On 4/6/15, Juan <juan....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:51:31 +1000 > Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > >> - full decentralization model for TOR > > I doubt that's something the US military is going to favor. I'm
I too seriously doubt that. > guessing that having a bunch of 'directory authorities' under > their full control was one of the basic design requirements. Well, I haven't read a lot, but I think there was this history of TOR where a couple of blokes did what made most sense to them at the time, and the government (I would attribute "opportunistically") chose to fund that. Pro-actively supporting/funding those technologies which are useful to big-govt-self, in this case TOR, could be attributed as having malice, but I tend to the "schizophrenic nature/ conflicting interests" side of the debate. Notwithstanding, TSOC is a prime opportunity, Juan (hint hint, nudge nudge) to verify or otherwise disprove your "primary intent is one of malice" position - if a well-written design document (including an as-yet-unsolved trust model which you magically solve) for dir-auth de-centralization gets rejected for a couple years in a row, your hypothesis is then proven, and we'd all have a wonderful data point on the evil-ness of the TOR-backers-and-string-pullers. Until then, I do (hint hint, nudge nudge), encourage you to write up your TSOC project proposal :) :) Please. Please do. Please pretty please with cherries on top please? > On a somewhat related note, has google or any other big and > corrupt american organization pretending to care about 'freedom' Unrelated to but prompted by your question, I assert the following: Google, (and I think TOR) started as a hacker- or uni- sponsored "let's try this concept" project. Ie, started by one or a few hackers with a great idea and usually spouting (and I use the word spouting here intentionally) good and magnanimous intentions (eg Google's "do no evil" as they used to say). Concept works, within its parameters. Concept takes off due to overwhelming (yet relative) effectiveness (within its parameters) as compared with existing 'solutions' for the problem domain. Funding offers comes in, with prerequisite of diluting ownership, and most significantly, diluting control. The hackers (fellow humans I do note), take the money, dilute their ownership, and (most significantly) dilute their control. The share-sale contract, at this stage usually private (I'm thinking google and most startups here), usually carries condition(s) that further funding be accepted, or at least, more of the same happens, in particular with the IPO. Now there are shareholders. These shareholders are superannuation hedge-funds, government bodies (through proxies) such as the NSA, FBI etc, and more similarly-good goodness (please note facetious tone at this point in my typing). If the original developers/ controllers of the new-fangled concept didn't lose control in the first round(s) of funding, they certainly do at the IPO stage. Basically, most humans take the money and run. I.e., most humans are greedy, and put their personal wealth ahead of principle. Thus becoming a large company carries with it: - personal cashing out of the founders; - the sociopathic nature of companies; - diluted control; - control of said company through acts of government; - control by those with the most money (to buy the shares, or to have enough group- or individual share-voting control to put in place chosen sock-puppets (evil doers) at the helm of said companies; - concentrated control in the hands of those entities which act sociopathically (shed a tear, I do); If one or more of the founders continue at the helm of such sociopathic-by-nature-and-by-founding-constitution entities, then it can be reasonably inferred that such founders are inherently with that same nature; witness the nature of humans; the five passions, the seven deadly sins, a rose is a rose by any cow pat you see. So for the thinking man (man in the generic sense, including woman, but in particular, being s/he who has come of age within themselves, which is different to actual physical age), what to do? If we want a better future in 30 years, how can we achieve that? Public statements of commitment to do no evil (does google even pretend to say that any more at a corporate slogan level?), evidence possible underlying good intention. What is the next step? Bind oneself (oh ye powerful tech hacker for freedom) to make no compromise of means, for any purported ends. Here is one example from which I draw some limited personal inspiration: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email That's a tough road to hoe though. I say it's the only road worth walking. I wish there were more. Often I experience emotional satisfaction from the enslavement of humans - when so many fall, fail to act in interests beyond self, I see that the way things are, is the way they ought to be - humans --ought-- to be enslaved, since they do not understand their own enslavement, which they appear to willingly and enthusiastically work diligently and rush towards. How is to one feel anything but "yeah, enslavement is entirely appropriate for this lot called humans"?? ----- > ever published some kind of study or 'paper' shedding light on > what % of 'the net' is under surveillance (and to what extent)? > I mean, google must know something about that kind of > 'infrastructure' eh? > > That would be a somewhat interesting read instead of the usual > self-congratulating propaganda. It would be interesting to see > how far the american cancer has spread. As I've pointed out above, the cancer is in humans. The corporations, and those who control and run them, are simply humans, humans lacking in will to put principle ahead of personal profit. Is the real problem the problem of we humans? Frankly, from what I see in the world, the TOR guys are, within certain parameters, doing reasonably well. I may be seeing a total illusion, and I can neither prove nor disprove my feelings on the matter. So what am I left with, with proof of nothing? The existential question, eh? I am left with myself and my memories of my actions and feelings. Which memories and feelings would I like to take with me from this world? (no, I'm not going to debate that which I can neither prove nor disprove). May your life experiences be worth remembering, fellow humans. Zenaan -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk