Go away troll, or else I'll take steps to ban you from this list. This is your final warning.
Mark <awake...@tutanota.de> writes: > 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 -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org