On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:54:34AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: > >> 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) > > Nested VPN chains are also vulnerable to global adversaries. It may be > that all low-latency anonymity systems that can scale to many users are > vulnerable to global adversaries.
... which are based on current traditional centralised physical network. Yes. Which is why, to get out from the GPAs, we must build a home to home, neighbour to neighbour, suburb to suburb, global physical network. > > 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. > > That's not really a backdoor. You argue that Tor is vulnerable to global > adversaries, and was designed that way. But it's not just Tor. It seems > that all low-latency anonymity systems that scale to numerous users are > vulnerable to global adversaries. ditto - need a new phy layer If you don't own it, you don't control it. It you don't control it, it WILL be used against you. > >>> 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. > > Pretty much ;) At least, initial development of computers was mainly > driven by military. ATI, bought by AMD, was originally registered as Alien Technologies Incorporated. They eventually officially changed their name to just ATI.
