The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

The decision was "no bill" which isn't all that surprising -- but I maintain that this case had to go to a petit jury and be heard in public -- not in the "privacy" of a Grand Jury room.  The reason is this:

Wilson then fired another round of shots as Brown approached Wilson as if he was going to tackle the officer.

“Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me,” Wilson said. “And when he gets about … 8 to 10 feet away … all I see is his head and that’s what I shot.”

I cannot square that with the forensics -- specifically, if Brown was coming straight at Wilson at a full charge, and he was shot in the process of that charge, being killed instantly as we know occurred from the forensics where is the damage to his knees, legs, arms and/or other body parts from falling forward onto pavement while at said full charge?

This is the problem that I cannot resolve between the testimony and the physical evidence and it deserves to be heard in public and resolved.

I believed and still do believe that only an indictment would lead to the exposition and determination of these facts, and thus whether Brown was lawfully stopped in the middle of his assault or was killed in an act of manslaughter or worse.

However, like it or not you have to respect the process.  If it's broken (and I believe it is in circumstances such as this) we need to change that rather than looting and burning the town.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2014-11-25 06:15 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 318 references

Oh gee, look what we have here;

However even when participants were eating high fat dies which comprised 84g of fat per day, the fat levels in the blood did not rise. Cholesterol levels also did not change. In contrast when they moved towards guideline levels of saturated fat, and increased carbohydrate intake, the levels of Palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid, in the bloodstream rose.

High levels of Palmitoleic acid have been linked to obesity and higher risk for inflammation, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, metabolic syndrome, type-2 diabetes, heart disease and prostate cancer.

This is not a multi-decade "mistake" -- it is an intentional lie and scientific fraud perpetrated on the public across the western world.

The people and organizations responsible for this are in fact responsible for millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of collective cases of obesity, diabetes and more.

If this isn't an offense worthy of life prison terms may I ask what would be?


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

You're fixing to get a turkey in Florida folks...

Remember the robo-signers, those mortgage loan automatons who authenticated thousands of foreclosure documents over the years without verifying the information they were swearing to?

Well, they’re back, in a manner of speaking, at least in Florida. Their dubious documents are being used to hound former borrowers years after their homes went into foreclosure.

Robo-signer redux, as it might be called, has come about because of an aggressive pursuit of former borrowers by debt collectors hired byFannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant. What Fannie is trying to recoup from these borrowers is the difference between what the borrowers owed on the mortgages when they were foreclosed and the amount Fannie received when it resold the properties.

This is not egregious because a deficiency judgement is wrong in some way (it's not, although you can escape one through bankruptcy if you have nothing, which is why they're only filed if you have assets worth trying to attack) it's egregious because those robo-foreclosures were fraudulent in the first instance.

This is not about whether you did (or didn't) pay the mortgage.  It's about whether the lender followed the law when they foreclosed (they did not in the case of robosigned documents) and now, having served up the ignobility of ripping off the buyers of the securities (by representing that the loan quality in them was of a certain grade when it was not), destroying or falsifying documents (that would have proved the original scam) so as to prevent that discovery and then falsifying new documents so as to eject you from your house (after being unable to present the real ones as they either never existed or were intentionally destroyed to cover up the previous fraud) now they want to pursue you for a debt they cannot perfect the chain of ownership on!

The courts should (but won't) reject these sorts of claims out-of-hand as there is no valid documentary evidence of the indebtedness that can be traced back to the alleged original funding source -- it was destroyed or fabricated!

Without that a deficiency judgment attempt should fail -- but it appears, at least in Florida, it is not.

Where are the honest judges who will toss these suits and sanction those who file them?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

An update to my post on the bust of Silk Road 2, because there apparently are some folks who read my article and recently emailed me trying to claim that there's some magical incantation that I didn't know about (and was attempting to pin the entire thing on an unencrypted laptop.)

Since it's a slow news day and I'm bored let me respond to the handful of emails I received over the last few weeks on this topic:  If you're too stupid to read for content you definitely shouldn't be doing drug deals (or anything else illegal) on the Internet.  You will get caught.

As for how Forbes had an interesting article on it at the time that I didn't cite for a simple reason -- I wrote about this attack vector back in May of 2013 based on my own work over the previous several years including an examination of the code itself.  This is what I said at the time (yes, the link is aged off and you can't read the whole article, so I won't bother linking it):

Tor.  Tor is a package comprising what is known as the "Onion Router" that encrypts traffic and routes it through multiple computers all over the globe, and is used for web surfing.  It sounds good, but there are risks associated with it.  

First, because of the multiple encryption steps (one for each "hop" the traffic takes) it materially slows down your browsing.  In addition in order to actually conceal who you are it is absolutely necessary that you not sign into a web site or otherwise transmit a set of credentials.  Next, you are trusting strangers, some of who may not be trustworthy.  In particular if there is a "strategic" compromise of nodes on the Tor network you could find yourself being monitored anyway while believing you're "safe." This is a fairly significant risk if you're worried about governments; if you're worried about common cybercriminals, not so much.  Because the network (by natural process) routes the most traffic through the highest bandwidth nodes and bandwidth costs money (and thus there aren't very many high-bandwidth nodes) the number of actual nodes that have to be compromised before the odds are your traffic is no longer secure is relatively low.

In short Tor might be useful but it is not a panacea.  If you're trying to hide from the owner of a web site who is not savvy to what you're up to it will probably work.  If you're trying to hide from a government and it's a backwoods tin-pot dictator, you might be successful.  If you're trying to hide from the NSA, good luck.

Read that second paragraph very, very carefully.

As if that wasn't enough a few months later we knew that this attack vector not only worked but was actively exploited; I wrote about that on 9-12-2013 as well when a kiddie porn ring apparently got nailed through exactly this sort of attack.

Obviously Mr. Silk Road 2 didn't read either of those articles or he didn't understand the implications of them.  If I can trace packet flow I can determine the exit point and unfortunately to prohibit unencrypted traffic from flowing to such a "hidden" point it must be coincident with the terminus.  Determining that a given machine is the terminus of such a "hidden" site is not difficult at all if I can compromise a sufficient number of nodes in the middle as part of a confederacy because simple traffic analysis (without having to decrypt the payload!) will allow me to determine in a relatively short period of time (for a busy site this might only take minutes) exactly which node probably holds the hidden service.

Let's say I have 500 "nodes" in this theoretical "encrypted" network.  Of them 20 or 30 have very high bandwidth connections compared to the others, and thus will bear the lions share of the traffic.  If I compromise half of those, say a mere 15 hosts, I can then, using a known set of computers I control, start connecting to the so-called "hidden" service and through nothing more than analysis of the traffic pattern I intentionally generate I can determine with a high degree of reliability where the terminus likely is.  If I then go further and start tampering with the packets in transit through those 15 machines once I develop a hypothesis I can prove my guess is correct without having to actually be able to decrypt the traffic itself!

Once I know where that terminus is ordinary government means (e.g. go kick in the door with a warrant in-hand) work perfectly well and you are


Now who has the money to put up a bunch of high-bandwidth "encrypted" servers and task a few bright folks to do this sort of thing when they get sufficiently motivated?  Gee, that'd be The Feds and their counterparts in other countries, right?

Uh huh.

Go read the last paragraph of that quoted passage again.  The FBI broke "Tor" because you don't need to break the encryption to be able to find the terminus of a communication and once you know where a communication path is ending up you don't need anything more-fancy than an old-fashioned warrant.

As I have repeatedly said for years despite people's claims to the contrary Tor does not secure your traffic against governments provided they're sufficiently interested in whatever you're up to -- and it never has.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.