I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions with me and
being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am talking about,
while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded excuse to back up your
own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no mentioned facts or reasons"
without actually providing evidence that supports your claims against me even
though I'm the one always pointing out the truth because I want people to wake
up.
How convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages to
me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose chase back
and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before and I'll say it
again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my emails as spam. I honestly
do not enjoy our interactions and I politely request that you Julie, personally
mark me as spam once and for all. But I know you wont, because that doesn't
accomplish your goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody is going to shut me up.
I love helping people so please I kindly ask that you prove me wrong and don't
message me again.
24. Mar 2017 09:01 by onp...@riseup.net:
> On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, > awake...@tutanota.de> wrote:
>> I point out your missteps in logic
>
> Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about?
>
>> you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of
>> what you appeared to originally intend to say.
>
> What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part
> of my message made you perceive that?
>
>> you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts
>> and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you.
>
> I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your
> email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had
> sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason.
>
> I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very
> simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of
> truth:
>
> 1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis.
>
> 2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you
> suggest.
>
> I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you
> could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show
> evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a
> credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and
> not, say, Tor Browser.
>
>> I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the
>> important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality,
>> and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but
>> I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done.
>
> Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this
> discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users'
> privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how
> convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat
> has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in
> attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor
> Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show
> that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free
> to present it.
>
> In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are
> the facts I can see:
>
> 1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates.
>
> 2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from
> executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a
> particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince
> IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or
> (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a
> website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any
> scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping
> in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay,
> "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot
> reliably be protective against any sort of malicious JavaScript code;
> its only protective effect is "security through obscurity".
>
> 3. When using Tor, IceCat blocks all requests for things like images,
> unlike Tor Browser. This makes it possible for any website to
> distinguish between Tor Browser and IceCat simply by embedding an image
> onto the Web page and seeing whether or not the image was sent at the
> time the Web page was loaded.
>
> 4. Other than LibreJS, which (as I explained) can easily be subverted,
> IceCat offers no protection against malicious scripts except for what is
> built into Firefox already. In particular, NoScript is not included.
> Even when it allows all scripts to execute, NoScript provides certain
> security features, such as protection against XSS attacks, which Tor
> Browser benefits from.
>
> 5. IceCat and Tor Browser share the same upstream, Firefox ESR. This
> means that, all other factors being equal, they should share the same
> vulnerabilities. The least vulnerable of the two should be the one that
> gets updated most promptly and most frequently, and that is Tor Browser.
>
> Put together, all of these facts paint a picture that Tor Browser is not
> only more private and more secure than IceCat, but substantially so. If
> you have any evidence to the contrary, please show me what that evidence is.
>
> [1] > https://onpon4.github.io/other/kill-js
>
> --
> Julie Marchant
> https://onpon4.github.io
>
> Protect your emails with GnuPG:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
