On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:43:58 -0600
Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
Possible?
Do you think that the utah datacenter is fantasy, that the
klein 'disclosures' about ATT are fantasy, that all the
snowden stuff is fantasy, etc?
Those are not possibilities, those are facts.
> Except, of course, for those with privileged information about US
> military capabilities ;)
The info is in the fucking public domain. And, considering
what's in the public domain, even retards should assume that
their 'secret' capabilities are even bigger.
>
> 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 even against the FBI, actually. Oh, here's more very old
news
'DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret
Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering
> And as I recall, you also reject Tor on moral grounds,
> because US military uses it for evil.
I am a libertarian. I correctly recognize the US military as
the biggest threat to civilization on the whole fucking planet.
>
> 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,
I am not frightening anyone. I'm telling people the truth. Had
people like Ulbricht assumed that tor was fucked he wouldn't be
roting in jail right now, for instance.
> when there are no viable
> alternatives, is also at best irresponsible.
You know there are alternatives. You just were promoting
vpns a couple of days ago on tor-talk (and I'm glad you were)
> 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.
Tell that to freedom hosting and all the rest. I can keep going
in circles, you know, constantly refuting your propaganda...
>
> >> 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 :)
You just repeat baseless, wrong assertions, so I'm going to keep
saying that your baseless assertions ARE FALSE.
YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT and I already explained why,
twice. Or perhaps ten times. Tor is backdoored by design. GPAs
have access to the backdoor.
>
> >> 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.
Cosmic bullshit.
>
> > The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US
> > military has sabotaged the internet.
>
> Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
Oh yes. We lived in the stone age before the US miliary
invented duct tape.
>
> >> 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!
Yes, kurzweil is an AI. He's as clever as google's spam filter.
>
> >>>> 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 :)
Hm, I misread the part about evil? The US military uses tor for
evil, there's nothing 'hypothetical' about that. Is that what
you are saying?
So the only hypothetical part would be tor actually working...
> >> If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
> >>
> >> Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
Even if it worked I wouldn't recommend it.
Although the question is too vague and of course loaded.
Would a real anonimity network make it possible to actually
cause substantial damage to the government? In that case it
might be worthwhile to try it. Perhaps.
But would any government create something that can be used to
destroy it? Obviously not, so your hypothetical is just
diversion (in the 'military' sense). Sorry.
>
> I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
>
