dark web briefest intro - was Re: educate me Please
----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> -----
Hi Zee, What is the reality of this dark web? If it doesn't show on Google, then how can you find it? ...
As to the dark web - it certainly exists. As we see on the news, every 2 or 4 years the authorities take down one or other of the largest dark web "market place" websites - so evidently these places attract a lot of people. And then there are the smaller sites they take down which usually don't hit the front page of the news. There are all sorts of dark web sites - market places, forums, simple websites, ssh gateways (apparently a lot of people access their normal web servers over ssh), and apparently a lot of ways to slip up for those doing something illegal - and Tor is designed so that the large state-level authorities can pretty much always uncover someone if that's what they want to do; Tor is not secure against GPAs (Global Passive Adversaries), and is absolutely not secure against an active adversary. One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me. I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting. A volunteer could also try to implement this feature, but it's a lot of work, and even the I2P folks have not yet even tried to implement it. So, even if you were researching data/info for a book you are writing, you really need to spend a lot of time reading about the security aspects, to find out what can give you even a small modicum of "reasonable plausible deniability" for your research activities. For example: - run an exit node (carries its own risks, but one of the better ways to achieve plausible deniabililty) at home - alternatively, or in addition, configure your node as a bridge/ Tor-network entry node, and invite a handful of friends to use it as their gateway to the Tor network (the alternative, if you don't run your own node, is that Tor browser picks a random node to use to enter the Tor network, and there's a damn good chance the CIA or FBI are running that node) - don't run Tor browser on Windows - don't run Windows of any version - learn Qubes OS or Tails OS and use that - experiement for a few months with something completely innocuous - running a website promoting information about Marijuana or something, and once you're comfortable, then move on to something more innocuous - if you choose to run a Tor node (can increase the security, can reduce it if you stuff up the config) there are plenty of folks on the Tor mailing lists who will answer questions, and plenty of links to read to Stay Safe (C)(R) - if you intend to run a dark web website that some authorities really would not like - say e.g. promoting homosexuality to the Saudi's - then you should really be running your own ISP with multiple internet links (e.g. Telstra and Optus), so that any virtual servers you link into the dark web are relatively robust; then, never allow your website to get too popular - keep it to a very manageable number of invitees - never make your invites over the clear net (normal internet) only invite truly trusted friends in person, face to face, with mobile phones turned off and out of reach of all recording devices (including of course, all phones); to invite random people, do so on a dark web forum only. - if you're going to run a dark web website, you really, really, really need to know how to configure firewalling, web server, https certificates, ssh for admin access etc etc, in such a way as to be truly, actually, secure, if there's any chance your website is going to be targetted by the local authorities from your own jurisdiction, you need to not make even 1 single mistake - that mistake will bring you undone! Good luck :) Zen ----- End forwarded message -----
On 07/21/2017 08:26 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote:
One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me.
I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting.
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof. The nice thing about free software is anyone can add those features, or pay for them to be added. So even your non-government or non-US programmers can change the code and run their own custom version of Tor. The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:51:11PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 07/21/2017 08:26 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote:
One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me.
I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting.
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
Shawn you're a funny lad - a little too transparent for your own good but hey, that's better from my perspective :D
If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
Oh please! Awesome - I love this in the morning, makes for a really happy day which I know is pre-laced with humour unseen by the one delivering the punch lines. Gold :) Your transparency is causing me to not stop chuckling. Juan is sharper than I and he spotted you ages ago.
The nice thing about free software is anyone can add those features, or pay for them to be added. So even your non-government or non-US programmers can change the code and run their own custom version of Tor. The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue.
Thank you for reiterating part of my email with which we evidently agree on. Have a great day - mine started out fabulous :D Z
On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:51:11PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 07/21/2017 08:26 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote: One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me.
I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting.
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
Shawn you're a funny lad - a little too transparent for your own good but hey, that's better from my perspective :D
If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
Oh please! Awesome - I love this in the morning, makes for a really happy day which I know is pre-laced with humour unseen by the one delivering the punch lines. Gold :)
Your transparency is causing me to not stop chuckling. Juan is sharper than I and he spotted you ages ago.
Yes, Juan is. You're a moron.
The nice thing about free software is anyone can add those features, or pay for them to be added. So even your non-government or non-US programmers can change the code and run their own custom version of Tor. The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue.
Thank you for reiterating part of my email with which we evidently agree on.
Have a great day - mine started out fabulous :D Z
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:17:12AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:51:11PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 07/21/2017 08:26 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote: One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me.
I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting.
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
Shawn you're a funny lad - a little too transparent for your own good but hey, that's better from my perspective :D
If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
Oh please! Awesome - I love this in the morning, makes for a really happy day which I know is pre-laced with humour unseen by the one delivering the punch lines. Gold :)
Your transparency is causing me to not stop chuckling. Juan is sharper than I and he spotted you ages ago.
Yes, Juan is. You're a moron.
You're evidently a deeply nuanced intellectual. Or something ...
The nice thing about free software is anyone can add those features, or pay for them to be added. So even your non-government or non-US programmers can change the code and run their own custom version of Tor. The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue.
Thank you for reiterating part of my email with which we evidently agree on.
Have a great day - mine started out fabulous :D Z
On Jul 22, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:17:12AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:51:11PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 07/21/2017 08:26 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote: One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me.
I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting.
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
Shawn you're a funny lad - a little too transparent for your own good but hey, that's better from my perspective :D
If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
Oh please! Awesome - I love this in the morning, makes for a really happy day which I know is pre-laced with humour unseen by the one delivering the punch lines. Gold :)
Your transparency is causing me to not stop chuckling. Juan is sharper than I and he spotted you ages ago.
Yes, Juan is. You're a moron.
You're evidently a deeply nuanced intellectual.
Or something ...
You're a smarmy dictator & death squad loving little gullible twit who believes or pretends to believe some really noxious shit. Send some more updates on the holohoax and some Russian propaganda - you know, what you mostly send, and what no one wants to see, or replies to. ;) You're a joke. Or something....
The nice thing about free software is anyone can add those features, or pay for them to be added. So even your non-government or non-US programmers can change the code and run their own custom version of Tor. The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue.
Thank you for reiterating part of my email with which we evidently agree on.
Have a great day - mine started out fabulous :D Z
On 07/21/2017 10:16 PM, John Newman chided ZH
Send some more updates on the holohoax and some Russian propaganda - you know, what you mostly send, and what no one wants to see, or replies to. ;)
You're a joke.
Or something...
Here's something... "This Is Every Single Online Debate (and irl too!) I’ve Ever Had About Russiagate: Me: [Writes something skeptical of the establishment Russia narrative.] Russiagater: Oh! Hahaha! Look at this crazy Russia-denying bitch! Are you just an idiot, or are you a Kremlin bot? Me: Go away. Russiagater: So I guess you’re just in total denial about [insert this week’s plot-hole riddled “bombshell” story from the New York Times or Washington Post]? Me: That’s not a thing. In a couple days you’ll have absorbed some arguments from outside your echo chamber, you’ll realize this isn’t the smoking gun your television told you it is, and you’ll calm down. Russiagater: Oh my God! You people are impervious to reason! The highest level of our government has been infiltrated by a hostile nation! Me: There’s zero proof of that. Russiagater: What are you talking about? There are piles upon piles of evidence! You just refuse to look at it because you love tRump Trumplestiltskin Orange Hitler Putin’s boyfriend tRump tRump tRump! Me: Dude I’ll literally fly to your house and suck your dick right now if you can prove it to me. Russiagater: There’s too much smoke for there not to be fire. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The Trump Jr. thing, the Flynn thing, the Manafort thing. Look at this graphic of Russian oligarchs with red lines connected to Trump campaign staffers! Me: That is not even a tiny bit remotely close to proof. Russiagater: You’ve got your head in the sand! What will it take for you to admit you’ve been wrong about this Russia stuff? Me: Proof. Like, any. After the lies we’ve been told about Iraq, Libya and Syria in the last few years I’m going to require a whole lot of proof before I believe anything the US power establishment says about Russia. Currently there is none. Zero. At all. Not for the Russian hacking, not for “collusion” with the Russian government to hack the Democratic party, not for treason, not for any of it. Not one single part of your narrative is backed by hard, verifiable evidence. Russiagater: They said that about Watergate. It took years to see Nixon removed from office! Me: Watergate began with a real burglary that actually happened. They ran mug shots of the perps in the paper. Russiagate is comprised entirely of unsubstantiated claims spoken in authoritative tones by the same establishment loyalists who told us Saddam had WMDs. Russiagater: Robert Mueller! Me: Oh here we go… Russiagater: It’s an ongoing investigation though! These things take time. You don’t know they won’t find anything! Me: See? See how that happened? You entered this conversation making bold, confident-sounding claims that the White House has been taken over by the Kremlin, and after a brief back-and-forth you’re mumbling something about an ongoing investigation that might maybe lead to something someday. Why did you do that? You guys do that every single time. You start out loud, confident and assertive, and after a few exchanges you’re telling me the investigation is ongoing and I don’t know what they will or will not find. Why not just begin the conversation with the posture you’re ending it in? Why not wait until they do find something? Wouldn’t that be infinitely more honest than beginning the conversation with claims you know you can’t substantiate? Why are you helping to advance a completely unproven narrative? Russiagater: So are you an idiot, or a Kremlin bot? Me: Go away." Caitlin Johnstone @Medium https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/this-is-every-single-online-debate-ive-ev... Rr Ps. As I've said before Expect ongoing COLLUSION between the US government and Russia no matter which scumbag's in charge to rape the extractive resources of the planet with China as slave shop nation turning those resources into consumer items for the diminishing ranks of the affluent of those three nations to buy. Watch Syria. That 'ceasefire' is really a 'prelude to partition', and testbed for further collusion. https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21725176-latest-ceasef... https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+partition+plan
On Jul 22, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:17:12AM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:51:11PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 07/21/2017 08:26 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote: One of the key features that the Tor company/group has never implemented is chaff-filled network - that is, you specify "I want to allocate 100 KB/s to my node, and I want that divided equally amongst my outward connections, and any peer node that "randomly drops" packets, becomes less trusted by me.
I asked the devs directly (or someone else did, can't remember for sure), and the reason came back "our funding proposals for this feature have never been approved" - which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network, they don't want to fund features which make it much harder for them to uncloak users they are targetting. Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see. Shawn you're a funny lad - a little too transparent for your own good but hey, that's better from my perspective :D
If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof. Oh please! Awesome - I love this in the morning, makes for a really happy day which I know is pre-laced with humour unseen by the one delivering the punch lines. Gold :)
Your transparency is causing me to not stop chuckling. Juan is sharper than I and he spotted you ages ago.
Yes, Juan is. You're a moron. You're evidently a deeply nuanced intellectual.
Or something ...
You're a smarmy dictator & death squad loving little gullible twit who believes or pretends to believe some really noxious shit.
Send some more updates on the holohoax and some Russian propaganda - you know, what you mostly send, and what no one wants to see, or replies to. ;)
You're a joke.
Or something....
The nice thing about free software is anyone can add those features, or pay for them to be added. So even your non-government or non-US programmers can change the code and run their own custom version of Tor. The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue. Thank you for reiterating part of my email with which we evidently agree on.
Have a great day - mine started out fabulous :D Z
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:51:11 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
why should anybody care what a shill like you say? if you have any proof that scumbag syverson @ mil isn't funded by the US military, provide it. otherwise kindly shut the fuck up.
On 07/22/2017 04:33 AM, #$%& wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:51:11 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
if you have any proof that scumbag syverson @ mil isn't funded by the US military, provide it.
Oh, so according to you, now it's on me to prove a negative. And you can't prove a negative. I'm going to repeat what I said: Currently, the Tor project is getting zero government funding as best I can tell. If you can prove otherwise (which is proving a positive assertion, in other words, that they are), I would like to see it. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 14:40:36 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 07/22/2017 04:33 AM, #$%& wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:51:11 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see.
if you have any proof that scumbag syverson @ mil isn't funded by the US military, provide it.
Oh, so according to you, now it's on me to prove a negative. And you can't prove a negative.
LMAO!!! Of course you can prove whether the tor scumbags ARE financed by the us militarty OR NOT. Do you get it fucktard? If you prove that they get their money from source A, then you are proving that they DON'T get it from B, C, D and the rest of the universe. You are proving a 'negative'. What a fucking idiot you are Shawn. Or is it corrupt to the core?
I'm going to repeat what I said:
Currently, the Tor project is getting zero government funding as best I can tell.
And your proof is?
If you can prove otherwise (which is proving a positive assertion, in other words, that they are), I would like to see it.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
proof is right there on Tor's own site. there is still substantial US government funding. according to the Tor Project "Sponsors" page ( https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en), current funders include: -- the Open Technology Fund (https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq), a subsidiary of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/, https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/), a long-time sponsor of Tor, and the US government agency that sponsors the various "Radio Free" projects and has deep ties to CIA and other parts of the intelligence apparatus; -- the National Science Foundation, the science funding body of the Federal government. Other funders who might raise red flags due to relatively deep involved with both government and corporate power bases include SRI International, a non-profit that works closely with the US government on many projects, Media Democracy Fund, and Google. of the direct US govt funders it is probably OTF that is most concerning & the one that's been discussed by journalists and others. OTF is a... very weird organization, and it's been the main target of those who've criticized Tor's funding, other than past direct military funding. NSF is pretty basic-science oriented and the grants that funded those are publicly available & probably not for general operating funds. also of note is that while that page says US State Dept funding ended in 2016, for some reason it remains listed under "Current sponsors." hard to tell what "current" means since the page isn't dated. at any rate, State was still a funder as of the latest annual Financial Report. - z
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 15:52:28 -0400 z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
proof is right there on Tor's own site.
Thanks! So you did shawn quinn's homework =) I was expecting him to post the relevant data but of course expecting even a shred of intellectual honesty from shawn quinn is...very naive or, I admit, outright stupid.
there is still substantial US government funding. according to the Tor Project "Sponsors" page ( https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en), current funders include:
-- the Open Technology Fund (https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq), a subsidiary of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/, https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/), a long-time sponsor of Tor, and the US government agency that sponsors the various "Radio Free" projects and has deep ties to CIA and other parts of the intelligence apparatus; -- the National Science Foundation, the science funding body of the Federal government.
Other funders who might raise red flags due to relatively deep involved with both government and corporate power bases include SRI International, a non-profit that works closely with the US government on many projects, Media Democracy Fund, and Google.
of the direct US govt funders it is probably OTF that is most concerning & the one that's been discussed by journalists and others. OTF is a... very weird organization, and it's been the main target of those who've criticized Tor's funding, other than past direct military funding.
NSF is pretty basic-science oriented and the grants that funded those are publicly available & probably not for general operating funds.
also of note is that while that page says US State Dept funding ended in 2016, for some reason it remains listed under "Current sponsors." hard to tell what "current" means since the page isn't dated. at any rate, State was still a funder as of the latest annual Financial Report.
- z
On 07/23/2017 02:52 PM, z9wahqvh wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com <mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com>> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
proof is right there on Tor's own site. there is still substantial US government funding. according to the Tor Project "Sponsors" page (https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en <https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en>), current funders include:
-- the Open Technology Fund (https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq <https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq>), a subsidiary of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/, https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/ <https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/>), a long-time sponsor of Tor, and the US government agency that sponsors the various "Radio Free" projects and has deep ties to CIA and other parts of the intelligence apparatus; -- the National Science Foundation, the science funding body of the Federal government.
So strictly speaking, I was a bit off the mark. However, I think neither the OTF nor the NSF are able to exert the kind of pressure that #$%&#$ was asserting to be the reason that there is no chaff-filled network feature in Tor. And it still means #$%&#$ was probably wrong on this statement:
which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network
but of course the conspiracy theorists and the people like #$%& who insist I work for the US government (a huge laugh given my past, BTW) are going to say that NSF money and CIA/DIA/DOD/NSA money are the same, yada yada yada, bullshit bullshit bullshit (to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic).
NSF is pretty basic-science oriented and the grants that funded those are publicly available & probably not for general operating funds.
Right. In other words, it's not laundered NSA money to put a subtle backdoor in despite what #$%& is going to try to tell us. Glad we're clear on that.
also of note is that while that page says US State Dept funding ended in 2016, for some reason it remains listed under "Current sponsors." hard to tell what "current" means since the page isn't dated. at any rate, State was still a funder as of the latest annual Financial Report.
This is the one that worries me a bit. Now I'd rather the State Department not fund Tor, but the timing of the drop-off says a lot. (Hint: What happened at the end of 2016?) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
GPA weakness (even the harder GAA) have been known all around tor, and certainly by all observant G-departments, since years. Any G money that does not then in turn direct some of itself to solving those weakness... "is the same", and likely a game, a game of nice distracting teats for corp boards, execs, and devs, particularly those where milking them is a complacent captured complicit compliant or even professional job, or a necessity, such as to pay G printed money mortgages and subsidized degrees. It may be another discussion why non-G anti-GPA money may not have yet appeared to date. And another whatever it was about anti-GPA funds... - "we didn't make any funding proposals" vs - "our proposals weren't funded, or [1]" vs - "no sponsors offered us unsolicited funds, or [1]" vs - [1] "things came in but were declined" While at it, solve all other places in world where these games occur.
On 07/23/2017 02:52 PM, z9wahqvh wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com <mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com>> wrote:
Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove otherwise, please post the proof.
proof is right there on Tor's own site. there is still substantial US government funding. according to the Tor Project "Sponsors" page (https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en <https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en>), current funders include:
-- the Open Technology Fund (https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq <https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq>), a subsidiary of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/, https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/ <https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/>), a long-time sponsor of Tor, and the US government agency that sponsors the various "Radio Free" projects and has deep ties to CIA and other parts of the intelligence apparatus; -- the National Science Foundation, the science funding body of the Federal government.
So strictly speaking, I was a bit off the mark. However, I think neither the OTF nor the NSF are able to exert the kind of pressure that #$%&#$ was asserting to be the reason that there is no chaff-filled network feature in Tor. And it still means #$%&#$ was probably wrong on this statement:
which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation of the Tor network
but of course the conspiracy theorists and the people like #$%& who insist I work for the US government (a huge laugh given my past, BTW) are going to say that NSF money and CIA/DIA/DOD/NSA money are the same, yada yada yada, bullshit bullshit bullshit (to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic).
NSF is pretty basic-science oriented and the grants that funded those are publicly available & probably not for general operating funds.
Right. In other words, it's not laundered NSA money to put a subtle backdoor in despite what #$%& is going to try to tell us. Glad we're clear on that.
also of note is that while that page says US State Dept funding ended in 2016, for some reason it remains listed under "Current sponsors." hard to tell what "current" means since the page isn't dated. at any rate, State was still a funder as of the latest annual Financial Report.
This is the one that worries me a bit. Now I'd rather the State Department not fund Tor, but the timing of the drop-off says a lot. (Hint: What happened at the end of 2016?) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
The features you mention don't even break compatibility with the rest of the network, so that's not an issue.
Could depend on the complexity involved in ensuring sufficient presence of filled links in the network for the paths such that any odds of "at two points" visibility, implausibility, or other degenerate cases, never occur. Seems a fairly high bar. Might be simpler to drop compatibility for non fill mode participants, or not. More research, whether funded or not, is needed there.
participants (7)
-
grarpamp -
John Newman -
juan -
Razer -
Shawn K. Quinn -
z9wahqvh -
Zenaan Harkness