the most annoying thing about Juan
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;) If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil. It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally. Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors. As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:40:20AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil. It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally. Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
Oh come on! What's a little backdoor between enemies? Picky picky...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil.
So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb? Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE. Is something unclear?
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil.
So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb?
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared. So it sounds like just an assumption.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;) So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically, that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil. If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor? Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:02 AM Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil.
So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb?
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared. So it sounds like just an assumption.
So much about security is based on probabilities and unknowns, and our own privacy is such a personal issue, that I don't think this is something that's going to be solved by "evidence." Some people are going to be uncomfortable using or supporting Tor no matter what because of its history, and now potentially because they blame Tor for what happened to Appelbaum. Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman, just wished they had such big balls rather than being concerned over whether or not she actually wanted that.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
I think that what they are saying is that whether or not crypto is effective for a given application depends on the resources your adversaries are able and willing to apply to breaking it.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
Agreed. It's also the fundamental fallacy behind all of the NSA's attempts to weaken crypto.
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically, that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman,
Source please. No source and it didn't happen. Supply a source and it still might not have happened. What I'm seeing here is hearsay. Lots of that going around... Ask Juan. It's one of his his specialties. Rr On 07/20/2016 09:24 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:02 AM Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net <mailto:mirimir@riseup.net>> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 > Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net <mailto:mirimir@riseup.net>> wrote: > >> On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >>> The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right >>> all along about Tor Inc. >> >> Well, I wouldn't go that far ;) >> >> If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it >> for evil. > > So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain > fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb? > > Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If > on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT > SECURE. > > Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared. So it sounds like just an assumption.
So much about security is based on probabilities and unknowns, and our own privacy is such a personal issue, that I don't think this is something that's going to be solved by "evidence." Some people are going to be uncomfortable using or supporting Tor no matter what because of its history, and now potentially because they blame Tor for what happened to Appelbaum.
Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman, just wished they had such big balls rather than being concerned over whether or not she actually wanted that.
>> It's the same argument that we make about encryption >> generally. > > No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
I think that what they are saying is that whether or not crypto is effective for a given application depends on the resources your adversaries are able and willing to apply to breaking it.
>> Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep >> anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors. > > Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities > that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
Agreed. It's also the fundamental fallacy behind all of the NSA's attempts to weaken crypto.
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
>> As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him. > > What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically, that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:43 AM Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman,
Source please. No source and it didn't happen. Supply a source and it still might not have happened.
I'm not interested in trying to convince you or anyone else that it happened. I am telling you why *I* am convinced. You can decide I'm stupid if you like, just like I'll decide you're motivated by other reasons besides just thinking there's a government/SJW conspiracy. What I'm seeing here is hearsay.
Yep. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in court. For all others, it's preponderance of evidence. You certainly don't seem to require any evidence to believe his accusers are liars. Lots of that going around... Ask Juan. It's one of his his specialties.
As I've said before, a large fraction of what we do is subjective and very personal. And subject to a lot of passion. Nothing wrong with that.
On 07/20/2016 09:56 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:43 AM Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net <mailto:rayzer@riseup.net>> wrote:
Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman,
Source please. No source and it didn't happen. Supply a source and it still might not have happened.
I'm not interested in trying to convince you or anyone else that it happened. I am telling you why *I* am convinced. You can decide I'm stupid if you like, just like I'll decide you're motivated by other reasons besides just thinking there's a government/SJW conspiracy.
The conspiracy is organizational, and feudal in nature. I've seen similar and anyone whose ever worked for a corporation has seen similar slander campaigns.
What I'm seeing here is hearsay.
Yep. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in court. For all others, it's preponderance of evidence. You certainly don't seem to require any evidence to believe his accusers are liars.
Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in 'Merica. IF it was so widely observed why haven't charges been filed anywhere about anything. Until then, it's ALL BULLSHIT.
Lots of that going around... Ask Juan. It's one of his his specialties.
As I've said before, a large fraction of what we do is subjective and very personal. And subject to a lot of passion. Nothing wrong with that.
Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering. I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused like this, and eventually their accusers moved on, along with their Orcs. No one misses them. Rr
2016-07-20 20:32 GMT+03:00 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net>:
Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering. I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused like this.
+1! Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in
'Merica.
that's the way it MUST work in any normal society/person's head. Otherwise it's medieval inquisition. Period.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:27 AM Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-07-20 20:32 GMT+03:00 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net>:
Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering.
I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused
like this.
+1!
Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in
'Merica.
that's the way it MUST work in any normal society/person's head. Otherwise it's medieval inquisition. Period.
So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them? Let an accused child molester be alone with your kids because they were never convicted? There are different standards of proof for different functions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not necessary for "we don't want this person associated with our project/company/etc". No standard whatsoever is required for an individual deciding with whom to do business, who to trust to watch their kids or housesit, etc.
From: Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:27 AM Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote: 2016-07-20 20:32 GMT+03:00 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net>: Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering. I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused like this. +1! Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in 'Merica. that's the way it MUST work in any normal society/person's head. Otherwise it's medieval inquisition. Period.
So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them? Let an accused child molester be alone with your kids >because they were never convicted? There are different standards of proof for different functions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not necessary for "we don't want this person >associated with our project/company/etc". No standard whatsoever is required for an individual deciding with whom to do business, who to trust >to watch their kids or housesit, etc. I absolutely agree with your statement. Too many people forget that "beyond a reasonable doubt"and "innocent until proven guilty" are simply terms which apply to the American (and British, and others)legal systems, and don't automatically apply to all other human interaction. (That doesn't mean that we should somehowadopt "guilty until proven innocent"). Jim Bell
On 07/20/2016 12:16 PM, Sean Lynch wrote: So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them? Depends on who those people are, and if they're not willing to confront the person BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (in this case meaning get the cops), I ABSOLUTELY assume bullshit. You can say whatever you like, but if you can take action, especially action that isn't going to get you 30-90 days or longer for dotting someone's i, and you don't... You're a punk. Rr
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:27 AM Александр <afalex169@gmail.com <mailto:afalex169@gmail.com>> wrote:
2016-07-20 20:32 GMT+03:00 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net <mailto:rayzer@riseup.net>>:
Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering.
I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused like this.
+1!
Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in 'Merica.
that's the way it MUST work in any normal society/person's head. Otherwise it's medieval inquisition. Period.
So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them? Let an accused child molester be alone with your kids because they were never convicted?
There are different standards of proof for different functions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not necessary for "we don't want this person associated with our project/company/etc". No standard whatsoever is required for an individual deciding with whom to do business, who to trust to watch their kids or housesit, etc.
Rapper KRS-One checks in regarding the institutional slander of Hip-Hop master Afrika Bambaataa and backs my play. http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/07/20/krs-one-defends-afrika-bambaataa-tell... Wanna box MFs? Some of you you seem to live in a sheltered cubie world... just waiting for someone you talked smack about to simply show up with a tec9 and finish the discussion. Stress much? The REAL world out there is VERY DIFFERENT, yet after decades of backstabbing and office shooter incidents, some of you remain simply stoopid. As I told a group of people at a public event just the other day in response to a question posed by a local pastor about people talking behind one's back:
"You can talk about me behind my back, or in front of me, but you'd better be speaking the truth or else there's going to be trouble."
Someone talking smack without the facts is a snitch waiting to get stitched, and NO ONE will feel sorry for them. Until someone files charges, no matter WHAT the claims are, I back Jacob Appelbaum 100% and I do not even know him. It's called "Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world, and over the years turned it into a damn near useless pursuit... working for the moneymen who pretty much stopped any real development in the world of personal computing dead in it's fucking tracks. Rr On 07/20/2016 06:47 PM, Rayzer wrote:
On 07/20/2016 12:16 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them?
Depends on who those people are, and if they're not willing to confront the person BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (in this case meaning get the cops), I ABSOLUTELY assume bullshit.
You can say whatever you like, but if you can take action, especially action that isn't going to get you 30-90 days or longer for dotting someone's i, and you don't...
You're a punk.
Rr
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:27 AM Александр <afalex169@gmail.com <mailto:afalex169@gmail.com>> wrote:
2016-07-20 20:32 GMT+03:00 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net <mailto:rayzer@riseup.net>>:
Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering.
I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused like this.
+1!
Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in 'Merica.
that's the way it MUST work in any normal society/person's head. Otherwise it's medieval inquisition. Period.
So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them? Let an accused child molester be alone with your kids because they were never convicted?
There are different standards of proof for different functions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not necessary for "we don't want this person associated with our project/company/etc". No standard whatsoever is required for an individual deciding with whom to do business, who to trust to watch their kids or housesit, etc.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:49:38 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
"Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world,
And here we have master rayzer, who is not a 'troll', whining about libertarian programmers in the cpunks mailing list. Sonny, ask some computer literate person to unsubscribe you from this list and subscribe you to marxist.fascists@tor.pentagon.com
On 07/21/2016 09:30 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:49:38 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
"Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world, And here we have master rayzer, who is not a 'troll', whining about libertarian programmers in the cpunks mailing list.
Sonny, ask some computer literate person to unsubscribe you from this list and subscribe you to marxist.fascists@tor.pentagon.com
Respond to the post troll.
On 07/21/2016 09:30 AM, juan wrote: Sonny... Trolling for a response to catalog my age. Older than dirt. Breadboard daze. Rr
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:49:38 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
"Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world, And here we have master rayzer, who is not a 'troll', whining about libertarian programmers in the cpunks mailing list.
Sonny, ask some computer literate person to unsubscribe you from this list and subscribe you to marxist.fascists@tor.pentagon.com
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:17:10 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/21/2016 09:30 AM, juan wrote:
Sonny...
Trolling for a response to catalog my age.
You already gave hints regarding your age more than once. So I wouldn't need to catalog anything now. Not that I give a damn about your age of course.
Older than dirt. Breadboard daze.
Rr
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:49:38 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
"Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world, And here we have master rayzer, who is not a 'troll', whining about libertarian programmers in the cpunks mailing list.
Sonny, ask some computer literate person to unsubscribe you from this list and subscribe you to marxist.fascists@tor.pentagon.com
On 07/21/2016 05:40 PM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:17:10 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/21/2016 09:30 AM, juan wrote:
Sonny...
Trolling for a response to catalog my age. You already gave hints regarding your age more than once. So I wouldn't need to catalog anything now. Not that I give a damn about your age of course.
Ofc you don't 'sonny' I've given enough info for the feds to know exactly who I am even without cyber-detective work. I don't give a fuck. I can smell pork at 100 yards, even before it's on the spit roasting. Rr
Older than dirt. Breadboard daze.
Rr
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:49:38 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
"Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world, And here we have master rayzer, who is not a 'troll', whining about libertarian programmers in the cpunks mailing list.
Sonny, ask some computer literate person to unsubscribe you from this list and subscribe you to marxist.fascists@tor.pentagon.com
Reference for 'FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world,' Scumbucket moneymen who destroyed personal computing and turned it into entertainment toys-for-al et al "And now, with that said, here is the "#Police Are Slave Patrollers" Chrome extension on the Google Web Store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/police-are-slave-patrolle/ngjggakc... … Enjoy. Read the comments from coders... https://twitter.com/maymaymx/status/756302869716926469 Rr On 07/21/2016 09:30 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:49:38 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
"Solidarity". Something lacking among FEUDAL LIBERTARIANS who infest the coding world, And here we have master rayzer, who is not a 'troll', whining about libertarian programmers in the cpunks mailing list.
Sonny, ask some computer literate person to unsubscribe you from this list and subscribe you to marxist.fascists@tor.pentagon.com
Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry Passion is no excuse for rumor-mongering.
I just happen to know WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE who have been falsely accused
like this.
+1!
Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work in 'Merica.
that's the way it MUST work in any normal society/person's head. Otherwise it's medieval inquisition. Period.
2016-07-20 22:16 GMT+03:00 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org>: So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them? Let an accused child molester be alone with your kids because they were never convicted?
Let's play this game.
1. So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them?
They said? Ok. I'll give you/everybody and example from my personal life: They said? Oh, the old ladies downstairs also saying ... saying... i'm a gay (some of them claim now a pervert one, oh, you know, slander always evolves. and in Russia gay... is worse than a leprous) *so WHY are they saying so?!* a. They are really bored and evil. b. They SAW SOMETHING what they distorted. 'cause they saw me one time "hugging some guy" (it was my brother by the way whom i brought from the airport). AND? Am i a gay?! 'cause the whole building and many relatives of those old ladies are sure AND say i'm a pervert gay. Ok, they say. But with your fucken logic, i am. It's not that i have something against them, but *it's A LIE*. That's the point here. *But people like you, who are "passioned" believe this shit "without a trial" (a check with me, at least)* by the way, God what a howl was one time when i played and laughed with one of their grandchildren... that's the day i first heard this slander about me. Back to your statement "So you're saying you'd do business with someone that several people said robbed them?"- I would check it by myself and not PREjudice the person beforehand. And yes, i would do business with someone whom "many" people dislike/judge before he himself proves me he is a fucker (or there was a fair trial). 2. Let an accused child molester be alone with your kids because they were
never convicted?
Sean, he was officially accused, but not convicted or.. you are talking again about "rumors" and "sayings". If so, i don't give a damn shit about those sayings.I, myself, not far away from getting this accusation too. And based on what? Some hallucinations of old grannies with rotten mind? ___ *I claim that ONE CANNOT JUDGE THE OTHER UNLESS HE WAS PERSONALLY ASSAULTED BY HIM/HER OR THAT PERSON WAS OFFICIALLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED* (so yes, there are very contradictive cases... but at least, this person was officially accused if not convicted and we can inspect all the documents and we know who are his accusers. that's the bare fucken *minimum*, not that there were not thousands of fake cases, especially with women who revenged their "ex man") *And Appelbaum? * You judge him by some fucken rumors - you said that yourself. Exactly like all the parents of this building judged me by rumors created by old bitch and are afraid to see kids near me. Not only there was no conviction in a trial against Appelbaum, but NO EVEN ONE OFFICIAL ACCUSATION from those "victims" (which is no problem to do, you know, but those fuckers don't want to do *the bare minimum*, because they are afraid that the lie will blow up in the police station sooner or later). *So for me, they are SLANDERS. It's a SMEAR CAMPAIGN. Jake IS innocent. That's it.* I am saying a fair trial. And not some fucken rumors. And you are saying "rumors" -> thus Appelbaum/me/you are fucked up. As i said, it's a way to inquisition trials. Which are based on no true evidences, but rumors/feelings and in which you are guilty until proven otherwise. *And this is the ultimate EVIL.*
I think we need a mandatory reading list - topics, and mandatory reading on each topic, to consider oneself "informed" for a debate (and I say this as someone who has too often jammed foot in mouth, and been not informed on topics I thought I was, and presumably still fall FAR short on!) - anyone up for starting a gitified recommended reading list?: ** innocent until proven guilty vs lynch mobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_witch_trials Of Witch Trials and Inquisitions http://grailmaiden.crazedfanboy.com/brans/inquis1.html Salem Witch Trials vs. the Spanish Inquisition - StarDestroyer.Net BBS https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=5473 A Brief History Of The Salem Witch Trials - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1916888/posts The Malleus Maleficarum http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/cienciareal12.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence Kenja Theatre Documentary - Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Kenja ... http://www.guilty-until-proven-innocent.com/ Justice: Which countries treat suspects as guilty until proven innocent? https://www.quora.com/Justice-Which-countries-treat-suspects-as-guilty-until... It's bad everywhere, including here in Australia, from "crimes" where there are no victims (as in most of "the west") to instutitionalization of the principle of guilty until you prove your damn innocence. Australia is a classic example of a messed up country - this stuff destoys familes, lives, and IS institutionalized in our country: Hazem El Masri case shows Australia has a problem with innocent until proven guilty http://www.smh.com.au/comment/hazem-el-masri-case-shows-australia-has-a-prob... " The principle of treating someone as innocent until they are proven guilty no longer exists. George Williams March 15 2016 George Williams 'Trouble just happens to find you': Hazem El Masri opens up http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/trouble-just-happens-to-find-... Australia has a problem with the presumption of innocence. It is being displaced by a rush to judgment. The reasons for this are understandable, but problematic. People want to believe that the perpetrator of a violent act has been found and arrested. They want to see someone punished for the crime. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/hazem-el-masri-case-shows-australia-has-a-prob... El Masri urges others to report violence Hazem El Masri has spoken to the press after charges against him were dropped. He encouraged those listening to report all instances of domestic violence. The likelihood of prejudgment is increased when the accused fits the profile of a person expected to be involved in illegal activity. Such stereotypes are reinforced by media reporting, and can be compounded by politicians willing to echo, rather than question, community preconceptions. NRL players are often subject to such assumptions of guilt. Former NRL star Hazem El Masri is an example. Despite an unblemished record as a player, and a long history of community service, many were ready to assume that allegations of domestic violence were well-founded. Hazem El Masri after appearing at Bankstown court where all charges against him were dropped. Photo: Nick Moir As El Masri has said ( http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/trouble-just-happens-to-find-... ): "A lot of people branded me guilty without even a presumption of innocence beforehand … Everyone wants to jump on that bandwagon". The result was "probably … the toughest thing in my whole life". The episode has come at a great personal cost, even though he has now been vindicated. The allegations against him have been shown to be false, and the charges withdrawn by the police ( http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/domestic-violence-charges-aga...). His case raises questions about how well we respect the notion that a person must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Known as "the golden thread" of the criminal law, the presumption means that the prosecution must prove the guilt of a person beyond reasonable doubt. This enables our society to be underpinned by justice and fair treatment. It acts as a crucial counterweight to the tendency to prejudge. The law must reflect this principle. Unfortunately, and increasingly, it does not. For many years, parliaments around Australia have enacted new statutes that erode the presumption of innocence. This in turn has contributed to a growing community culture in which it has become more acceptable to judge a person based upon media coverage and political commentary, rather than on the basis of evidence assessed by a judge or jury. This problem is now so widespread that it was the subject of a speech last month by the Chief Justice of NSW, Tom Bathurst. His survey of the NSW statute book threw up more than just a few instances here and there. The results were shocking in showing that breaches of the presumption have become a routine part of the legislative process. His conservative estimate was that there are at least 52 laws in the state that encroach upon the principle. It is being whittled away, piece by piece. One example is section 685 of the Local Government Act. It reverses the presumption of innocence by making that mere allegations, such as that someone has not received a council approval, is "sufficient proof of the matter" alleged. In the words of the chief justice, this "renders someone guilty of a criminal offence by a mere accusation". Another example is section 60E of the Water Management Act. It says that where water is taken without a licence, the occupier of the relevant premises is deemed guilty of an offence. Remarkably, the act goes on to state that this does not prevent proceedings being brought against "the person who actually committed the offence". Federal law provides many further examples. A long list is set out in the report on traditional rights and freedoms released earlier this month by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Some of the federal laws that breach the presumption are in expected areas such as terrorism and drug offences. Others relate to taxation, copyright and marriage. The commission's report reveals that infringements upon the principle are pervasive, and that many such laws are enacted without exciting media attention or political debate. It has simply become common to treat a person as being guilty unless they can show otherwise. The consequences are enormous. It means that people can be imprisoned where once they would have been let free. Bail laws have been tightened, and prisons filled to overcrowding, on the basis that accusations should more readily allow a person to be detained before trial. Despite this, politicians are still prone to recite the mantra that a person is innocent until proven guilty. At some point, such exhortations must ring hollow. As the long list of laws breaching the presumption of innocence grows, we are losing something fundamental and important from our system of justice. A long-standing principle protective of individuals and the truth is giving way to a regime based increasingly upon assumptions and premature judgment. In the light of this, the treatment of El Masri should come as no surprise. George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales Twitter: @ProfGWilliams
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:24:04 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared. So it sounds like just an assumption.
So much about security is based on probabilities and unknowns,
It seems kinda obvious to me that analyzing the security of say a symetric encryption algorithm is very different than analyzing the security of something like tor. In the case of tor there a A LOT more probabilities and unknowns involved. Also in the case of tor there are a few very damning knowns. So, any advertising regarding something like tor must have a lot more disclaimers than say, AES advertising.
and our own privacy is such a personal issue, that I don't think this is something that's going to be solved by "evidence." Some people are going to be uncomfortable using or supporting Tor no matter what because of its history,
It's not just 'history'. Tor is fucked up because of its nature, purpose and past and current funding.
and now potentially because they blame Tor for what happened to Appelbaum.
The appelbaum soap opera is totally irrelevant actually, except that it's good because it shows that the members of the tor project are backstabbing clowns. Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust themselves deserve.
Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman, just wished they had such big balls rather than being concerned over whether or not she actually wanted that.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
I think that what they are saying is that whether or not crypto is effective for a given application depends on the resources your adversaries are able and willing to apply to breaking it.
The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
Agreed. It's also the fundamental fallacy behind all of the NSA's attempts to weaken crypto.
There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because that serves their ends. And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the ones they sabotaged. But, again, this doesn't apply to tor.
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you are not thinking as correctly as you should.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically, that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
On 07/21/2016 01:16 AM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:24:04 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared. So it sounds like just an assumption.
So much about security is based on probabilities and unknowns,
It seems kinda obvious to me that analyzing the security of say a symetric encryption algorithm is very different than analyzing the security of something like tor.
In the case of tor there a A LOT more probabilities and unknowns involved. Also in the case of tor there are a few very damning knowns.
So, any advertising regarding something like tor must have a lot more disclaimers than say, AES advertising.
I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
and our own privacy is such a personal issue, that I don't think this is something that's going to be solved by "evidence." Some people are going to be uncomfortable using or supporting Tor no matter what because of its history,
It's not just 'history'. Tor is fucked up because of its nature, purpose and past and current funding.
and now potentially because they blame Tor for what happened to Appelbaum.
The appelbaum soap opera is totally irrelevant actually, except that it's good because it shows that the members of the tor project are backstabbing clowns.
Indeed :)
Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust themselves deserve.
Tor is open source, so trusting software doesn't depend entirely on trusting coders.
Personally, from having talked to people who knew him that I've known for years, I am inclined to believe that Appelbaum did at least most of what he's accused of. But I blame the community for tolerating it and saying nothing at least as much as I blame him. He could not have existed without the legions of fanboys who, when they saw him trying to force a kiss on a woman, just wished they had such big balls rather than being concerned over whether or not she actually wanted that.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
I think that what they are saying is that whether or not crypto is effective for a given application depends on the resources your adversaries are able and willing to apply to breaking it.
The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching.
It's based on intercepts _and_ "fancy math and number crunching".
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
Agreed. It's also the fundamental fallacy behind all of the NSA's attempts to weaken crypto.
There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because that serves their ends.
And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the ones they sabotaged.
But, again, this doesn't apply to tor.
You are very suspicious ;)
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you are not thinking as correctly as you should.
They have done some pretty stupid things.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically, that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =) I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain what the US state is, what it has done and what it does. And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn' Let me know when they behave like decent humans being and do that.
Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust themselves deserve.
Tor is open source, so trusting software doesn't depend entirely on trusting coders.
Come on, not that one...
The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching.
It's based on intercepts _and_ "fancy math and number crunching".
No. It's timing, counting packets that kind of thing. Nothing fancy. I suppose they have dedicated hardware to do that sort of correlation, well call that 'number crunching' if you want...
There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because that serves their ends.
And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the ones they sabotaged.
But, again, this doesn't apply to tor.
You are very suspicious ;)
Yes. Do you 'trust' them? =)
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you are not thinking as correctly as you should.
They have done some pretty stupid things.
For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game. Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan proceeding?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:00:45AM -0300, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =)
I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain what the US state is, what it has done and what it does.
And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn'
I think that particular wording would not be received by them - perhaps you can propose a paragraph, for each of these proposed facts, and we can suggest some politically correct wording, you can vet that, then we can submit to them a proposed "Caveats in the Eye of the Beholder" proposed tpo.o extra web page?
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:51:59 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:00:45AM -0300, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =)
I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain what the US state is, what it has done and what it does.
And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn'
I think that particular wording would not be received by them - perhaps you can propose a paragraph, for each of these proposed facts, and we can suggest some politically correct wording,
That would be a funny excercise in satire, sarcasm and irony. Thanks for the offer, but I pass =P The more they show their true colors, the better. I wouldn't really want them to now start pretending that they are honest.
you can vet that, then we can submit to them a proposed "Caveats in the Eye of the Beholder" proposed tpo.o extra web page?
On 07/21/2016 03:00 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =)
I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain what the US state is, what it has done and what it does.
And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn'
Let me know when they behave like decent humans being and do that.
At this point, I'd settle for some disclaimers and warnings about vulnerabilities, and links to resources for addressing them.
Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust themselves deserve.
Tor is open source, so trusting software doesn't depend entirely on trusting coders.
Come on, not that one...
It ain't perfect, but it's better than nothing.
The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching.
It's based on intercepts _and_ "fancy math and number crunching".
No. It's timing, counting packets that kind of thing. Nothing fancy. I suppose they have dedicated hardware to do that sort of correlation, well call that 'number crunching' if you want...
Not that simple. Maybe not "fancy", but there's a *lot* of data. And when you look for correlation at such scales, false positives are a *huge* problem.
There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because that serves their ends.
And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the ones they sabotaged.
But, again, this doesn't apply to tor.
You are very suspicious ;)
Yes. Do you 'trust' them? =)
I don't trust anyone :)
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you are not thinking as correctly as you should.
They have done some pretty stupid things.
For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game.
They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to bankrupt itself and disappoint its population. But I think that they've consistently fucked up in the Middle East. Generally, they focus too much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual failure. They count too much on brute force.
Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan proceeding?
Short term, it's doing OK. Long term, probably not so good. I suspect that the Chinese have pwned them hard.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:14:24AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/21/2016 03:00 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you are not thinking as correctly as you should.
They have done some pretty stupid things.
For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game.
They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to bankrupt itself and disappoint its population.
You give too much credence to the USA - communism as practiced by Stalin's co-horts (different again from Stalinism the modern political ideology), is sort of like "democracy as practiced by the Western governments". Both were essentially fascist, certainly statist and socialist. And the massive internal inefficiencies, lack of motivators for those at the top to improve efficiencies of the society overall, and other problems, were a very large part of the problem - Bush and Clinton declaring behind closed doors "fuck it, we won, we will expand NATO all the way to Russia's borders" is mostly just ego on the part of certain North Americans.
But I think that they've consistently fucked up in the Middle East.
Ack.
Generally, they focus too much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual failure. They count too much on brute force.
The crazies from the basement are currently running this USA hegemon - we call them neocons or neo conservatives since they are puppets of the USA BISMIC - revolving doors and all that, the turbo charging of sociopathy. In the words of Juan, they're psycopaths! Respecting no sovereignty, no international law, not the rule of law, not innocence until proven guilty, no mutual respect for other nations, no respect for the supreme/ultimate sovereignty of the people (any people - it's own North American humans or humans anywhere else on the planet). USA is one seriously psychopathic nation bullying the rest of the world at the moment and daily droning innumerable humans to death, again all around the world. Insanity incarnate.
Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan proceeding?
Short term, it's doing OK. Long term, probably not so good.
I suspect that the Chinese have pwned them hard.
Let's hope China does not copy the USA's bullying ways when USA falls! Let's hope for the sake of the world, the the fall of the USA is a soft landing and not Hillary Psycopath Clinton's world war 3!
On July 21, 2016 6:43:33 AM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:14:24AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/21/2016 03:00 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
> So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you > just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That > they're so confident about their superior capabilities? >
The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you are not thinking as correctly as you should.
They have done some pretty stupid things.
For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game.
They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to bankrupt itself and disappoint its population.
You give too much credence to the USA - communism as practiced by Stalin's co-horts (different again from Stalinism the modern political ideology), is sort of like "democracy as practiced by the Western governments". Both were essentially fascist, certainly statist and socialist.
And the massive internal inefficiencies, lack of motivators for those at the top to improve efficiencies of the society overall, and other problems, were a very large part of the problem - Bush and Clinton declaring behind closed doors "fuck it, we won, we will expand NATO all the way to Russia's borders" is mostly just ego on the part of certain North Americans.
But I think that they've consistently fucked up in the Middle East.
Ack.
Generally, they focus too much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual failure. They count too much on brute force.
The crazies from the basement are currently running this USA hegemon - we call them neocons or neo conservatives since they are puppets of the USA BISMIC - revolving doors and all that, the turbo charging of sociopathy. In the words of Juan, they're psycopaths! Respecting no sovereignty, no international law, not the rule of law, not innocence until proven guilty, no mutual respect for other nations, no respect for the supreme/ultimate sovereignty of the people (any people - it's own North American humans or humans anywhere else on the planet).
USA is one seriously psychopathic nation bullying the rest of the world at the moment and daily droning innumerable humans to death, again all around the world.
Insanity incarnate.
Absolutely true. But if you think Russia destroying the hegemon will lead to some sort of Putopia, I think you are seriously deluded... All the big nation states act essentially psychopathic, fermenting conflict, ignoring crucial shit like the fact we are cooking our planet and humanity into an early grave, etc... John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:14:24 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to bankrupt itself and disappoint its population.
I don't think the US military did that at all. The russians and their 'satellites' shot themselves in the foot. The soviet system had more central planning and top-down control than fascist western corporatism and so it was less efficient. It's obviously better to give a bit more 'freedom' to your subjects so that you can fleece them better. Then they will happily murder children to defend mcdonalds and coca-cola. And yes, things like jew-kristian religion do help a good deal.
But I think that they've consistently fucked up in the Middle East.
Do they get their budget cut because of their supposed failures? Nope. They just keep getting more money and more power. Total success! Countries get destroyed and 'rebuilt' by american firms. Success.
Generally, they focus too much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual failure. They count too much on brute force.
Well, of course they are nothing but murderers. But succesful ones. I think calling them stupid would be misleading. They are competent in their narrow field.
Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan proceeding?
Short term, it's doing OK. Long term, probably not so good.
Time will tell...Eventually all empires fall, I guess...
I suspect that the Chinese have pwned them hard.
Military speaking? I don't know. Hints?
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 01:52:11 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil.
So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb?
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared.
It certainly is 'technical', pretty basic, and you must be as aware of this just as I am, so I don't understand why you want me to repeat it. Trolling? Bah. But here it goes again! Pay fucking attention. The US military is a 'global adversary' - they have enough taps on cables, exchanges, ASs, whatever, to be able to deanonimize tor users. Especially so called 'hidden' services. On the other hand, people like, say, Ross Ulbricht, don't have taps on the global fiber infrastructure, don't have access to IXPs, can't hack routers, etc. Get that? Furthermore the only psychos who have that level of access to the 'infrastructure' are the syverson psychos, the US military. The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and no one else can.
So it sounds like just an assumption.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
No fallacy. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT.
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK?
They can be OK, and I don't care for any 'general theory' about backdoors anyway - I'm just talking about or. The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military has sabotaged the internet.
Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so.
I don't think they are the dumb ones here...
That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
Yep. There's nothing surprinsing about that.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically,
Sorry Mirimir, if you first acknowledge facts, then I might entertain your hypotheticals.
that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
Are you trolling me?
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
On 07/21/2016 12:26 AM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 01:52:11 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil.
So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb?
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared.
It certainly is 'technical', pretty basic, and you must be as aware of this just as I am, so I don't understand why you want me to repeat it. Trolling? Bah.
But here it goes again! Pay fucking attention.
The US military is a 'global adversary' - they have enough taps on cables, exchanges, ASs, whatever, to be able to deanonimize tor users. Especially so called 'hidden' services.
On the other hand, people like, say, Ross Ulbricht, don't have taps on the global fiber infrastructure, don't have access to IXPs, can't hack routers, etc. Get that?
Furthermore the only psychos who have that level of access to the 'infrastructure' are the syverson psychos, the US military.
The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and no one else can.
What you say is possible. But none of us actually know how bad it is. Except, of course, for those with privileged information about US military capabilities ;) Tor Project says: | Anonymity Online | | Protect your privacy. Defend yourself | against network surveillance and traffic | analysis. | Tor prevents people from | learning your location or | browsing habits. You warn people not to use Tor, because it's useless against US military. And as I recall, you also reject Tor on moral grounds, because US military uses it for evil. I consider both positions to be irresponsible. Conning people into using Tor recklessly, with insecure setups, is at best irresponsible. If the goal is cover traffic for US military, it's malicious. But frightening people from using Tor, when there are no viable alternatives, is also at best irresponsible. Even if Tor is more or less useless against US military, it still protects users against other adversaries. And arguably it even protects most users from US military, if only because they're not important enough to focus on.
So it sounds like just an assumption.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
No fallacy. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT.
Putting it in caps doesn't make it right :)
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK?
They can be OK, and I don't care for any 'general theory' about backdoors anyway - I'm just talking about or.
I disagree about backdoors generally. But specifically about vulnerability of Tor to global adversaries, you may be right. But also you may be wrong.
The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military has sabotaged the internet.
Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so.
I don't think they are the dumb ones here...
;)
That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
Yep. There's nothing surprinsing about that.
I wonder if they have AIs yet. That would be amazing!
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically,
Sorry Mirimir, if you first acknowledge facts, then I might entertain your hypotheticals.
that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
Are you trolling me?
Not at all, Juan :)
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:43:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and no one else can.
What you say is possible.
Possible? Do you think that the utah datacenter is fantasy, that the klein 'disclosures' about ATT are fantasy, that all the snowden stuff is fantasy, etc? Those are not possibilities, those are facts.
Except, of course, for those with privileged information about US military capabilities ;)
The info is in the fucking public domain. And, considering what's in the public domain, even retards should assume that their 'secret' capabilities are even bigger.
Tor Project says:
| Anonymity Online | | Protect your privacy. Defend yourself | against network surveillance and traffic | analysis.
| Tor prevents people from | learning your location or | browsing habits.
You warn people not to use Tor, because it's useless against US military.
and even against the FBI, actually. Oh, here's more very old news 'DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-launderi...
And as I recall, you also reject Tor on moral grounds, because US military uses it for evil.
I am a libertarian. I correctly recognize the US military as the biggest threat to civilization on the whole fucking planet.
I consider both positions to be irresponsible. Conning people into using Tor recklessly, with insecure setups, is at best irresponsible. If the goal is cover traffic for US military, it's malicious.
But frightening people from using Tor,
I am not frightening anyone. I'm telling people the truth. Had people like Ulbricht assumed that tor was fucked he wouldn't be roting in jail right now, for instance.
when there are no viable alternatives, is also at best irresponsible.
You know there are alternatives. You just were promoting vpns a couple of days ago on tor-talk (and I'm glad you were)
Even if Tor is more or less useless against US military, it still protects users against other adversaries. And arguably it even protects most users from US military, if only because they're not important enough to focus on.
Tell that to freedom hosting and all the rest. I can keep going in circles, you know, constantly refuting your propaganda...
So it sounds like just an assumption.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
No fallacy. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT.
Putting it in caps doesn't make it right :)
You just repeat baseless, wrong assertions, so I'm going to keep saying that your baseless assertions ARE FALSE. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT and I already explained why, twice. Or perhaps ten times. Tor is backdoored by design. GPAs have access to the backdoor.
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK?
They can be OK, and I don't care for any 'general theory' about backdoors anyway - I'm just talking about or.
I disagree about backdoors generally.
But specifically about vulnerability of Tor to global adversaries, you may be right. But also you may be wrong.
Cosmic bullshit.
The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military has sabotaged the internet.
Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
Oh yes. We lived in the stone age before the US miliary invented duct tape.
Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so.
I don't think they are the dumb ones here...
;)
That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
Yep. There's nothing surprinsing about that.
I wonder if they have AIs yet. That would be amazing!
Yes, kurzweil is an AI. He's as clever as google's spam filter.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically,
Sorry Mirimir, if you first acknowledge facts, then I might entertain your hypotheticals.
that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
Are you trolling me?
Not at all, Juan :)
Hm, I misread the part about evil? The US military uses tor for evil, there's nothing 'hypothetical' about that. Is that what you are saying? So the only hypothetical part would be tor actually working...
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
Even if it worked I wouldn't recommend it. Although the question is too vague and of course loaded. Would a real anonimity network make it possible to actually cause substantial damage to the government? In that case it might be worthwhile to try it. Perhaps. But would any government create something that can be used to destroy it? Obviously not, so your hypothetical is just diversion (in the 'military' sense). Sorry.
I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
On 07/21/2016 02:46 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:43:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and no one else can.
What you say is possible.
Possible?
Do you think that the utah datacenter is fantasy, that the klein 'disclosures' about ATT are fantasy, that all the snowden stuff is fantasy, etc?
Those are not possibilities, those are facts.
Your claims go far beyond any evidence that I've seen.
Except, of course, for those with privileged information about US military capabilities ;)
The info is in the fucking public domain. And, considering what's in the public domain, even retards should assume that their 'secret' capabilities are even bigger.
That's a fair argument. But again, you work with what you have.
Tor Project says:
| Anonymity Online | | Protect your privacy. Defend yourself | against network surveillance and traffic | analysis.
| Tor prevents people from | learning your location or | browsing habits.
You warn people not to use Tor, because it's useless against US military.
and even against the FBI, actually. Oh, here's more very old news
'DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-launderi...
And as I recall, you also reject Tor on moral grounds, because US military uses it for evil.
I am a libertarian. I correctly recognize the US military as the biggest threat to civilization on the whole fucking planet.
We all use knives, which military use to kill. One of my favorites is an old German gravity knife, used by paratroopers. It's very convenient for one-handed use.
I consider both positions to be irresponsible. Conning people into using Tor recklessly, with insecure setups, is at best irresponsible. If the goal is cover traffic for US military, it's malicious.
But frightening people from using Tor,
I am not frightening anyone. I'm telling people the truth. Had people like Ulbricht assumed that tor was fucked he wouldn't be roting in jail right now, for instance.
If he had done it without Tor, he would have been in jail a lot sooner! It is likely that he pushed his luck too far using Tor.
when there are no viable alternatives, is also at best irresponsible.
You know there are alternatives. You just were promoting vpns a couple of days ago on tor-talk (and I'm glad you were)
Nested VPN chains are also vulnerable to global adversaries. It may be that all low-latency anonymity systems that can scale to many users are vulnerable to global adversaries.
Even if Tor is more or less useless against US military, it still protects users against other adversaries. And arguably it even protects most users from US military, if only because they're not important enough to focus on.
Tell that to freedom hosting and all the rest. I can keep going in circles, you know, constantly refuting your propaganda...
Yes, we do keep coming back to the same circular discussion, don't we? I'm concerned that Tor is pwned by US military, but I'm not convinced that rejecting it entirely is the best course.
So it sounds like just an assumption.
It's the same argument that we make about encryption generally.
No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument.
Systems with backdoors can't be secure. And you can't keep anyone from using anonymity systems without backdoors.
Yes you can if access to the backdoor requires capabilities that your enemies don't have.
That's the fallacy about backdoors ;)
No fallacy. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT.
Putting it in caps doesn't make it right :)
You just repeat baseless, wrong assertions, so I'm going to keep saying that your baseless assertions ARE FALSE.
YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT and I already explained why, twice. Or perhaps ten times. Tor is backdoored by design. GPAs have access to the backdoor.
That's not really a backdoor. You argue that Tor is vulnerable to global adversaries, and was designed that way. But it's not just Tor. It seems that all low-latency anonymity systems that scale to numerous users are vulnerable to global adversaries.
So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK?
They can be OK, and I don't care for any 'general theory' about backdoors anyway - I'm just talking about or.
I disagree about backdoors generally.
But specifically about vulnerability of Tor to global adversaries, you may be right. But also you may be wrong.
Cosmic bullshit.
I'm just saying that you don't know for sure. You may think that you do. But there's just too much uncertainty. You said as much in another thread. The issue is what to do when there's uncertainty. We disagree.
The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military has sabotaged the internet.
Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
Oh yes. We lived in the stone age before the US miliary invented duct tape.
Pretty much ;) At least, initial development of computers was mainly driven by military.
Or are you just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so.
I don't think they are the dumb ones here...
;)
That they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
Yep. There's nothing surprinsing about that.
I wonder if they have AIs yet. That would be amazing!
Yes, kurzweil is an AI. He's as clever as google's spam filter.
I was pointing to the difficulty of interpreting global intercepts.
As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
What wouldn't work?
Let's assume, hypothetically,
Sorry Mirimir, if you first acknowledge facts, then I might entertain your hypotheticals.
that Tor is secure for everyone. And let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.
Are you trolling me?
Not at all, Juan :)
Hm, I misread the part about evil? The US military uses tor for evil, there's nothing 'hypothetical' about that. Is that what you are saying?
So the only hypothetical part would be tor actually working...
Yes. I thought that was clear.
If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
Even if it worked I wouldn't recommend it.
OK, thanks, that's what I thought.
Although the question is too vague and of course loaded.
Would a real anonimity network make it possible to actually cause substantial damage to the government? In that case it might be worthwhile to try it. Perhaps.
More than damaged, I want to see governments gone.
But would any government create something that can be used to destroy it? Obviously not, so your hypothetical is just diversion (in the 'military' sense). Sorry.
Sure they would. Nuclear weapons, for example. Or biological warfare, which is now pretty much doable at home. Or personal computers and the Internet :)
I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:54:34AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
when there are no viable alternatives, is also at best irresponsible.
You know there are alternatives. You just were promoting vpns a couple of days ago on tor-talk (and I'm glad you were)
Nested VPN chains are also vulnerable to global adversaries. It may be that all low-latency anonymity systems that can scale to many users are vulnerable to global adversaries.
... which are based on current traditional centralised physical network. Yes. Which is why, to get out from the GPAs, we must build a home to home, neighbour to neighbour, suburb to suburb, global physical network.
YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT and I already explained why, twice. Or perhaps ten times. Tor is backdoored by design. GPAs have access to the backdoor.
That's not really a backdoor. You argue that Tor is vulnerable to global adversaries, and was designed that way. But it's not just Tor. It seems that all low-latency anonymity systems that scale to numerous users are vulnerable to global adversaries.
ditto - need a new phy layer If you don't own it, you don't control it. It you don't control it, it WILL be used against you.
The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military has sabotaged the internet.
Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
Oh yes. We lived in the stone age before the US miliary invented duct tape.
Pretty much ;) At least, initial development of computers was mainly driven by military.
ATI, bought by AMD, was originally registered as Alien Technologies Incorporated. They eventually officially changed their name to just ATI.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:34:31 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Which is why, to get out from the GPAs, we must build a home to home, neighbour to neighbour, suburb to suburb, global physical network.
That certainly would be nice...
If you don't own it, you don't control it. It you don't control it, it WILL be used against you.
Yes. Also in the current system users should be able to audit their ISPs. After all ISPs only exist to *serve* their customers. And 'their' hardware is actually PAID by the customers.
On July 21, 2016 5:54:34 AM EDT, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/21/2016 02:46 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:43:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and no one else can.
What you say is possible.
Possible?
Do you think that the utah datacenter is fantasy, that the klein 'disclosures' about ATT are fantasy, that all the snowden stuff is fantasy, etc?
Those are not possibilities, those are facts.
Your claims go far beyond any evidence that I've seen.
Except, of course, for those with privileged information about US military capabilities ;)
The info is in the fucking public domain. And, considering what's in the public domain, even retards should assume that their 'secret' capabilities are even bigger.
That's a fair argument. But again, you work with what you have.
Tor Project says:
| Anonymity Online | | Protect your privacy. Defend yourself | against network surveillance and traffic | analysis.
| Tor prevents people from | learning your location or | browsing habits.
You warn people not to use Tor, because it's useless against US military.
and even against the FBI, actually. Oh, here's more very old news
'DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-launderi...
And as I recall, you also reject Tor on moral grounds, because US military uses it for evil.
I am a libertarian. I correctly recognize the US military as the biggest threat to civilization on the whole fucking planet.
We all use knives, which military use to kill. One of my favorites is an old German gravity knife, used by paratroopers. It's very convenient for one-handed use.
I consider both positions to be irresponsible. Conning people into using Tor recklessly, with insecure setups, is at best irresponsible. If the goal is cover traffic for US military, it's malicious.
But frightening people from using Tor,
I am not frightening anyone. I'm telling people the truth. Had people like Ulbricht assumed that tor was fucked he wouldn't be roting in jail right now, for instance.
If he had done it without Tor, he would have been in jail a lot sooner!
It is likely that he pushed his luck too far using Tor.
His opsec was horrible even aside from tor. He kept all his torchat logs archived on his laptop, in addition to journals describing the entire creation of the silk road, including the (ridiculous) "murder contracts", etc. But they did find his "hidden" server and get it cloned before all of this, so blaming tor is not unreasonable. John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:54:34 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
But frightening people from using Tor,
I am not frightening anyone. I'm telling people the truth. Had people like Ulbricht assumed that tor was fucked he wouldn't be roting in jail right now, for instance.
If he had done it without Tor, he would have been in jail a lot sooner!
It is likely that he pushed his luck too far using Tor.
A lot of people in the silk road forum liked to brag about how clever they were and how good tor was...
when there are no viable alternatives, is also at best irresponsible.
You know there are alternatives. You just were promoting vpns a couple of days ago on tor-talk (and I'm glad you were)
Nested VPN chains are also vulnerable to global adversaries.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise. The point is, they are vulnerable more or less like tor is, but at least they don't have some of tor's downsides.
It may be that all low-latency anonymity systems that can scale to many users are vulnerable to global adversaries.
Yes, that sounds pretty likely.
Even if Tor is more or less useless against US military, it still protects users against other adversaries. And arguably it even protects most users from US military, if only because they're not important enough to focus on.
Tell that to freedom hosting and all the rest. I can keep going in circles, you know, constantly refuting your propaganda...
Yes, we do keep coming back to the same circular discussion, don't we?
I think you know all the stuff I keep repeating as well as I do, or perhaps even better. You just don't want to draw any radical conclusion...
YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT and I already explained why, twice. Or perhaps ten times. Tor is backdoored by design. GPAs have access to the backdoor.
That's not really a backdoor.
Maybe I'm not fully complying with the technical definition of backdoor, but regardless of the name we use, tor works as if it was 'backdoored' by the people who created it. They can deanonimize people. It's not as easy as calling an actual backdoor in the code, but it can be done anyway.
You argue that Tor is vulnerable to global adversaries, and was designed that way. But it's not just Tor.
True. But I never said "it's just tor" either...
It seems that all low-latency anonymity systems that scale to numerous users are vulnerable to global adversaries.
Yes.
Cosmic bullshit.
I'm just saying that you don't know for sure.
You can of course ask for imposible levels of proof. Do you want videos of meetings between syverson and his pentagon bosses?
You may think that you do. But there's just too much uncertainty. You said as much in another thread.
What I said is there's too much uncertainty for people who want to pretend that tor is 'reasonably' safe. THEY have the burden of proof and THEY can't prove their claims because there are lots of possible failure points. If you are selling something that is complex, and even you don't even fully understand, then that's too bad...for you! You can't get a free pass because *your* system is complex. PLUS, there's a fair amount of evidence illustrating failures. Ever heard about Ross Ulbricht? Freedom hosting? Agora? Sybil attacks? 2015 FBI attack? (I'm not even keeping up with the news)
The issue is what to do when there's uncertainty. We disagree.
Yeah well.
The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military has sabotaged the internet.
Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
Oh yes. We lived in the stone age before the US miliary invented duct tape.
Pretty much ;) At least, initial development of computers was mainly driven by military.
Ah yes. The more broken windows, the more economic development we get.
I wonder if they have AIs yet. That would be amazing!
Yes, kurzweil is an AI. He's as clever as google's spam filter.
I was pointing to the difficulty of interpreting global intercepts.
I don't think you need an 'AI'(whatever you imagine them to be) to count packets or match timing/patterns.
Hm, I misread the part about evil? The US military uses tor for evil, there's nothing 'hypothetical' about that. Is that what you are saying?
So the only hypothetical part would be tor actually working...
Yes. I thought that was clear.
Yes, my bad.
Would a real anonimity network make it possible to actually cause substantial damage to the government? In that case it might be worthwhile to try it. Perhaps.
More than damaged, I want to see governments gone.
And you think the pentagon is funding a system that could cause even a bit of damage to them?
But would any government create something that can be used to destroy it? Obviously not, so your hypothetical is just diversion (in the 'military' sense). Sorry.
Sure they would. Nuclear weapons, for example.
So how are you going to destroy government using nuclear weapons? (which you don't have access to anyway)
Or biological warfare, which is now pretty much doable at home.
Well, chemical weapons are pretty much doable at home too and were not directly created by the government. They are a basic application of 19th century commercial chemistry. But all this is beside the point.
Or personal computers and the Internet :)
The internet is a tool for total domination.
I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
Thanks.
On 07/21/2016 05:31 PM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:54:34 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
It is likely that he pushed his luck too far using Tor.
A lot of people in the silk road forum liked to brag about how clever they were and how good tor was...
Say what you will about Tor, a global drug marketplace is very cool :) But yes, assumptions are dangerous. <SNIP>
Tell that to freedom hosting and all the rest. I can keep going in circles, you know, constantly refuting your propaganda...
Yes, we do keep coming back to the same circular discussion, don't we?
I think you know all the stuff I keep repeating as well as I do, or perhaps even better. You just don't want to draw any radical conclusion...
Yes, that about sums it up. Because that radical conclusion would leave me nothing to work with. Indeed, we could have the same argument about the machine that I'm typing this message on. The CPU is a total black box. It could be pwned as badly as Tor. Firmware could have been pwned. So I work with what I have, being as careful as I know how. <SNIP>
Would a real anonimity network make it possible to actually cause substantial damage to the government? In that case it might be worthwhile to try it. Perhaps.
More than damaged, I want to see governments gone.
And you think the pentagon is funding a system that could cause even a bit of damage to them?
It's possible.
But would any government create something that can be used to destroy it? Obviously not, so your hypothetical is just diversion (in the 'military' sense). Sorry.
Sure they would. Nuclear weapons, for example.
So how are you going to destroy government using nuclear weapons? (which you don't have access to anyway)
I don't. But lots of other folks do. Russia could still destroy the US, and perhaps end civilization as we know it. <SNIP>
Or personal computers and the Internet :)
The internet is a tool for total domination.
Well, you do seem willing to use the Internet ;) <SNIP>
On Jul 21, 2016, at 7:31 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: …..
The internet is a tool for total domination.
100% agree with your thoughts on tor as a network (ie; using it does nothing but protect the creators due to the core design principle — the ‘tech behind it’ need not be changed nor understood, if this is. as well, the above quoted statement reminded me only of the proverb, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket”. Oh my, we’ve so failed that one. -Benjamin
On July 21, 2016 2:26:18 AM EDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 01:52:11 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 03:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;)
If Tor were actually secure, I could accept that US government uses it for evil.
So Mirimir, what's the problem here? Am I failing to explain fuckingly basic facts or are you playing dumb?
Tor IS actually secure IF YOU ARE THE FUCKING US MILITARY. If on the other hand you are one of their TARGETS then tor IS NOT SECURE.
Is something unclear?
What's your evidence for that? I doubt that it's technical, from what you've shared.
It certainly is 'technical', pretty basic, and you must be as aware of this just as I am, so I don't understand why you want me to repeat it. Trolling? Bah.
But here it goes again! Pay fucking attention.
The US military is a 'global adversary' - they have enough taps on cables, exchanges, ASs, whatever, to be able to deanonimize tor users. Especially so called 'hidden' services.
On the other hand, people like, say, Ross Ulbricht, don't have taps on the global fiber infrastructure, don't have access to IXPs, can't hack routers, etc. Get that?
I agree, sadly. I still think it's interesting tech though. John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 07/19/2016 02:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Right about what? That the feds, SPECIFICALLY THE PENTAGON, is responsible for EVERY PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY you'll ever use? Including microwave ovens and TeeVee dinners... You'd have to be an utter fucking RUBE, not to realize that. THE OBJECT, if you view life as a video game instead of a B-Movie, is to HIJACK their starship, and use it to destroy their Fleet before they destroy you. Juan's a federal troll. As he elicit responses to his spew he sends the info off to his handlers to build elaborate psycho-emotional profiles on list users.
Juan, Zeeblocks, and the Cyrillic name guy are pretty obvious Russian internet troll army sorts of people. That's been obvious for a while. (Who else links to Russia fucking today?) It's a shame we let the FSB kill cpunks. On July 19, 2016 7:54:00 AM PDT, Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 02:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Right about what? That the feds, SPECIFICALLY THE PENTAGON, is responsible for EVERY PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY you'll ever use? Including microwave ovens and TeeVee dinners...
You'd have to be an utter fucking RUBE, not to realize that.
THE OBJECT, if you view life as a video game instead of a B-Movie, is to HIJACK their starship, and use it to destroy their Fleet before they destroy you.
Juan's a federal troll. As he elicit responses to his spew he sends the info off to his handlers to build elaborate psycho-emotional profiles on list users.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
Juan, Zeeblocks, and the Cyrillic name guy are pretty obvious Russian internet troll army sorts of people. That's been obvious for a while. (Who else links to Russia fucking today?)
What, you can't copy and paste? Александр directly transliterates as "Aleksandr". I'm guessing from his email address that "Alex" might be acceptable.
It's a shame we let the FSB kill cpunks.
I, for one, enjoy seeing a different perspective, and AFAICT it's no more biased than most of what I read in the Western MSM. And despite the fact that I may disagree with a lot of what they say, most of it is at least interesting, which I cannot say of everything posted here by others.
2016-07-20 2:42 GMT+03:00 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org>:
What, you can't copy and paste? Александр directly transliterates as "Aleksandr". I'm guessing from his email address that "Alex" might be acceptable.
Thanks, Sean. I guess it's way too complicated for this too smarti/cypherpunki Teddy-bear fucker. :D /█\ .Π.
___ tedks@riseup.net:
Juan, Zeeblocks, and the Cyrillic name guy are pretty obvious Russian internet troll army sorts of people. That's been obvious for a while. (Who else links to Russia fucking today?) It's a shame we let the FSB kill cpunks.
Those bullshit accusations are (especially) really really funny to read from a hollow person who never published anything serious on this list. Just whining every three months about "Zenaan, Juan and this Cyrillic guy" (wau, teddy-bear, you really hurt me :( )
And back to the original post from Zenaan... (sorry teddy, your attempt of misleading didn't succeed after all) *Juan was 100% right. And he was the only one on tor-talk and the cypherpunk list, who persistently (for years!) claimed that Tor is totally fucked up.* And now there are unambiguous proves from all the evidences that came out in the recent months (not that before there was nothing). So, thank you, Juan. The teddy-bears on this list who are so fucken smart and so educated and "strict cypherpunki"... - are not so smart after all. And this "troll/fsb agent" Juan... is smarter than them. !
On 07/19/2016 10:48 PM, Александр wrote:
And back to the original post from Zenaan... (sorry teddy, your attempt of misleading didn't succeed after all) Juan was 100% right. And he was the only one on tor-talk and the cypherpunk list, who persistently (for years!) claimed that Tor is totally fucked up.
Tor ISNT "Totally fucked up". It has security issues just like EVERYTHING YOU WILL EVER USE RELATED TO THE INTERNET... IF that ever stopped happening world governments would simply pull the plug and there's be no more internet. AND TORPROJECT HAS A FUCKED UP "CULTURE" JUST LIKE EVERY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RELATED TO THE INTERNET.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:22:05PM -0700, Ted Smith wrote: ... Feel free to demonstrate how the USA champions democratic principles, respect for sovereignty (national and individual - corporation sovereignty is the problem, not the solution) and the rule of law, as it (the USA BIMSIC - banking, industrial, military, suveillance, injustice complex) drones humans to death, every day, in at least 12 countries. Feel free to initiate a thread on how we might engender, induce or otherwise educate our fellow humans to find authority within themselves, to stand for a principle greater than meat pies and footy, and to act in pursuance of such a principle. Many of us a flat out of ideas - really. And also, feel free to point out how "my" "democratically elected" "leaders" here in Australia are really doing a fine and upstanding job at the helm of this great land, how we should all, individually and collectively be striving to emulate them and how this will lead us into a better place, a better world, a better future. Please, and seriously, any such bit of positive news would be good for my ears as much as for yours, 'cause mostly all I see going on all around the world today is ludicrous unethical evil actions, idiots strutting around as "leaders" spouting abominations against all human decency, common sense and righteousness! Please, do enlighten me - I'll wait...
Feel free to tell me how any of that relates, even remotely, to what I said. On July 19, 2016 5:07:17 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:22:05PM -0700, Ted Smith wrote: ...
Feel free to demonstrate how the USA champions democratic principles, respect for sovereignty (national and individual - corporation sovereignty is the problem, not the solution) and the rule of law, as it (the USA BIMSIC - banking, industrial, military, suveillance, injustice complex) drones humans to death, every day, in at least 12 countries.
Feel free to initiate a thread on how we might engender, induce or otherwise educate our fellow humans to find authority within themselves, to stand for a principle greater than meat pies and footy, and to act in pursuance of such a principle. Many of us a flat out of ideas - really.
And also, feel free to point out how "my" "democratically elected" "leaders" here in Australia are really doing a fine and upstanding job at the helm of this great land, how we should all, individually and collectively be striving to emulate them and how this will lead us into a better place, a better world, a better future.
Please, and seriously, any such bit of positive news would be good for my ears as much as for yours, 'cause mostly all I see going on all around the world today is ludicrous unethical evil actions, idiots strutting around as "leaders" spouting abominations against all human decency, common sense and righteousness!
Please, do enlighten me - I'll wait...
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 17:29 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
Feel free to tell me how any of that relates, even remotely, to what I said.
I think his point is that he would welcome such discussion about other countries. Russia has been the West's "whipping boy" since the USSR collapsed. Instead of dismantling the cold war apparatus as it should have, the US and NATO just kept right on going. In my opinion the cold warriors and their children have been trying desperately to ignite a new cold war, and it seems to me they've succeeded. One thing I don't quite understand is, why cypherpunks? I don't think you will find many pro-US-government folks here aside from the fed moles. Recruiting maybe? The latest Russian surveillance law will probably put a damper on that.
On July 19, 2016 5:07:17 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:22:05PM -0700, Ted Smith wrote: ...
Feel free to demonstrate how the USA champions democratic principles, respect for sovereignty (national and individual - corporation sovereignty is the problem, not the solution) and the rule of law, as it (the USA BIMSIC - banking, industrial, military, suveillance, injustice complex) drones humans to death, every day, in at least 12 countries.
Feel free to initiate a thread on how we might engender, induce or otherwise educate our fellow humans to find authority within themselves, to stand for a principle greater than meat pies and footy, and to act in pursuance of such a principle. Many of us a flat out of ideas - really.
And also, feel free to point out how "my" "democratically elected" "leaders" here in Australia are really doing a fine and upstanding job at the helm of this great land, how we should all, individually and collectively be striving to emulate them and how this will lead us into a better place, a better world, a better future.
Please, and seriously, any such bit of positive news would be good for my ears as much as for yours, 'cause mostly all I see going on all around the world today is ludicrous unethical evil actions, idiots strutting around as "leaders" spouting abominations against all human decency, common sense and righteousness!
Please, do enlighten me - I'll wait...
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 05:08:04AM +0000, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 17:29 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
Feel free to tell me how any of that relates, even remotely, to what I said.
I think his point is that he would welcome such discussion about other countries.
Russia has been the West's "whipping boy" since the USSR collapsed. Instead of dismantling the cold war apparatus as it should have, the US and NATO just kept right on going. In my opinion the cold warriors and their children have been trying desperately to ignite a new cold war, and it seems to me they've succeeded.
One thing I don't quite understand is, why cypherpunks? I don't think you will find many pro-US-government folks here aside from the fed moles. Recruiting maybe? The latest Russian surveillance law will probably put a damper on that.
Not to mention our Aussie post 9/11 gestapo legislation which has snuck under the radar and never been repealed. Australia is now just awaiting a modern Hitler to "put it to good use" - detention without lawyer because "terrorist", no right to say you are detained, or why, to your family, indefinite detainment, no right to trial by jury, no nothing. If you're a terrst, you're gone! Pretty sure we have similarly bad comms legislation to Russia. I proposed an cypherPlusPunks list (or "politicopunks" or "anythingpunks"), but a few folks suggested it probably would not be useful, and that this list, being anarchist and all, was not really up for censoship of any kind. My thesis is that everything we do, everything we say, everything we code, -is- politics to a greater degree. The geopolitical status today is hectic, and possibly getting worse by the month. And so, we need to focus on whatever we can possibly do to bring this beast called the USA down to a soft landing for the rest of the world. Whatever it takes, this is our primary goal. After that, we can get back to our lives in general.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:22:05 -0700 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
Juan, Zeeblocks, and the Cyrillic name guy are pretty obvious Russian internet troll army sorts of people. That's been obvious for a while.
So how many pro putin or even pro russia posts did I write, you dumb, dishonest fuck? =) Then again ted you are a full fledged pentagon fascist and the official syverson's cock sucker...your job description prevents you from saying anything sensible or decent.
(Who else links to Russia fucking today?)
It's a shame we let the FSB kill cpunks.
I suggest you call homeland security. How many other 'anarchists' and 'cypherpunks' like you would join you in your crusade to defend...your full fledged american punk fascism? =)
On July 19, 2016 7:54:00 AM PDT, Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 02:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The dawning inescapable realisation that "he's right" and was right all along about Tor Inc.
Right about what? That the feds, SPECIFICALLY THE PENTAGON, is responsible for EVERY PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY you'll ever use? Including microwave ovens and TeeVee dinners...
You'd have to be an utter fucking RUBE, not to realize that.
THE OBJECT, if you view life as a video game instead of a B-Movie, is to HIJACK their starship, and use it to destroy their Fleet before they destroy you.
Juan's a federal troll. As he elicit responses to his spew he sends the info off to his handlers to build elaborate psycho-emotional profiles on list users.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:12:34 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
Juan's a federal troll.
So where's the evidence? Perhaps the evidence is all my consistent anti-state posts? (unlike yours)
As he elicit responses to his spew he sends the info off to his handlers to build elaborate psycho-emotional profiles on list users.
"elaborate psycho-emotional profiles" - wow that sounds like world-class tin foil hattery eh rayzer? Or perhaps that's what you do for a living...?
On 07/19/2016 08:43 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:12:34 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
Juan's a federal troll. So where's the evidence? Perhaps the evidence is all my consistent anti-state posts? (unlike yours)
The evidence is the consistency of your trolling. That's what you do There are two options as to why that consistency... A> You're mentally defective and have a bad case of "Any attention is good attention" syndrome. B> You're cataloging responses to your trolling.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:56:14 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/19/2016 08:43 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:12:34 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
Juan's a federal troll. So where's the evidence? Perhaps the evidence is all my consistent anti-state posts? (unlike yours)
The evidence is the consistency of your trolling.
Well, for a commie statist like you, who's also a tor/pentagon/schneier/isreal propaganda agent, any consistent libertarian position is 'trolling'. Now, produce the evidence showing that I work for your government. No, my anti-state posts and my comments about you americunt fucks doesn't count as evidence (for any sane person of course, for you on the other hand...)
That's what you do
There are two options as to why that consistency...
A> You're mentally defective and have a bad case of "Any attention is good attention" syndrome.
B> You're cataloging responses to your trolling.
What killed this list is not the anti-westernism (even more of that would be fine) it is the users that refuse to get their own twitter account and instead of post every link they read and every grumpy thought they have on cpunks instead. It is a good recipe for destroying any technocratic utopia that resists moderation or regulation: just fill it with trash. On 20/07/2016 01:22, Ted Smith wrote:
It's a shame we let the FSB kill cpunks.
Absolutely. Blogposting should be met with the scorn it deserves. Too late here, though. On July 20, 2016 12:49:11 AM PDT, Nathan Andrew Fain <nathan@squimp.com> wrote:
What killed this list is not the anti-westernism (even more of that would be fine) it is the users that refuse to get their own twitter account and instead of post every link they read and every grumpy thought they have on cpunks instead. It is a good recipe for destroying any technocratic utopia that resists moderation or regulation: just fill it with trash.
On 20/07/2016 01:22, Ted Smith wrote:
It's a shame we let the FSB kill cpunks.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
participants (11)
-
bbrewer -
jim bell -
John -
juan -
Mirimir -
Nathan Andrew Fain -
Rayzer -
Sean Lynch -
Ted Smith -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр