On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:11:37 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/21, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:47:56 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
But please don't use anything less. Your web browsing is private, and it is appropriate that somebody should need to have probable cause and work hard to monitor and log it.
don't spread misinformation karl. There's no 'probable cause' of anything at play here, and the implicit claim that attaking tor is 'hard' is bullshit.
I feel irritated. Is what you are saying true? Would my expression have landed better if I hadn't used that phrase?
Well "probable cause" is jargon from the US nazi 'legal' system, but we're talking about arpanet spying which is completely 'lawless'. One of their founding principles is that they spy on everyone, all the time, with no 'probable cause' at all. Anyway, I think it could be argued that tor provides some measure of 'plausible deniability', it makes it harder for government criminals to 'legally' prove something, because to prove it they would have to explain how their spying works. Which is why the most corrupt cesspool on the planet, the US, has something hilariously called 'parallel construction'... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-launderi... " "Parallel construction" is really intelligence laundering"