On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:55:42 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like a dream.
Yore reading comprehension sucks ;)
I don't think so.
Read the fucking paragraph that you quoted. It says nothing about Tor.
Dude! Context! The whole discussion was about tor! And at some point you said "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially" "They" stands for "anonymity systems" which in this 'context' basically means tor. Even more so since you keep repeating that tor is the best system 'we' have. So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems like a dream. So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the fact that tor doesn't work. Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power? No. Especially tor, a creation of the state.
It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you?
Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular.
But right now, Tor is the best we have.
Yeah. You said so a couple of times...
So we use it, with suitable precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?
I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the 'free' tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and apparently don't care much about the real price of the system. I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay away from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk 'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause.