On 07/21/2016 03:00 AM, juan wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 > Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more >> disclaimers and warnings on their front page. > > Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =) > > I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To > explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain > what the US state is, what it has done and what it does. > > > And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for > those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping > their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense > about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn' > > Let me know when they behave like decent humans being and do > that.
At this point, I'd settle for some disclaimers and warnings about vulnerabilities, and links to resources for addressing them. >>> Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust >>> themselves deserve. >> >> Tor is open source, so trusting software doesn't depend entirely on >> trusting coders. > > Come on, not that one... It ain't perfect, but it's better than nothing. >>> The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's >>> based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching. >> >> It's based on intercepts _and_ "fancy math and number crunching". > > No. It's timing, counting packets that kind of thing. Nothing > fancy. I suppose they have dedicated hardware to do that sort > of correlation, well call that 'number crunching' if you want... Not that simple. Maybe not "fancy", but there's a *lot* of data. And when you look for correlation at such scales, false positives are a *huge* problem. >>> There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because >>> that serves their ends. >>> >>> And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the >>> ones they sabotaged. >>> >>> But, again, this doesn't apply to tor. >> >> You are very suspicious ;) > > > Yes. Do you 'trust' them? =) I don't trust anyone :) >>>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you >>> are not thinking as correctly as you should. >> >> They have done some pretty stupid things. > > > For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean > "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think > the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of > any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe > as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game. They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to bankrupt itself and disappoint its population. But I think that they've consistently fucked up in the Middle East. Generally, they focus too much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual failure. They count too much on brute force. > Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to > impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan > proceeding? Short term, it's doing OK. Long term, probably not so good. I suspect that the Chinese have pwned them hard.
