[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] Historically speaking, what was the U.S. navy /military
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:56:33 +0200
Alexandre Guillioud <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I would risk a dumb question : how can it be 'controlled opposition"
> when their (NSA) capacities to listen to whoever they want on tor
> havn't been demonstrated nor refuted ?
Have you ever heard or read this sentence : "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence" ?
It's not just some kind of cute casse-langue. It's a basic
epistemologic principle, if you will.
Do you think the fact that you(and I) know almost nothing about
what the nsa does means they do nothing?
Ever heard of a guy called Snowden? How much stuff has he
allegedly gotten from the nsa? And what percentage of that
stuff has been releaseed to the public? Do you want me to
spell the implications more clearly?
Also, you can even search this list for posts by syverson
commenting on tor 'limitations'
> Le mercredi 29 juillet 2015, Juan <email@example.com> a écrit :
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:32:56 +0000
> > >> Historically speaking, what was the U.S. navy /military
> > >> ntending to use Tor for?
> > me:
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly the same things they use it for right now.
> > >
> > > Communications for their murdering operations, spying,
> > > propaganda.
> > >
> > > Spread of american fascism.
> > addendum : a Pretty Good Name (PGN) and description for tor
> > is 'controlled opposition'.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
tor-talk mailing list - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to