-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/16/2016 05:06 PM, juan wrote:
Anyway, my point was that presenting tor as useful and 'legitimate' because it allegedly was used by Manning strikes me as...advertinsing.
Oh lookout- Legitimacy implies a sanctioning Authority. :D Speaking of mail vs. network transport of leakish dox... The point of failure for a mail order drugs market is the sender: Receivers are scattered all over and at least "slightly" hard to identify, if the network side is not breached. But the sender's organization is small in number and, if suspected, easy to put a mail cover on. The point of failure for a mailed in leaks is the receiver: The receiver's location(s) and personnel small in number, and easy to put a mail cover on. The receiver might counter this by providing mail drops and couriers (hopefully) unknown to the opposition, which in cases like Wikileaks would mean reliance on network security to transmit a one-time destination address to the prospective leaker. Again, if the network connection is "secure enough" why not just send the dox that way? Numerous variations are possible, of course. I would not consider either option a categorically superior one in /all/ cases. When security really matters, try to do something new and unexpected as well as sneaky and well protected. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXs7qbAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqfB4H/jvezm/562UuRNFx5nYqpOZ7 pmmjRGNTjS06czWM0mLszx7CNJhWArHgG79vM+wqfk37jRU5VTgUYuwbqBT/vA1L qqGOP1T0GQdBsK+4T+hbJ2P7Mz4X74zmWAcCQpW6MDqGRvYdx50Z1Zku10HUnntv VY1GE5hFRp4CP2AFK5gkphCixDlxQDeA/MMsj0AVhONaF+/B94p39OFgCJrJkS+2 368ZwU7mDfKSLoWdrhhXLkjtIMYmqu7Xgy4ui/w16LYZRlKWCyen628qYERCi447 RiMNcVnnAjEuH4bR7zRu4av+2Xa+kPsGdx8jQJqNanNEZSoEW6dVupwkglAXkTc= =DAxg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----