On 06/08/2016 10:06 AM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:31:58 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:04 -0300 From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: rayzer@riseup.net
come on rayzer, be 'transparent' like your buddies from the pentagon and publish your gov't sourced income
Juan... I gave you MORE than enough metainfo about me to figure out who or what I am. Who you pretend to be, or even actual details about your personal life are wholly irrelevant. What matters here is, for instance, your laughable defense of the pentagon's 'anonimity' network.
I'm not defending "the pentagon's 'anonimity' network." I'm saying, in so many words, that even the most compromised network still has uses if you know that the network is compromised. And in the case of something like tor if everyone used it that would increase the efforts needed to stalk the network. Even if every node was compromised, sifting through X packets is more expensive in any number of measures than sifting through x to the 6th power packets. My take is dissuading people from using it because it's compromised destroys what little effectiveness it might have, and as the gubmint would like, renders it useless. By that logic, you're the fed Juan. Rr
You've got my approximate age (teen in the 60s)
The city I was in in the late 60s
The damning fact that the NYPD stalked me and went after my dad's security clearance!
That alone ought to be enough to get my jacket out of cold storage.
On 06/07/2016 11:46 AM, juan wrote:
Sure. Because a marxist clown like you says so. You pegged me Juan... I'm a Groucho Marxist, and a John Lennonist