Fwd: [offlist trollbait] Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:04 -0300 From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: rayzer@riseup.net
come on rayzer, be 'transparent' like your buddies from the pentagon and publish your gov't sourced income
Juan... I gave you MORE than enough metainfo about me to figure out who or what I am. You've got my approximate age (teen in the 60s) The city I was in in the late 60s The damning fact that the NYPD stalked me and went after my dad's security clearance! That alone ought to be enough to get my jacket out of cold storage. On 06/07/2016 11:46 AM, juan wrote:
Sure. Because a marxist clown like you says so.
You pegged me Juan... I'm a Groucho Marxist, and a John Lennonist
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:31:58 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:04 -0300 From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: rayzer@riseup.net
come on rayzer, be 'transparent' like your buddies from the pentagon and publish your gov't sourced income
Juan... I gave you MORE than enough metainfo about me to figure out who or what I am.
Who you pretend to be, or even actual details about your personal life are wholly irrelevant. What matters here is, for instance, your laughable defense of the pentagon's 'anonimity' network.
You've got my approximate age (teen in the 60s)
The city I was in in the late 60s
The damning fact that the NYPD stalked me and went after my dad's security clearance!
That alone ought to be enough to get my jacket out of cold storage.
On 06/07/2016 11:46 AM, juan wrote:
Sure. Because a marxist clown like you says so.
You pegged me Juan... I'm a Groucho Marxist, and a John Lennonist
On 06/08/2016 10:06 AM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:31:58 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:04 -0300 From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: rayzer@riseup.net
come on rayzer, be 'transparent' like your buddies from the pentagon and publish your gov't sourced income
Juan... I gave you MORE than enough metainfo about me to figure out who or what I am. Who you pretend to be, or even actual details about your personal life are wholly irrelevant. What matters here is, for instance, your laughable defense of the pentagon's 'anonimity' network.
I'm not defending "the pentagon's 'anonimity' network." I'm saying, in so many words, that even the most compromised network still has uses if you know that the network is compromised. And in the case of something like tor if everyone used it that would increase the efforts needed to stalk the network. Even if every node was compromised, sifting through X packets is more expensive in any number of measures than sifting through x to the 6th power packets. My take is dissuading people from using it because it's compromised destroys what little effectiveness it might have, and as the gubmint would like, renders it useless. By that logic, you're the fed Juan. Rr
You've got my approximate age (teen in the 60s)
The city I was in in the late 60s
The damning fact that the NYPD stalked me and went after my dad's security clearance!
That alone ought to be enough to get my jacket out of cold storage.
On 06/07/2016 11:46 AM, juan wrote:
Sure. Because a marxist clown like you says so. You pegged me Juan... I'm a Groucho Marxist, and a John Lennonist
Misstated... On 06/08/2016 10:56 AM, Rayzer wrote:
sifting through X packets is more expensive in any number of measures than sifting through x to the 6th power packets.
Should read sifting through x to the 6th power packets is more expensive in any number of measures than sifting through x packets
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:56:42 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 06/08/2016 10:06 AM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:31:58 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:04 -0300 From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: rayzer@riseup.net
come on rayzer, be 'transparent' like your buddies from the pentagon and publish your gov't sourced income
Juan... I gave you MORE than enough metainfo about me to figure out who or what I am. Who you pretend to be, or even actual details about your personal life are wholly irrelevant. What matters here is, for instance, your laughable defense of the pentagon's 'anonimity' network.
I'm not defending "the pentagon's 'anonimity' network." I'm saying, in so many words, that even the most compromised network still has uses
You keep defending tor and making completely retarded excuses for it while denying that you are defending it. I quoted an 'expert witness' who also happens to be tor's capo mafioso clearly saying that tor is fucked and yet you keep vomiting nonsense. Seriously, what the fuck is wrng with you. What's your evidence and expertise that allows you to 'refute' syverson and co.?
And in the case of something like tor if everyone used it that would increase the efforts needed to stalk the network. Even if every node win any number of measures than sifting through x to the 6th power packets.
DUDE! What the fuck are you talkng about. You are a charlatan.
My take is dissuading people from using it because it's compromised destroys what little effectiveness it might have,
Are you crazy, utterly stupid, or what. Wait no, you are a government agent promoting a system that is clearly flawed, to the point that the same scumbags who created admit it. And yet you,
and as the gubmint would like, renders it useless.
By that logic, you're the fed Juan.
Yes, by the logic of a fucktard like you, who promotes a honeypot, I am the fed. And by 'ordinary' and sound logic, you, a promoter of a honeypot, are the fed.
Rr
You've got my approximate age (teen in the 60s)
The city I was in in the late 60s
The damning fact that the NYPD stalked me and went after my dad's security clearance!
That alone ought to be enough to get my jacket out of cold storage.
On 06/07/2016 11:46 AM, juan wrote:
Sure. Because a marxist clown like you says so. You pegged me Juan... I'm a Groucho Marxist, and a John Lennonist
It's been fun Juan, but we're talking past each other. One ... more... time. 1 > Tor fulfils a basic function of security by obscuring your location at A long enough for you to be at some other unknown location, B, by the time they figure out where location A was, and in conjunction with s/w like tails also leave no trace, or again, a trace that's not immediately discoverable on any computer so they have no physical evidence... The computer used, for forensics. 2 > There is NO WAY to minimize risk to zero (law of diminishing returns). There will ALWAYS be risk when you divulge state or other secrets. 3 > You are demanding defeat. That's all Juan. That's why YOU are 'the fed'. And it's really quite funny because in my activities against the state I'm the one people refer to as the defeatist or pessimist, but you... You're over the top. Rr On 06/08/2016 02:03 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:56:42 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 06/08/2016 10:06 AM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:31:58 -0700 Rayzer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: cryptographically-provable anonymity Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:04 -0300 From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: rayzer@riseup.net
come on rayzer, be 'transparent' like your buddies from the pentagon and publish your gov't sourced income Juan... I gave you MORE than enough metainfo about me to figure out who or what I am. Who you pretend to be, or even actual details about your personal life are wholly irrelevant. What matters here is, for instance, your laughable defense of the pentagon's 'anonimity' network.
I'm not defending "the pentagon's 'anonimity' network." I'm saying, in so many words, that even the most compromised network still has uses
You keep defending tor and making completely retarded excuses for it while denying that you are defending it.
I quoted an 'expert witness' who also happens to be tor's capo mafioso clearly saying that tor is fucked and yet you keep vomiting nonsense.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrng with you. What's your evidence and expertise that allows you to 'refute' syverson and co.?
And in the case of something like tor if everyone used it that would increase the efforts needed to stalk the network. Even if every node win any number of measures than sifting through x to the 6th power packets. DUDE! What the fuck are you talkng about. You are a charlatan.
My take is dissuading people from using it because it's compromised destroys what little effectiveness it might have,
Are you crazy, utterly stupid, or what. Wait no, you are a government agent promoting a system that is clearly flawed, to the point that the same scumbags who created admit it.
And yet you,
and as the gubmint would like, renders it useless.
By that logic, you're the fed Juan. Yes, by the logic of a fucktard like you, who promotes a honeypot, I am the fed.
And by 'ordinary' and sound logic, you, a promoter of a honeypot, are the fed.
Rr
You've got my approximate age (teen in the 60s)
The city I was in in the late 60s
The damning fact that the NYPD stalked me and went after my dad's security clearance!
That alone ought to be enough to get my jacket out of cold storage.
On 06/07/2016 11:46 AM, juan wrote:
Sure. Because a marxist clown like you says so. You pegged me Juan... I'm a Groucho Marxist, and a John Lennonist
participants (2)
-
juan -
Rayzer