On 07/21/2016 12:26 AM, juan wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 01:52:11 -0600 > Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > It certainly is 'technical', pretty basic, and you must be > as aware of this just as I am, so I don't understand why you > want me to repeat it. Trolling? Bah. > > But here it goes again! Pay fucking attention. > > The US military is a 'global adversary' - they have enough taps > on cables, exchanges, ASs, whatever, to be able to deanonimize > tor users. Especially so called 'hidden' services. > > > On the other hand, people like, say, Ross Ulbricht, don't have > taps on the global fiber infrastructure, don't have access to > IXPs, can't hack routers, etc. Get that? > > Furthermore the only psychos who have that level of access to > the 'infrastructure' are the syverson psychos, the US military. > > The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national > government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and > no one else can.
What you say is possible. But none of us actually know how bad it is. Except, of course, for those with privileged information about US military capabilities ;) Tor Project says: | Anonymity Online | | Protect your privacy. Defend yourself | against network surveillance and traffic | analysis. | Tor prevents people from | learning your location or | browsing habits. You warn people not to use Tor, because it's useless against US military. And as I recall, you also reject Tor on moral grounds, because US military uses it for evil. I consider both positions to be irresponsible. Conning people into using Tor recklessly, with insecure setups, is at best irresponsible. If the goal is cover traffic for US military, it's malicious. But frightening people from using Tor, when there are no viable alternatives, is also at best irresponsible. Even if Tor is more or less useless against US military, it still protects users against other adversaries. And arguably it even protects most users from US military, if only because they're not important enough to focus on. >> 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 ;) > > > No fallacy. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT. Putting it in caps doesn't make it right :) >> So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? > > They can be OK, and I don't care for any 'general theory' about > backdoors anyway - I'm just talking about or. I disagree about backdoors generally. But specifically about vulnerability of Tor to global adversaries, you may be right. But also you may be wrong. > The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military > has sabotaged the internet. Actually, they pretty much invented it ;) >> Or are you >> just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. > > I don't think they are the dumb ones here... ;) >> That >> they're so confident about their superior capabilities? >> > > Yep. There's nothing surprinsing about that. I wonder if they have AIs yet. That would be amazing! >>>> As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him. >>> >>> What wouldn't work? >> >> Let's assume, hypothetically, > > > Sorry Mirimir, if you first acknowledge facts, then I might > entertain your hypotheticals. > > >> that Tor is secure for everyone. And >> let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil. > > > Are you trolling me? Not at all, Juan :) >> If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor? >> >> Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil? I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
