On 8/19/10, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Exactly!
Even if any particular anon system was comprimiseable, why would
any comprimising organization [save the full disclosure types] wish
to play their trump card in public??? If any anon system is comprimisable,
far better to listen in, under the convenie
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:40:57 -0700 Jacob Appelbaum
wrote:
>On 08/15/2010 02:56 AM, Anon Mus wrote:
>> I think you'll find that Tor only became officially incapable of
>> protecting from such an adversary around 2004/5 when numerous request to
>> add this protection to Tor was made. Since then
Orionjur Tor-admin writes:
> I think so too.
> But I have an asking - were there any court proceedings (successful or
> not) against tor-users based on their deanonimisation in the USA?
> Because I never hear or read about it I very want to know it.
> If there were no such proceedings it seems to
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
> While I do think it's good to see the funding there are two points that
> are important to remember.
>
> 1) this is a freesoftware project the code is there for all to see,
> hopefully clueful people other than the US Government are reading it.
>
> 2) no matter who's f
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:32:13 -0700
Julie C wrote:
First off, your enthusiasm and questioning our decisions is great and
encouraged. Will you help us?
> The larger threat that I see is the Tor Project is absolutely ...
> dare I say it? ... PATHETIC AT MARKETING ITSELF.
Yes, this is by design.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:05:27AM -0700, Julie C wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> >
> > This is neither fair nor reasonable.
> >
> > When Wikimedia broke into the top _10_ most popular sites, with
> > something like 100 million unique viewers in a month the an
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Robert Ransom wrote:
>
>
> What do you expect the Tor Project to do with zillions of dollars?
> Using donated funds to operate more relays, bridges, and exit nodes
> won't help much -- Tor nodes need to be dispersed among as many
> different operators and ISPs as p
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:09:29 -0700
Robert Ransom wrote:
> Also, remember that Tor's opponents would put much more effort into
> blocking Tor if it were heavily promoted in the Western media. (China
> and Iran are not Tor's only opponents -- here in the US, misguided
> politicians want to crimina
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:05:27 -0700
Julie C wrote:
> But from an organizational, big picture view, I think it is clearly time for
> them to bring in some evangelical fundraisers to move the Project forward.
> There is a great base to build on. There is a great story to tell. But think
> about it t
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> This is neither fair nor reasonable.
>
> When Wikimedia broke into the top _10_ most popular sites, with
> something like 100 million unique viewers in a month the annual income
> was comparable to the tor project. It only broke 1m in fu
On 08/16/2010 10:49 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Anon Mus (my.green.lant...@googlemail.com):
>
> You know too much, Mr. Anon Mus. The Adversary has been alerted.
> Prepare to be silenced (if we're lucky).
>
Oh Mike - How could you divulge our secret information like that?
Couldn't you just
Thus spake Anon Mus (my.green.lant...@googlemail.com):
> >1) this is a freesoftware project the code is there for all to see,
> >hopefully clueful people other than the US Government are reading it.
>
> Unfortunately, whilst there are clueful people watching the software, no
> one has yet decide
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Julie C wrote:
> The larger threat that I see is the Tor Project is absolutely ... dare I say
> it? ... PATHETIC AT MARKETING ITSELF.
> Something has been bugging me the last couple days about the bigger picture
> of the funding issue that came to light with the c
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
>
> Yes. The larger threat is that funders can stear funding in a general
> direction. Say, by prioritizing performance over censorship
> resistence, or censorship resistence over anonymity research.
>
> So far however, it appears that everyone
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
While I do think it's good to see the funding there are two points that
are important to remember.
1) this is a freesoftware project the code is there for all to see,
hopefully clueful people other than the US Government are reading it.
Unfortunately, whilst there
Thus spake Jonathan D. Proulx (j...@csail.mit.edu):
> While I do think it's good to see the funding there are two points that
> are important to remember.
>
> 1) this is a freesoftware project the code is there for all to see,
> hopefully clueful people other than the US Government are reading it
While I do think it's good to see the funding there are two points that
are important to remember.
1) this is a freesoftware project the code is there for all to see,
hopefully clueful people other than the US Government are reading it.
2) no matter who's funding it the US gov't could read the c
On 08/15/2010 02:56 AM, Anon Mus wrote:
> I think you'll find that Tor only became officially incapable of
> protecting from such an adversary around 2004/5 when numerous request to
> add this protection to Tor was made. Since then its been the official
> policy not to protect from such a threat (
Jimmy Dioxin wrote:
The US Government also gets extensive use out of Tor. Law enforcement
uses it for informants etc. As explained on the Tor website, this is
actually a good thing as it makes you more anonymous (are you a fed, a
journalist, somebody looking for porn, etc)
Jimmy Dioxin
Act
Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:26:57 +0100
Anon Mus wrote:
It looks like 90% of the funding is from the US, nearly all US
government.
Internews Europe - France $183,180 (35.6%)
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Internews)
Stichting Nlnet - Netherlands $42,931
Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Anon Mus wrote:
It looks like 90% of the funding is from the US, nearly all US government.
If you know any funders outside the US who care about privacy, anonymity,
or circumvention, we're all ears. :)
I am certain t
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:26:57 +0100
Anon Mus wrote:
> It looks like 90% of the funding is from the US, nearly all US
> government.
>
>
> Internews Europe - France $183,180 (35.6%)
> (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Internews)
> Stichting Nlnet - Netherlands $42,931
> Internatio
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:20:28 -0400
Jimmy Dioxin wrote:
> Cryptome has posted the Tor Project 2008 Tax Return available at:
> http://cryptome.org/0002/tor-2008.zip
>
> As many know, all US non-profit corporation returns are available upon
> request by the public.
In fact, these documents are alr
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Anon Mus wrote:
> It looks like 90% of the funding is from the US, nearly all US government.
If you know any funders outside the US who care about privacy, anonymity,
or circumvention, we're all ears. :)
> Add to this the number of Tor nodes run from US i
The US Government also gets extensive use out of Tor. Law enforcement
uses it for informants etc. As explained on the Tor website, this is
actually a good thing as it makes you more anonymous (are you a fed, a
journalist, somebody looking for porn, etc)
Jimmy Dioxin
On 08/14/2010 07:26 AM, Anon M
Jimmy Dioxin wrote:
Hey Folks,
Cryptome has posted the Tor Project 2008 Tax Return available at:
http://cryptome.org/0002/tor-2008.zip
As many know, all US non-profit corporation returns are available upon
request by the public.
Firstly, people need to look through these returns in the same wa
Hey Folks,
Cryptome has posted the Tor Project 2008 Tax Return available at:
http://cryptome.org/0002/tor-2008.zip
As many know, all US non-profit corporation returns are available upon
request by the public.
Firstly, people need to look through these returns in the same way we
audit code. Looki
27 matches
Mail list logo
