Private Forum: Interested?

Here's another approach: Encrypted messages.

How it can work: We use public key encryption to send messages via a mailing list (Wikipedia's explanation of public key encryption can be found here). It is very easy to set up, although the process of encryption will take some education on your part if you're unfamiliar with it, as you would need to learn how to encrypt and decrypt messages.

Some of the complexity of this depends on your mail client. For example: a plug-in exists for Mac OSX's Mail program that allows you use public key encryption within the application (easy). Gmail users who access their mail through the Gmail site, however, would have to encrypt the message manually, meaning: you type up your message in some text editor, then run the encryption with the public key, then copy and paste the resulting "gobbledygook" into your email composition. Once your message is sent, it can *only* be read by a recipient or recipients who possess the private key.

No one else (including FBI, NSA, etc.) can read encrypted messages without the key. All they'd see is gobbledygook. Of course, if you lose your key, that means you wouldn't be able to read it, either ;)

Each of us would have access to the public and private key of the mailing list. Benefits of encrypted mail include not only keeping communications discreet, but also allowing authentication of the sender.

Of course the weak point is this: anyone who has the private key and can decrypt messages, also has the ability to forward such messages to whoever they want in plain ol' easily readable text. Also, if someone is admitted to the group who is, er, less than forthright in their intentions, then we've just handed the key to an infiltrator, which is the same as having no security at all.

So we're back to trust. Our problem seems to be less the technology side of the issue, and more on the human nature side of it.

@ iehuvihs: Sorry, I didn't quite understand your comment. But I can tell you feel strongly about it! You might keep in mind that, in the game of chess, one lays out a plan of attack, but doesn't reveal it to his opponent. Or consider football: a team's plan is transparent amongst its members, but they certainly do not reveal their playbook to the other team. That's what we're talking about here.

Razorwind Studios is an official endorser of Ron Paul, and we will live free or die! 14th alternate to MN state!
----------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who doesn't know, Sun Tzu was one of the greatest military strategists that ever lived. He is most known for his book, "The Art of War". Some of these quotes apply to this topic, others apply to other topics, but they are all about our movement.

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

“Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.”

“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.”

“The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.” (McCain-Feingold anyone?)

“He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”

“Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move.”

And I will finish this with a feel good one:
"You have to believe in yourself.”

I haven't posted on here in a while, but for this one I figured I'd break my recent trend.

As for worrying that those who are unfriendly to the cause of freedom would be invited, my past experience on income tax discussion boards is that they generally show their true colors eventually. (like name-calling, trying to distract and being evasive, etc.) fwiw.

CiaW
www.eft-sw.com

etc? they are obviously interested in us. for obvious reasons i am sure they are concerned. and the laws have been going in their favor lately for allowing them to watch everything we do. i understand having some privacy to keep the average joe out. but i think it is impossible to keep out the 'powers' that be since they have our isp's in their back pocket. what about a vpn? i don't know enough about this stuff, all i know is they are watching us with interest. the only way to be completely private is in person and even that has problems with security. we need to realize they can see EVERYTHING we do.

Given the majority of responses here thus far, it would appear that, for most people, suspicion and fear outweigh the benefits of banding together on a private forum.

This makes me think about how Americans have lost to terrorism, not
because of the terrorists themselves, but because of our reaction to
the *threat* of terrorism. That mentality is hard to beat...I understand, because even I, myself, struggle with the very issues others here have raised about security, trust, etc.

I have no personal agenda for this idea; I'm not even a delegate (not for the lack of trying!), so I wouldn't even be part of the main target audience for this arena. Still, there are plenty of projects that folks might want to discuss on the Q.T. so such a forum would be instrumental for non-delegates as well.

At this point, with so little support for the private forum idea, I may or may not pursue the project, but I'm beginning to lean towards not doing it. Silly to devote time and energies towards constructing a site if it won't really be used.

If you think you might be interested, please let me know very soon (here in comments, or, you can email me via DP contact). Thanks.

Sobrdup said:
...I'm not sure we need a more secure version of Daily Paul.

The intention of the private forum is *not* to be a more secure version of DP. Its purpose would be to serve as a place of discussion of how we can go about our plans (delegates, ads, whatever we wish to discuss "under the radar").

Professor said:
I would welcome an invitation, as I am easily flattered, but I still would not trust an open forum. Just how would it work, and yet be hack proof?

First off, it would not be an open forum. Just the contrary; it would be a private forum that one could join only upon invitation. You know the people you've been working with in person (right?), so you could personally invite those people to join the forum.

How it would work: that's what we're discussing here
Would it be hackproof: see my comments below on that

The first question to be answered is: are enough people here even interested in the availability of a private forum? If there's not enough interest, then putting time and effort into the details of its construction would be pointless.

I just see a need, and am trying to do something to serve our efforts. If it's not something folks want, that's perfectly fine! :) But if I hear enough desire for a private forum, then we'll continue working out the nuts and bolts.

Information is given out only on a need to know basis.

There are some things entrusted to my cell that must not be divulged on any electronic medium. We'll discuss sensitive issues in person, but I am not at liberty to share them with strangers. I would welcome an invitation, as I am easily flattered, but I still would not trust an open forum. Just how would it work, and yet be hack proof?

Again, since my need to know has not been verified, perhaps these questions should not be answered (and some answers should not be questioned). Seems to be an intractable bind.

Who dere?
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
www.citizenduquesne.org

This is just my opinion, but I'm not sure we need a more secure version of Daily Paul. As you mentioned, sensitive tactical information is already being secured. However, I welcome open discussions on liberty including trolls because they get shredded in short order and the "audience" of online users that read and never post (which may include journalists) gets to see the merits of our message. What would be a sensitive topic example?

Susan had asked:
There was the recent "hacking" episode. How would you keep that from happening or, is it even possible?

I'm not the webmaster, but I just spoke with him and posed your question (also my question!) to him. He reminded me of the Benjamin Franklin quote we've seen here so many times: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

In short, there is no way to 100% guarantee there would be no trolls, no hackers, etc. To say otherwise would be a lie. A determined hacker will get in wherever he wants, just as a determined thief will get into whatever house he wants. Still, we lock our doors and use passwords on our computers, as every hurdle helps keep trouble at bay.

Certain provisions would be put into place to make the site as secure as possible. At the very least, it would be more secure than openly chatting about plans here on DP. You would have to decide for yourself if it seems secure "enough". The forum would be set up such that it wouldn't even appear in a Google search, so you'd really have to know the url!

TxRedneck asked about registration:
Yes, the site would require registration for membership and access. The registration process would probably be a bit more in-depth than what we use here at DP. But prior to registration, you would first have to be invited, and we would ask that members only invite people individually and personally, and forbid broadly announcing the site on forums, etc.

Ah, you say -- but how would we stop people from broadcasting the site? A few ideas...this is more brainstorming, here, and are only suggestions...

- In order to invite a new member (NM), the existing member (EM) would first tell the moderator(s) that they plan to invite a person. Moderator issues the EM a unique code specifically for that new individual. EM invites NM, who uses that unique code as a one-time identification (to prove they were individually invited) as part of the registration process. Once that code is used, it cannot be used again.

- Members who are caught announcing the site url get banned. Permanently. No questions asked.

Again, I welcome additional thoughts and ideas on this.

It would be hard to figure out who we can trust. If you do go forward with this or want help thinking of ideas feel free to email me at jdokler11@students.ignatius.edu

"Freedom is popular"
-Ron Paul

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

You can never tell a mans TRUE intentions.... even if you look him in the face.

Good Luck.......

I think there have been several threads about a way to "continue" past the elections and trolls have been driving some people away. There was the recent "hacking" episode. How would you keep that from happening or, is it even possible?

I'm not a techie so, I wouldn't have a clue how to set this up either. The idea has merit though if anyone can make it so.

Ha, if there is one I'd like to see the discussions.

So we wold register for this "Private" forum, kinda like we do here on Daily Paul?