> Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known > for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most > of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it > and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have > existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying > to force a kiss on a woman,
Source please. No source and it didn't happen. Supply a source and it still might not have happened. What I'm seeing here is hearsay. Lots of that going around... Ask Juan. It's one of his his specialties. Rr On 07/20/2016 09:24 AM, Sean Lynch wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:02 AM Mirimir <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 > > Mirimir <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. > > > So much about security is based on probabilities and unknowns, and our > own privacy is such a personal issue, that I don't think this is > something that's going to be solved by "evidence." Some people are > going to be uncomfortable using or supporting Tor no matter what > because of its history, and now potentially because they blame Tor for > what happened to Appelbaum. > > Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known > for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most > of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it > and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have > existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying > to force a kiss on a woman, just wished they had such big balls rather > than being concerned over whether or not she actually wanted that. > > > >> It's the same argument that we make about encryption > >> generally. > > > > No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument. > > > I think that what they are saying is that whether or not crypto is > effective for a given application depends on the resources your > adversaries are able and willing to apply to breaking it. > > > >> 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 ;) > > > Agreed. It's also the fundamental fallacy behind all of the NSA's > attempts to weaken crypto. > > > 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? > > > The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink. > > > >> 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? >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
