https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/4pw7bz/tor_infiltrated_by_cia_agent/ http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8 https://0bin.net/paste/blHWhjY9CRGB8A5X#EArYlEpN1fvqLSclzCivmmIMf3iRMvCYhi++... Just links.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 07:44:05PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 04:59:51AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:

...

https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/4pw7bz/tor_infiltrated_by_cia_agent/ http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8 https://0bin.net/paste/blHWhjY9CRGB8A5X#EArYlEpN1fvqLSclzCivmmIMf3iRMvCYhi++...

Just links.

Meh, just links. THANK YOU!

Tor HQ cannot come back from this with the current crowd. "http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8" is devastating. To quote one of the participants at line 227 "22:14 < Yawning> I don't think I can sit in this conversation and remain civil." I can only concur. Americans in power - the insidious arrogance and pride leading to blindness, heartless comparisons between e.g. Iraq war and Mahondas Ghandi, thuggery (implied threat to sue/ take legal action, bullying, distraction/ changing topic, isis "my keyboard does not work" in the middle of this really intense conversation. Just say no more! Anyway, the conversation indicts. Has to be read. grarpamp, thank you again. Both Juan and Putin claim (vehemently) that Tor is a creation and a tool of the NSA, the CIA and the American war machine, and that it cannot be trusted as a consequence of these facts. After reading this conversation, it is impossible to disagree with both Juan and Putin on this point. So I guess this makes both Putin and Juan, "conspiracy factualists", because there certainly ain't no 'theory' to be tested any more... It is not surprising that Russia is wanting to "button the digital hatches" so to speak, given the horrific demoncratic record of the CIA since WWII - the major and very sad problem is that such legislation almost never gets unwound once the battle is over. So there's always another battle.. At line 268: "< mikeperry> also, I am completely unsure what to do about the DaveC1 thing. it seems like it will put a lot of our community at risk and cause fallout. I was excited to have a bridge to the State dept and gov't bureaucrats, but this seems like the cost is too great. forgive me if I appear to otherwise ignore this, really not sure how to handle it" Thought: If the CIA, which funds Tor via the DoD etc, really wanted an advocacy position, then there was no reason to not just keep "DaveC1" on payroll at the CIA and promote Tor. So DaveC1's attempt to get on Tor payroll directly, and be close to the core of Tor, falls apart on multiple grounds as well as this. Here's a classic at 227 "22:25 < ioerror> We [Tor] don't hire war criminals, we don't [can't be accused of] discriminate by not hiring them" (in response to the supposedly "ex-" CIA man, DaveC1, who implied the threat he would sue Tor Inc if they refused to employ him "just because he used to work for the CIA and shot citizens of Iraq" (or rather, terminated his employment it seems, now that they figured out he lied to get employed, saying he was from US State Dept).

From line 310: " 22:30 < mikeperry> I have no doubt that the CIA would find Tor useful, and its funding would not comrpromise us, but as I said then, the optics [of directly employing a (ex) CIA agent] would be so bad that the et improvement to Tor from such funding would not be worth the bad PR 22:31 < ioerror> mikeperry: Funding does compromise us 22:31 < ioerror> I am clear on that now. 22:31 < ioerror> Tor is compromised. ... 22:32 < ioerror> When we set the road map and found funders to fund us, it was different 22:32 < ioerror> we haven't done that for a long time 22:32 < ioerror> The money has corrupted us "

Here's a satisfying line 332: "22:35 < DaveC1> Runa: re: the not waiting until I could disclose. Didn't have the financial resources to end one career and wait (unsure how long) to start looking for other work. I tried to be as clear as possible with Roger what my situation was without committing a felony. I obviously failed. " Yep, seems CIA agents find it real hard to -not- commit felonies, even when they are -trying- to not commit felonies. Really, the entire log is a must read. ioerror/ Jacob Applebaum - this man is staunch! No wonder Jacob was taken down.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:11:37AM -0700, Rayzer wrote:

Don't trust ANYONE.

I agree.

I remembered an old fool story, hihi... ;) Few years ago, some Noisebridgers (members of a hackerspace in San Francisco) asked Jake's banishment saying that he was a FBI agent inside Tor, who betrayed Assange and Wikileaks, hahaha!! ;D Lovely Sunday everybody! <3 Cecilia

WORD. At 05:02 PM 6/26/2016, juan wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:59:51 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

...

https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/4pw7bz/tor_infiltrated_by_cia_agent/ http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8

This is more propaganada. It is to be expected from the likes of grarpamp.

It has some nice touches, like illustrating the ABC of so called 'public choice'. First objective of the tor cunts is to get money. And they do that by servicing the pentagon.

ALL of those shitbags are pentagon employees. Now. At this very moment.

Only retards would care about the fact that one of them also worked for the CIA. That is FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Furthermore, what kind of moral authority do tor cunts have over a CIA employee. They are actually WORSE than the CIA. They are pretending to be the 'good guys' while they are FUCKING NOT. I I can't believe the 'public' is so fucking retarded as to miss this point.

...

https://0bin.net/paste/blHWhjY9CRGB8A5X#EArYlEpN1fvqLSclzCivmmIMf3iRMvCYhi++...

...

Just links.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:27:51 -0700 Rayzer wrote:

DUDE IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING'S COMPROMISED YOU CAN WORK WITH THAT!

But tor isn't compromised!! What are you talking about? Are you trying to scare people off tor? See what kind dishonest asshole you are rayzer? And in reality, the idea that you can 'work' with the compromised-by-design, pentagon's fake-anonimity network, is the kind of nonsense that...gov't agents wanting to entrap people would say.

I don't think anyone who actually uses tor as more than 'something their neighbour told them to try so they try it once' actually BELIEVES tor is the ultimate in anonymity but... (see the shouting at the top)

On 06/26/2016 02:11 PM, John Young wrote:

...

WORD.

At 05:02 PM 6/26/2016, juan wrote:

...

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:59:51 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

...

https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/4pw7bz/tor_infiltrated_by_cia_agent/

...

http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8

This is more propaganada. It is to be expected from the likes of grarpamp.

It has some nice touches, like illustrating the ABC of so called 'public choice'. First objective of the tor cunts is to get money. And they do that by servicing the pentagon.

ALL of those shitbags are pentagon employees. Now. At this very moment.

Only retards would care about the fact that one of them also worked for the CIA. That is FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Furthermore, what kind of moral authority do tor cunts have over a CIA employee. They are actually WORSE than the CIA. They are pretending to be the 'good guys' while they are FUCKING NOT. I I can't believe the 'public' is so fucking retarded as to miss this point.

...

https://0bin.net/paste/blHWhjY9CRGB8A5X#EArYlEpN1fvqLSclzCivmmIMf3iRMvCYhi++...

...

Just links.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:07:56 -0700 Rayzer wrote:

On 06/26/2016 06:08 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:27:51 -0700 Rayzer wrote:

...

DUDE IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING'S COMPROMISED YOU CAN WORK WITH THAT!

But tor isn't compromised!! What are you talking about? Are you trying to scare people off tor?

See what kind dishonest asshole you are rayzer?

Dishonest... Really? Show me the discrepancy in any position I've taken at ANY TIME ... Troll.

From pretenting to be an anarchist who sucks the DMV's cock to being a torbot who now (maybe) admits he is promoting a 'compromised' piece of garbage? Your are too stupid rayzer - and dishonest.

...

And in reality, the idea that you can 'work' with the compromised-by-design, pentagon's fake-anonimity network, is the kind of nonsense that...gov't agents wanting to entrap people would say.

Do tell. Some proof of that hypothesis Troll.

What proof do I need for such self-evident fact, fucktard? You promote a fake-anomity network because that's the way to 'compromise' people. Have them use a 'compromised' tool. And what kinf of fucktard would argue that 'compromised' tools are still useful? What's the point of ever fixing anything if 'broken' tools 'work'. You can't be that fucking stupid rayzer.

FWIW I CAN PROVE compromised networks STILL accomplish a lot.

Of course. They accomplish a lot for the people who compromised them. That's the whole point, fucktard. ANY

ORGANIZATION, political, corporate, you-name-it that has ever been existed has been infiltrated by feds/other corporations, opposition ... yet SOMEHOW they manage to get some things done.

Same applies to HumInt networks in war zones... Troll.

Same applies to Tor... It's not exceptional. Like you... Troll.

Rr

...

...

I don't think anyone who actually uses tor as more than 'something their neighbour told them to try so they try it once' actually BELIEVES tor is the ultimate in anonymity but... (see the shouting at the top)

On 06/26/2016 02:11 PM, John Young wrote:

...

WORD.

At 05:02 PM 6/26/2016, juan wrote:

...

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:59:51 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/4pw7bz/tor_infiltrated_by_cia_agent/

...

http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8

This is more propaganada. It is to be expected from the likes of grarpamp.

It has some nice touches, like illustrating the ABC of so called 'public choice'. First objective of the tor cunts is to get money. And they do that by servicing the pentagon.

ALL of those shitbags are pentagon employees. Now. At this very moment.

Only retards would care about the fact that one of them also worked for the CIA. That is FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Furthermore, what kind of moral authority do tor cunts have over a CIA employee. They are actually WORSE than the CIA. They are pretending to be the 'good guys' while they are FUCKING NOT. I I can't believe the 'public' is so fucking retarded as to miss this point.

https://0bin.net/paste/blHWhjY9CRGB8A5X#EArYlEpN1fvqLSclzCivmmIMf3iRMvCYhi++...

...

Just links.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:57:51 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

So juan, what do you recommend instead of Tor?

To 'defend' against 'local' adversaries, the only thing that tor allegedly does? I don't recommend anything, but it looks like VPNs can be as good or as bad as tor. You can even nest them, can't you.

What do you use for privacy and/or "anonymity"?

Nothing. I'd play with freenet but I don't want to install java, so...

Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.

Except that when I use the internet I'm not tring to hide anything. And no lying piece of shit advertised the internet as having anything to do with : "Anonymity Online." Or that the internet lets you : "Protect your privacy. Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis."

On 06/26/2016 09:31 PM, Rayzer wrote: <SNIP>

But you probably believe bin-Hidin never existed... Right Juan?

Dude, he was obviously a CIA agent ;)

On 06/26/2016 10:04 PM, juan wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:50:28 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

On 06/26/2016 09:31 PM, Rayzer wrote:

<SNIP>

...

But you probably believe bin-Hidin never existed... Right Juan?

Dude, he was obviously a CIA agent ;)

So mirimir, given the obvious technical facts and flaws about tor ('global' adversaries quite capable), and the 'politics' of the tor mafia, like outright censorship, infighting, feminazism, complete lack of transparency, complete lack of honest funding, etc.

What do you 'recommend' =)

At a minimum, I recommend hitting Tor through at least one VPN. Or better, nested chains of at least three VPNs. To prevent leaks, I recommend using pfSense VMs as VPN gateways, and Whonix VMs for Tor. One can also use VPS running SSH onion services for old-school host chaining. Each VPS connects through a VPN, so Tor can't detect that you're chaining circuits. See https://www.ivpn.net/privacy-guides/onion-ssh-hosts-for-login-chaining.

On 06/26/2016 10:14 PM, Rayzer wrote:

On 06/26/2016 08:50 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 06/26/2016 09:31 PM, Rayzer wrote:

<SNIP>

...

But you probably believe bin-Hidin never existed... Right Juan? Dude, he was obviously a CIA agent ;)

That was aimed at Juan.

Mercenary recruiter for NATO (Kosovo Liberation Army) and formerly Arab Legionnaire, which was a CIA op in Afghanistan early on... Yeah. He was CIA...

...and I have an interesting theory on what 'turned' him, but that's entirely off-topic. Let me just say it involved another CIA Asset AQ Khan, the Pakistani nuclear boogieman India ATTEMPTED TO turn over to US authorities, a dirty bomb made from material he could have supplied, a Riyadh shopping mall, and PNAC, that really really REALLY wanted to wrest control of OPEC away from the Saudis b/c 'they don't control the volatility of the price of oil enough'.

Osama hated the Saudi government enough to do it too.

http://auntieimperial.blogspot.com/2010/11/there-are-couple-of-things-about-...

I suspect someone higher up in spoookland nixed his plan and he said Fuck it, and went rogue

Maybe he never went rogue. Follow the money.

Rr

On 06/26/2016 09:16 PM, juan wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:57:51 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

So juan, what do you recommend instead of Tor?

To 'defend' against 'local' adversaries, the only thing that tor allegedly does? I don't recommend anything, but it looks like VPNs can be as good or as bad as tor. You can even nest them, can't you.

Yes, VPNs will provide as much privacy as Tor does for purely local adversaries. But if your adversary can get logs from the VPN server, or the hosting provider, you're screwed. With Tor, such adversaries would need to get logs from at least two of the three relays in circuits. And circuits change frequently, so that means lots of relays. And sure, you can nest VPNs. So a nested chain of three VPNs arguably does as much as a Tor circuit. But it's static. Or at least, I haven't figured out how to automate switching. And there's also the matter of paying for a bunch of VPNs. Anyway, I hedge my bets by accessing Tor through nested VPNs.

...

What do you use for privacy and/or "anonymity"?

Nothing. I'd play with freenet but I don't want to install java, so...

Right. I2P also runs on Java.

...

Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.

Except that when I use the internet I'm not tring to hide anything.

Well, that's cool, if it works for you. Doesn't work for me, however.

And no lying piece of shit advertised the internet as having anything to do with :

"Anonymity Online."

Or that the internet lets you :

"Protect your privacy. Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis."

You have a point. But far too many people do seem to believe that they're anonymous on the Internet.

On 06/26/2016 11:32 PM, juan wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:14:03 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

Yes, VPNs will provide as much privacy as Tor does for purely local adversaries. But if your adversary can get logs from the VPN server, or the hosting provider, you're screwed.

Yes. But how easy it is for your or my local government to get logs from an ISP in a different country? There isn't a single answer, but I suspect in general it's not that easy. So unless we are a relatively serious 'criminal' 'threat', we should be safe, I'd think.

Yes, it's not so easy. And even with help from their national government, it would take a while. And even VPNs that log can't retain logs forever, so you might get lucky.

And if the aim is to avoid surveillance from one's local ISP, then the bar is low since ISPs don't have police powers...yet.

True. But ISPs normally aren't a treat. It's who's pushing their buttons. Whether it's the MPAA or Los Zetas.

...

With Tor, such adversaries would need to get logs from at least two of the three relays in circuits. And circuits change frequently, so that means lots of relays.

True. So it would seem as if tor would be effective against adversaries in some particular cases...

But the fact remains. Against 'small' adversaries tor isn't needed and against big adversaries tor doesn't work...

Yes. But there are many mid-size adversaries. And you could also say that Tor works against all but the global adversaries. Plus clever ones that can exploit bugs.

...

And sure, you can nest VPNs. So a nested chain of three VPNs arguably does as much as a Tor circuit. But it's static. Or at least, I haven't figured out how to automate switching. And there's also the matter of paying for a bunch of VPNs.

Yes, cost would be a problem. But it's not that tor is free either. Somebody else is paying the bill.

True. But not me.

On the other hand, tor is a subsidized state project. Like any state project the quality is limited AND it drives off 'private' investment and development.

I have no clue what percentage of Tor code has been funded by the US government. There are lots of volunteers, after all. But I agree that Tor has rather dominated the space for "anonymity systems". Every few years, I see a paper about something new, but they never seem to go anywhere. So yes, there is a problem. But I don't think that state subsidy is directly at fault.

...

Anyway, I hedge my bets by accessing Tor through nested VPNs.

...

...

What do you use for privacy and/or "anonymity"?

Nothing. I'd play with freenet but I don't want to install java, so...

Right. I2P also runs on Java.

I think there's a C++ implementation now as well.

Interesting. But I still don't like I2P, because decent performance depends on being a relay, with a public IP address and open port. One can do it with VPNs and port forwarding. But still.

...

...

...

Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.

Except that when I use the internet I'm not tring to hide anything.

Well, that's cool, if it works for you. Doesn't work for me, however.

Just in case, please don't think that I subscribe to the "I've nothing to hide" bullshit or something like that. I'd love to use a really robust darknet. But since I don't think the current darknets are to be trusted I'm doing without them, at least for the time being...

I get that. And I suspect that you're in a friendlier environment.

...

...

And no lying piece of shit advertised the internet as having anything to do with :

"Anonymity Online."

Or that the internet lets you :

"Protect your privacy. Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis."

You have a point. But far too many people do seem to believe that they're anonymous on the Internet.

They are, if they use tor! OK, bad joke on my part.

Many Tor users have been screwed by thinking that they were "anonymous". But still, many more would have been screwed if they had done whatever they were doing without any protection. Maybe some of them, such as the ones pwned by CMU, would have been better off using VPNs. That's rather ironic, considering how much abuse Tor supporters have heaped on VPNs. But overall, I think that Tor has done much good.

On 06/28/2016 01:31 PM, juan wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:33:01 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

. But overall, I think that Tor has done much good.

for the US military, yes.

For sure. But also for online drug dealers. There have been a few spectacular failures, certainly. And the security model of having illegal stuff mailed to meatspace addresses is laughable. But it has clearly increased availability, especially for niche substances like DMT and analogues. Quality too, I suspect. For me, that's a good. No question. More generally, Tor has allowed many to evade state control. Some of them deserve to die, in my opinion. But the important point is that Tor has overall reduced state power. Is that not a good thing, juan? It's true that Tor has allowed the CIA to act more freely in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, etc. But that, like freedom for pedophiles, is just a cost of usable "anonymity systems" (or whatever you want to call them).

On 06/29/2016 05:26 PM, juan wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:23:05 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

On 06/28/2016 01:31 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:33:01 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

. But overall, I think that Tor has done much good.

for the US military, yes.

For sure. But also for online drug dealers.

Yeah. Ask Ulbricht. Or the guys from agora who made it quite clear that tor doesn't work. Or freedom hosting, or or or

Ulbricht went down because associates fucked up, got busted, and cooperated with investigators. Also, it seems that his OPSEC sucked. It's not clear how Freedom Hosting got compromised. I don't believe that it was a Tor exploit. And it was call-home malware that pwned users. Which only affected idiots using Tor browser in Windows. Agora owners never said exactly what flaws in Tor concerned them, as I recall. And there are workarounds. Bigger problems, I think, are moving large amounts of money anonymously, and explaining income.

Also, what % of 'illegal' drugs are sold through tor? 0.01%?

I have no clue. But for some demographics, I bet that it's huge. Have you ever tried to find DMT? I love DMT :)

...

There have been a few spectacular failures, certainly. And the security model of having illegal stuff mailed to meatspace addresses is laughable.

It is, but that's not the point. Although, you know, using the state's mail system to ship drugs is as stupid as using the pentagon's fake anonimity network for the online side of the business.

*Furthermore*, this being the cpunks mailing list, the standard should be a lot higher. Tor is not a realistic option at all for people who have a quarrell with the powers that be.

It's the best that's available, I believe.

If you are selling an 'anonimity' network for crypto-anarchism, then your anonimity network better work against the US gov't and assorted lapdogs.

Perfection is the enemy of workability :) And if you know of something better, please do recommend it.

...

But it has clearly increased availability, especially for niche substances like DMT and analogues. Quality too, I suspect.

For me, that's a good. No question.

More generally, Tor has allowed many to evade state control.

Yes. Many US agents and agents from vasal states. That's how tor serves western imperialism. Is that what you want?

It's not what I want, but it's what I'll accept. Consider this thought experiment. Let's say that some cypherpunk, with unimpeachable anarchist credentials, creates an anonymity system. One that's not vulnerable to local adversaries or global adversaries. One, perhaps, that uses covert channels, so ISPs can't even detect that it's being used. Then they release the source, and fun begins. So who would use it? I'm guessing that everyone who uses Tor, I2P, etc, etc would use it. And so we'd be back to where we are now with Tor, with just the exception that the new system isn't vulnerable to global adversaries. How would you keep statist criminals from using it? There's still the criticism that Tor is intentionally vulnerable to global adversaries. Maybe it was at first, by design. But it's an open-source project. You'd need to argue that contributions which increased resistance to global adversaries have been rejected or discouraged. Is there evidence for that?

...

Some of them deserve to die, in my opinion.

You mean the state agents no?

Both.

...

But the important point is that Tor has overall reduced state power.

Yeah well. Sounds nice. Too bad there's zero evidence for that claim. Actually the claim is pretty absurd. How can a project of the US military whose purpose is to serve the US military and the US state 'reduce state power'?

By providing freedom and privacy for state subjects. Also, see the above thought experiment. It doesn't matter whose project it is. The same people would end up using it.

Are you on drugs? =)

Always :) Mostly caffeine, though. Modafinil too :)

...

Is that not a good thing, juan?

No, tor is not a good a thing.

Dissapointing. Your argument boils down to "the mafia or the state can do good things, maybe, sometimes".

So you can look at some good stuff that can be attributed to tor, while ignoring all the bad stuff.

That's like basic economics turned on its head...

It's not a zero-sum game. As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like a dream.

...

It's true that Tor has allowed the CIA to act more freely in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, etc. But that, like freedom for pedophiles, is just a cost of usable "anonymity systems" (or whatever you want to call them).

lol - so now it turns out that 'pedophiles' are the moral equivalent of the CIA or the murdering psychos at the pentagon?

Maybe not, but pedophiles are the goto example. Government criminals fuck people at much larger scales, for sure. Maybe the crypter assholes are a better example, but that's still small-scale.

On 06/29/2016 08:36 PM, grarpamp wrote:

On 6/29/16, Mirimir wrote:

...

So who would use it? I'm guessing that everyone who uses Tor, I2P, etc, etc would use it. And so we'd be back to where we are now with Tor, with just the exception that the new system isn't vulnerable to global adversaries.

How would you keep statist criminals from using it?

When you have a non vulnerable network, or at least one that's equally invulnerable to or exploitable by all participants, the question of who uses it becomes more mooted by that balance.

True.

Today's overlay networks are vulnerable to GPA's, which at this stage are just governments and global telecoms... not end users. There's a big imbalance there, and it's not in favor of said users.

That's also true. But you take what you can get.

...

There's still the criticism that Tor is intentionally vulnerable to global adversaries. Maybe it was at first, by design. But it's an open-source project.

Best design principles vs adversaries, as school of thought over a decade ago, are certainly different than what would be designed in 2017. There's room for something new.

I totally agree. What about Dissent?[0] Also funded by DARPA ;) What do you see as promising? [0] http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/10/192387-seeking-anonymity-in-an-interne...

On 06/29/2016 10:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:

On 6/29/16, Mirimir wrote:

<SNIP>

...

What do you see as promising?

Hard to say as keeping track of all the papers and few actually coded implementations is hard.

Yes, far more papers than implementations. Once you have something that works well enough, or that people are at least so convinced, new ideas don't attract much interest. But maybe that's changing now.

I2P is still interesting as a packet switched net. PS tech tends to have more modification flexibility to new pluggable ideas than circuit switching.

Why did Tor go with circuit switching? Was it mostly about efficiency? We have a very different Internet now. Also, is it easier to bury packet switching in chaff?

All the other little more specific messaging / file systems have some good elements.

Which ones, in particular? With global active adversaries, which can observe and modify packets on every public network, it's hard to imagine how substantive [anonymity | unlinkability | deniability | privacy] is possible. Sure, every node might send traffic that's not provably nonrandom to every other node at constant rate. But it's still obvious that you're up to something. And once they tweak your traffic, they can look at what other nodes start behaving differently. So I come back to the need for covert channels.

More than asserting something promising from the mess, there might be value in the prior step of sorting out what may be promising. There are folks who would be good partners in that.

Maybe so. But many of them tend to keep to themselves ;)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:39:04 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

Yeah. Ask Ulbricht. Or the guys from agora who made it quite clear that tor doesn't work. Or freedom hosting, or or or

Ulbricht went down because associates fucked up, got busted, and cooperated with investigators. Also, it seems that his OPSEC sucked.

You parroted bullshit from the feds : you earned -10 points [deleted lots of dishonest bullshit]

...

...

But the important point is that Tor has overall reduced state power.

Yeah well. Sounds nice. Too bad there's zero evidence for that claim. Actually the claim is pretty absurd. How can a project of the US military whose purpose is to serve the US military and the US state 'reduce state power'?

By providing freedom and privacy for state subjects.

Still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' your absurd claim. The tor project is good for the military and state. Therefore it's bad for the military's and the state's victims. Buy yeah, first rule of the torbot : play dumb and parrot propaganda.

As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like a dream.

OK. This is the first reasonable and honest thing you said. You finally acknowledge that all your bullshit is a 'dream' - it's not reality and not true.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:47:57 -0700 Rayzer wrote:

On 07/01/2016 12:28 PM, juan quoted mirmir:

...

...

...

By providing freedom and privacy for state subjects. Still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' your absurd claim.

Open source code

LOL - you are way beyond stupid - and trolling. What the fuck has 'open source' got to do with the dishonest and baseless claim made by mirimir? Anwer : no - thing. So we'll be waiting for the evidence showing how the pentagon advances freedom...forever...cause the evidence does not exist.

allowing for discovery of flaws and concurrent fixes is proof of concept.

You're looking for "perfect" security. That's why I think you're a fucking fascist, Juan.

Ah rayzer, you really don't know what else to say. Only a fucktard like you would try to equate individualist anarchist with 'fascist' =) You on the other hand are a mix of marxist commie with...americunt fascist! Go suck the pentagon's cock, asshole. And why are you, a dumb anti-liberal bot in this list, apart from trolling? Eh rayzer? Oh I know you 'have' to pay the bills...

Fascists WORSHIP some fubar ideation of 'perfection'.

lol - pyschobabble comming from a commie fascist. Isn't that cute.

Of genetics, of social conformity,

that would be the ideal of commie marxists like you - either obey society or die. As matter of fact, scumbag, you devoted more than a few messages to make the point that individuals should obey 'society' or the 'species' or some other deranged 'collective' 'entity'.

of human features such as eye color... of code.

100+ malicious nodes found snooping on Tor hidden services.

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/over-100-snooping-tor-nodes-have-been-spyi...

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:15:15 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

...

As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like a dream.

OK. This is the first reasonable and honest thing you said.

You finally acknowledge that all your bullshit is a 'dream' - it's not reality and not true.

That's fundamentally the cypherpunk dream, I believe. So why do you bother being on this list, if you think that it's all bullshit?

Bullshit is all the tor propaganda you vomited and vomit, fucktard. . And I don't think the cypherpunk dream is to have a fake anonmity network created and run by the pentagon. Unlike you, apparently.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:55:42 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

...

Mirimir wrote:

...

...

...

As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like a dream.

Yore reading comprehension sucks ;)

I don't think so.

Read the fucking paragraph that you quoted. It says nothing about Tor.

Dude! Context! The whole discussion was about tor! And at some point you said "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially" "They" stands for "anonymity systems" which in this 'context' basically means tor. Even more so since you keep repeating that tor is the best system 'we' have. So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems like a dream. So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the fact that tor doesn't work. Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power? No. Especially tor, a creation of the state.

It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you?

Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular.

But right now, Tor is the best we have.

Yeah. You said so a couple of times...

So we use it, with suitable precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?

I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the 'free' tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and apparently don't care much about the real price of the system. I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay away from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk 'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:07:22 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

As I said, your reading comprehension sucks.

No it doesn't. I explained that given the 'context' my reading is quite valid. Looks like your writing sucks.

Or you're just twisting shit to pretend that you're right.

I am right. And you admited that anonimity systems don't work.

...

So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems like a dream.

So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the fact that tor doesn't work.

It works for many people.

What a fucktard you are. It's clear again that your writing skills suck. "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power substantially. " So they don't work "It works for many people." So you contadicted yourself. But don' worry. You got it right the first time. Anonimity systems don't work.

...

Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power? No. Especially tor, a creation of the state.

So you keep saying.

Because it is correct.

...

...

It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you?

Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular.

Yes, but statements about anonymity systems generally aren't limited to Tor.

But tor is 'the best'. So if even 'the best' is a failure, then the rest of systems are going to be even more of a failure. That's like the A of the ABC of basic logic.

...

...

But right now, Tor is the best we have.

Yeah. You said so a couple of times...

...

So we use it, with suitable precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?

I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the 'free' tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and apparently don't care much about the real price of the system.

No, I don't care about the "real price of the system". Why should I?

Right. You are a 'nihilist' eh? As long as you can buy dmt it's OK for the pentagon to fuck as many people as they can.

And, as I said before, people that you hate would be using any effective anonymity system. So you might as well get over it.

grarpamp replied to that particular piece of bullshit.

...

I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay away from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk 'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause.

The Pentagon is everywhere, dude ;)

So?

...

You finally acknowledge that all your bullshit is a 'dream' - it's not reality and not true.

That's fundamentally the cypherpunk dream, I believe. So why do you bother being on this list, if you think that it's all bullshit?

I think his key point here is that we must not be in self delusion. It is ok to dream. Cypherpunk dream is a great dream. A dream of freedom, hope, for everyone. But when we are in a denial of a particular problem, or speaking as though a particular limitation does not exist, or a particular piece of software provides some guarantee which it does NOT provide - then not only are we deluding ourselves, but (and I see this as a pain for Juan) we are leading others astray. This is why over and over, when the facts don't support an assumption, especially when that assumption could endanger life and or liberty of someone trying to do some good (e.g. a whistleblower), then how can we say anything but support for Juan's outspoken vehemence? Juan says "I will not compromise the safety of a fellow fighter no matter what", and he sacrifices the appearance of civility to try to achieve this - to try to support our brothers who want to fight, who want to whistleblow, who want to undermine the murderers in our world. Leading potential fighters astray in their thinking is essentially unforgiveable - which is why I am bound by my own conscience to always say "Juan, thank you! So few speak up as much as you do, for those who genuinely need someone to speak up for them!" How can we let down our brothers so much? Yes, speak our dreams, our hopes! But do so honestly! "Positive thinking" is not about deceiving ourselves or those who read our proclamations on crypto anarchist software. And in fact it's quite the opposite as I hope is clear by now - let's get off the hippy flower power "positive speaking will magically manifest secure anonymising software" bullshit bandwagon, and speak bluntly, plainly, and clearly so onlookers are NEVER deceived! Surely this is the LEAST we can do for our potential future brothers in punk land?!

On 07/01/2016 07:38 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: <SNIP>

Juan says "I will not compromise the safety of a fellow fighter no matter what", and he sacrifices the appearance of civility to try to achieve this - to try to support our brothers who want to fight, who want to whistleblow, who want to undermine the murderers in our world.

Leading potential fighters astray in their thinking is essentially unforgiveable - which is why I am bound by my own conscience to always say "Juan, thank you! So few speak up as much as you do, for those who genuinely need someone to speak up for them!"

How can we let down our brothers so much?

Well, Juan basically tells them to use nothing. Or at least, I haven't managed to elicit any substantive recommendations. So what the fuck?

Yes, speak our dreams, our hopes! But do so honestly!

Yes, the Tor Project is bullshitting people, and that's evil.

"Positive thinking" is not about deceiving ourselves or those who read our proclamations on crypto anarchist software. And in fact it's quite the opposite as I hope is clear by now - let's get off the hippy flower power "positive speaking will magically manifest secure anonymising software" bullshit bandwagon, and speak bluntly, plainly, and clearly so onlookers are NEVER deceived!

I'm not about positive thinking, but rather about working with what's available. And that includes Tor, even if it's primarily a tool of fascist oppression. The Colt M1911A1 is one of my favorite weapons, for example. Even though it was built for the US military.

Surely this is the LEAST we can do for our potential future brothers in punk land?!

On Jul 1, 2016 11:22 PM, "Mirimir" wrote:

And that includes Tor, even if it's primarily a tool of fascist oppression. The Colt M1911A1 is one of my favorite weapons, for

example. Even though it was built for the US military. Better examples than weapons, my dear... https://mic.com/articles/86489/11-incredible-products-that-were-really-inven...

On 07/01/2016 09:14 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

On Jul 1, 2016 11:22 PM, "Mirimir" wrote:

...

And that includes Tor, even if it's primarily a tool of fascist oppression. The Colt M1911A1 is one of my favorite weapons, for

example. Even though it was built for the US military.

Better examples than weapons, my dear...

https://mic.com/articles/86489/11-incredible-products-that-were-really-inven...

But I _like_ weapons :)

On 07/01/2016 09:08 PM, Rayzer wrote:

On 07/01/2016 06:38 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

then how can we say anything but support for Juan's outspoken vehemence?

ROTF! Because he won't be satisfied with anything less than perfect bulletproof cant-bust-em security.

It's more about ideological purity than perfection, I think. He says that he _uses nothing_.

That's delusional and I don't pander to people's delusions.

I gather that he's calling for a boycott of Tor, based on its origin, design, and funding. But it's not as clear as, for example, boycotts of South Africa or Israel. Many years ago, I recall getting shit from Jewish friends for driving a VW Bug. Designed by Nazis! But this was decades after WWII. So how were Nazis still relevant?

Rr

On 06/29/2016 04:26 PM, juan wrote:

Tor is not a realistic option at all for people who have a quarrell with the powers that be.

The realistic option is an assortment of tools, of which tor is one.

On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:26 PM, juan wrote:

...

For sure. But also for online drug dealers.

Yeah. Ask Ulbricht. Or the guys from agora who made it quite clear that tor doesn't work. Or freedom hosting, or or or

Also, what % of 'illegal' drugs are sold through tor? 0.01%?

I wonder if it's even that high? Err no pun intended. I think you'd be a fool to purchase dope over tor.. there are still indictments coming down on low level buyers all over the world, fallout from the first and second Silk Road busts. Also, unless you're looking for somewhat rare entheogens, in general the prices online are way jacked up. I still make all my transactions the old fashioned way - I just feel like agora etc are crawling with Feds and scammers. Risk reward ratio doesn't balance out when the shit so readily available anyway. -- John

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:12:35PM -0700, Ted Smith wrote:

Juan doesn't get paid to recommend privacy-enhancing technology. Just to scare people away from using it.

I doubt he gets paid for that, but it's certainly a much needed community service. Can't have potential leakers and dissidents running around being led to their own state-sponsored damnation by the MIC shills now...

Juan, I don't know how you could have thought that message referred to you. You're one of the only voices of truth on this list. I read every one of your emails twice, even three times. PLEASE keep posting. On June 26, 2016 9:33:17 PM PDT, juan wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:12:35 -0700 Ted Smith wrote:

...

Juan doesn't get paid to recommend privacy-enhancing technology. Just to scare people away from using it.

And here's another nugget from Ted :

According to him I am `at worst an agent of some oppressive government hoping to scare people off Tor"

I realize that it's quite legitimate for you to come up with crazy conspiracy theories while denouncing people who denounce the tor conspiracy...

...but anyways, do humour me, which 'oppressive government' do I work for? =)

I think I deserve to know =) Or at least I deserve to be entertained a bit...

...

On June 26, 2016 7:57:51 PM PDT, Mirimir wrote:

...

So juan, what do you recommend instead of Tor?

What do you use for privacy and/or "anonymity"?

Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On 06/26/2016 11:15 PM, juan wrote: <SNIP>

So go ahead Teddy, tell me who I work for.

Can I play? I'd bet on Americans, because they're devious motherfuckers ;) But seriously, I can't imagine that you're acting as an agent here.

Why not? On June 26, 2016 10:41:12 PM PDT, Mirimir wrote:

On 06/26/2016 11:15 PM, juan wrote:

<SNIP>

...

So go ahead Teddy, tell me who I work for.

Can I play?

I'd bet on Americans, because they're devious motherfuckers ;)

But seriously, I can't imagine that you're acting as an agent here.

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 08:57:51PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:

Why do you use the Internet? It's arguably just as pwned as Tor is.

I dont think the pwn3d'ness of the reguar internet is in question, or arguable, at all. I mean, if there were ANY questions, they all went away PS (post snowden)... -- John

On Sun, 2016-06-26 at 18:02 -0300, someone wrote:

This is more propaganada. It is to be expected from the likes of grarpamp.

It has some nice touches, like illustrating the ABC of so called 'public choice'. First objective of the tor cunts is to get money. And they do that by servicing the pentagon.

ALL of those shitbags are pentagon employees. Now. At this very moment.

Only retards would care about the fact that one of them also worked for the CIA. That is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. [remainder snipped, but it's more of the same]

I've never engaged in ad hominem attacks on this list, and I don't think they have a place here. This post starts with an ad hominem attack, and goes on to slam those who run the Tor Project (some of which are likely volunteers), while incorrectly saying they all work for the US military. To the rest of the readership on this list (besides the original poster), do you consider this acceptable? Once upon a time, cypherpunks was a place where constructive discussion was the norm, and outright garbage being posted to the list was not. Now, it seems it is the reverse of that. What do we have to do to fix this? -- Shawn K. Quinn

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 08:04:14PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

Once upon a time, cypherpunks was a place where constructive discussion was the norm, and outright garbage being posted to the list was not. Now, it seems it is the reverse of that. What do we have to do to fix this?

That would be called either cypherNOTpunks or nettime, the latter exists and includes a lovely big copyright exclusivity warning threat at the bottom of every email the listserv sends out along with the moderation - should be just what your nanny ordered.

On Sun, 2016-06-26 at 20:52 -0600, Mirimir wrote:

On 06/26/2016 07:04 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

...

I've never engaged in ad hominem attacks on this list, and I don't think they have a place here. This post starts with an ad hominem attack, and goes on to slam those who run the Tor Project (some of which are likely volunteers), while incorrectly saying they all work for the US military.

Why not just killfile people who post stuff that you don't want to read?

I shouldn't have to. That's what community standards of decent behavior are for. That's what moderation is for.

...

To the rest of the readership on this list (besides the original poster), do you consider this acceptable?

It's not my call.

As part of the community, it is your call. A simple "no, I consider this unacceptable" would have sufficed.

This is an unmoderated, uncensored list. I like that. If you don't like it, unsubscribe.

That's a complete non-solution, as it means I lose all of the quality messages along with the crap. It is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Standing up for someone's right to pollute the list with messages that, in all honesty, contribute nothing to civil discussion, is bad enough. Your suggestion that I unsubscribe is many times worse than that.

...

Once upon a time, cypherpunks was a place where constructive discussion was the norm, and outright garbage being posted to the list was not. Now, it seems it is the reverse of that. What do we have to do to fix this?

When would that have been? I've been subscribed off and on to various versions of this list for about 20 years, and there's always been garbage. Some of the garbage has been very entertaining :) Back in the day, there was so much garbage that I had to subscribe to the filtered version, to conserve bandwidth. And even that had loads of garbage.

Maybe circa 2003-2006 or so, it used to not be like this. At least, I don't remember it being anywhere near this bad, even when there was the occasional flaming going on. I've never seen someone spew one attack after another after another. Getting banned from a mailing list, in general, should serve as a warning that one's conduct is unacceptable. If this describes you, recently, please heed that warning. -- Shawn K. Quinn

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:51:13AM -0300, juan wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:44:18 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote:

...

Getting banned from a mailing list, in general, should serve as a warning that one's conduct is unacceptable. If this describes you, recently, please heed that warning.

Wow. Is this stupid motherfucker and worthless scumbag threatening me? Isn't that cute =) Are you going to send the marines?

Ooh. Aah. Hmm. Shawn, can you tone it down a little please, it sounds like Juan's getting a bit scared here. We don't want bullying on the list, or we might have to introduce moderation ...

On 06/26/2016 08:44 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

I shouldn't have to. That's what community standards of decent behavior are for. That's what moderation is for.

Direct question,,, Why are you interested in changing a list's demeanor when it's ALWAYS been like this according to long term "residents"? Maybe you should just unsub if it's an issue for you. Rr

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:21:54 -0700 Ted Smith wrote:

You're totally correct, but the people who actually do control this list have decided it's more important for the obvious CyberCom trolls to drive the list into the ground than it is to violate their concept of ~freedom of speech~.

You mean, the people who host the list do have principles? Unlike you? I understand how you feel Ted. Having no principles while dealing with people who do have principles and respect free speech must be painful. Ah, you are giving your game away too. You are another wannabe lefty 'anarchist' who actually use robotic jargon from the US DoD and neocon establishment. "oppressive government" What kind of person uses that cliche...? (certainly no anarchist would, since the expression clearly implies the existence of 'non oppressive' government...Plus 'oppressive government' means 'government' in the pentagon's kill list)

It really sucks that the list has been fucked over by some people who are at worst being paid to do so by a government (a possibility I've become convinced is near to the truth)

Based on what evidence? =) Come on Ted. You are a scientist and a champion of 'transparency'. Do enlighten your readership.

I was banned from tor-talk mailing list for defending a victim of brutal harassment and accusations with no proofs. This victim is my friend and is being attacked for a lynch mob. Is it not decent for you?

! Nothing to add. Except that WE BOTH were banned for that reason by fuckers who talk about "principles/decency/etc." Boyce, Quinn,..... - are hypocrites. Just ugly hypocrites who play with beautiful words like jugglers. I prefer to be banned of all existent mailing and discussion lists than

supporting something so infamous, so disgusting...

!!! Me too.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 04:59:51 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

http://pastebin.com/WPAmqkW8

It was somewhat entertaining.... ** = my comments. sekritarma> my little birdy tells me silk road 2 was indeed opsec sekritarma> failure, and the surrounding busts were because the silk sekritarma> road 2 guy named a whole lot of names **"my little birdy"(transparency first!) and tor's failure is always blamed on someone else. ioerror> Once, I was deported from Lebanon for being jewish, which was ioerror> because htey said i was a spy for israel (false) **lol - he needs to deny it...? mikeperry> I was excited to have a bridge to the State dept and gov't mikeperry> bureaucrats, **no comment... ioerror> If we hire a CIA person, which we have done apparently, we ioerror> will get people murdered **...because of opressive regimes! gamambel> why don't we take the RBN money for HS? **RBN? mikeperry> we're in that line also in part because we need lots of mikeperry> people to find Tor valuable, including the CIA **no comment. mikeperry>Andrew mailed tor-internal about his creepy plane flight with mikeperry>CIA agents next to him, telling him he should apply for IARPA mikeperry>funding/CIA funding mikeperry> I have no doubt that the CIA would find Tor useful, and its mikeperry> funding would not comrpromise us, **no comment. ioerror> mikeperry: Funding does compromise us ioerror> I am clear on that now. ioerror> Tor is compromised. **wow - that's so honest - as long it's said behind closed doors... DaveC1> And, I mean, again. I was joining an organization started by a DaveC1> NSA veteran. THat's the part that's still really confusing to DaveC1> me. ioerror> DaveC1: Roger's internship at the NSA is not the same kind of ioerror> veteran who helped invade iraq **sure - the NSA are good guys. Looks like the ex murderer, I mean 'soldier' and CIA agent is more reasonable than the tor mafia. ioerror> I have a lot of respect for Paul from the NRL and for many ioerror> people who fought in many wars **and looks like appelbaum's 'pacifism' is quite selective. Then again, he's on the pentagon's payroll... ioerror> I have very different politics than most people comprehend **yeah! fake anarchist working for the pentagon is kinda hard to 'comprehend'... DaveC1> ...But the things you're saying create an actively hostile work DaveC1> environment for veterans. **american psycho-murderer (aka soldier) whining about 'discrimination' - priceless. DaveC1> Runa: Griffin asked what was up. I told her "let me tell Roger DaveC1> first?, is that OK?" I would have told you the same. **griffin?? that wouldn't be the worthless scumbag boyce, would it...? because he says he doesn't work for the tor mafia... DaveC1> Runa: Sorry. I really didn't think that it would be a big deal DaveC1> since Roger was NSA. **birds of a feather... mikeperry> asn: I am not as distressed by the idea of a CIA pm as I am mikeperry> by what the rest of the world will think. **we are corrupt to the core, we only care about deceiving people as best as we can. ---------------- Also, there's a guy constantly repeating that his family in iran is going to be murdered because of this CIA guy. The story is completely nonsense of course. Supposedly, the iranian guy is working for tor, *helping the pentagon undermine the iranian government*. That's fine and dandy. The iranian gov't doesn't really care. HOWEVER, if the silly story about the CIA agent gets out, now the iranian government is going to kill this guy's family....why exactly? Because now they really understood what tor is about? Please.