On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 > Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >>> The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right >>> all along about Tor Inc. >> >> Well, I wouldn't go that far ;) >> >> If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it >> for evil. > > So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain > fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb? > > Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If > on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT > SECURE. > > Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared. So it sounds like just an assumption. >> It's the same argument that we make about encryption >> generally. > > No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument. > > >> Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep >> anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors. > > Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities > that your enemies don't have. That's the fallacy about backdoors ;) So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities? >> As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him. > > What wouldn't work? Let's assume, hypothetically, that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil. If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor? Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
