-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/07/2016 06:59 PM, juan wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:51:25 -0400 Steve Kinney > <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote: > > On 06/07/2016 04:09 PM, juan wrote: > >>>>> And of course, TOR can be up to 100% effective against >>>>> adversaries who are /not/ top tier signals intelligence >>>>> services. >>>> >>>> Which is not the point, motherfucker. > > So in other words, I'm right, you're wrong, and you know it > > >> What am I wrong about, exactly? You can re-read my previous >> messages and notice all the stuff I said and you ignored. > >> Especially my first message explaining why tor is a scam. The big error I see is your apparent belief that TOR should be able to do impossible things, and interpreting its failure to do so as evidence of malicious intent by its sponsors and developers. Overly enthusiastic fans of tools like TOR promise "airtight security," because they believe that airtight security is possible. Overly enthusiastic critics of TOR and similar tools demand the same impossible performance, and consider anything less to be a betrayal of public trust. One of the most effective ways to defeat a grass roots political adversary is to build and unleash opposing camps of True Believers to fight for and against a simplistic, misrepresented version of whatever the "unwelcome" advocates are trying to accomplish. What makes this approach so effective is that people will do it ALL BY THEMSELVES in many instances; guiding them to do it harder, faster and better is no challenge at all if one has a budget for that. I don't imagine that every outspoken critic of my little ideas is a paid enemy agent; I prefer a more evidence based brand of paranoia. To me, the tempest in TOR's teacup looks like a perfectly natural phenomenon, driven by false hope vs. harsh reality problems. Everyone has a right to petition the Universe for redress of grievances against the laws of physics; this can even be productive, as and when it leads to an improved understanding of those laws. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXWHvnAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqfIYH/ROrA+wSAQyDzWB8QHoCQ0aB 8g03ILCC54SG5tWk/9IyvOKXGo89Jqyh+31ur+Dhkme3reBqlmD6FUengm0UCDAD tGJ7qMNP2EAqzRbXNWckrJSiFgDPH1BjDcwSNwu9/r9+foq3VVJ2SRIg0dO0U5V5 w6lRmwbhDAWqZhHkLzXO8IkOXG2ge/7rFtvcvjuex0Pvfm1d0ZhCvzh46QuUOThy R/psKyW/TGNPRlagdbtQjokdq+XDcPc0S0kWexIQEqfIwRoLHRuUIlLZ98slNNW3 1NlLrN1yFpANA/GpZfp1+x0/GcrTXziyztcV2iu2nYMM/w5OdqS8qmCaT9XR8Cw= =WvFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
