>>> destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
>>> attachments.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140808/870a2175/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list