[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Two Different Instructors On Using Tor Crypto Etc...

On 07/21/2016 12:47 AM, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:13:27 -0600
> Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
>>>> But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US
>>>> military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure
>>>> communication, but only by making it public, for use by both
>>>> funders and their enemies.
>>> 	Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing
>>> they could have done. 
>>> 	The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as
>>> 	cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They
>>> didn't do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation.
>>> 	They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to
>>> boot!
>> I didn't say that there was anything altruistic or humanitarian about
>> it. And yes, they did what they had to do.
> 	So, what point were you making? Syverson and co. did the only
> 	thing they could have done if they wanted to help the US nazi
> 	military - What exactly is 'respectable' about that? 
> 	Any 'good' they did, they did it only as means to do as much
> 	damage as they could. 

It's clear from Syverson's writing that he has a devious sense of humor.
And that he gets off on being clever. So I consider it possible that he
was just fucking with them. It amuses me.

But anyway, it's pointless to argue about people's motivations. What we
have now is Tor. Do we ignore it, or make the best of it?

I say that it's better than nothing. You disagree. So it goes.

>>> 	So, 
>>> 	1) They need human shields, their abused 'users'
>> Yes, they do. All Tor users do, actually.
> 	I don't know. What I do know is that the ones who created the
> 	system and misrepresent it are syverson and co.

Whoever controls Tor Project is misrepresenting it. We agree on that.

What we disagree about is how badly they are misrepresenting it.

>>> 	2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the
>>> 	system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
>> Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. I can't imagine how you know.
> 	If you don't want to use basic reasoning skills and want to
> 	ignore evidence regarding how far the sabotage of internet
> 	'security' goes, that's your problem.

So tell me again, what would you have people use instead of Tor?

>> I
>> do agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better
>> alternatives have been implemented.
> 	So what. You know, to me you sound like a christian who
> 	want to believe bullshit because he doesn't want to face
> 	reality. Is the tor fairy tale comforting? 

Same question. What to use, if not Tor? Nothing? How is that better?

>> So the best option that I see is
>> layering stuff. Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond,
>> Bitmessage, etc through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG.
> 	Not the issue at hand...


What the bloody hell do you mean by that?

>>>> It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to
>>>> US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's
>>>> intentionally designed to be vulnerable. 
>>> 	The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually
>>> invisible and non-existent from my point of view...
>> Maybe so.
>>>> There's also the fact that
>>>> nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to
>>>> global adversaries. 
>>> 	Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government
>>> is and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It
>>> 	includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too.
>> If your assessment is correct, we are truly fucked :(
> 	If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.

You work with what you have.

>>> 	Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized*
>>> 	systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security.
>> Yes, it does :(
>>>> So it seems unlikely that he had such a design
>>>> that he put aside as unsellable.