request for transcript: Bruce Schneier and Eben Moglen discuss a post-Snowden Internet

[John Young]

You understand I am Juan, Jon, Ian, Ivan, Giovanni and
Jean. And Julian and Ed and Chelsea. Chinese, Russian,
Iranian and terrorist. All undifferentiated in a haystack of
PRISM and drone demons.

Hurling insults aid finding the easiest to turn or burn.



At 01:21 PM 12/17/2013, you wrote:
>Juan Garofalo:
> >
> >
> > --On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:03 AM +0000 Jacob Appelbaum
> > <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Juan Garofalo:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:43 AM +0000 Jacob Appelbaum
> >>> <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Juan Garofalo:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --On Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:11 PM -0800 coderman
> >>>>> <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Video:
> >>>>>>  https://archive.org/details/schneier
> >>>>>> Audio:
> >>>>>>  http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2013/a_conversation_with_bruce
> >>>>>>  _s ch neier/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   "the nsa can't break tor"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   Ha? tor developers admit that the nsa can break tor but 
> schneider says
> >>>>> otherwise?
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do we admit that the NSA can break Tor? We have seen evidence only
> >>>> for the NSA exploiting the code in Tor Browser (Firefox) and never in
> >>>> the core Tor network software.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     See my next messages. I'm referring to the "users get router" paper.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Wait, you're taking an academic paper, a good one I might add, and
> >> saying that this counts as admission by the Tor Project that our efforts
> >> are futile?
> >
> >
> >       The paper states that traffic analysis is feasible. I mean, 
> that isn't
> > exactly news. The paper seems to admit that traffic analysis is (a lot?)
> > easier that previously supposed.
> >
>
>Traffic analysis is likely feasible if you can watch all of the
>internet. The question is at what resolution? With full packet captures
>of everything, for all time, it becomes a statistical question with some
>possibly negative outcomes.
>
> >       So, yes, that shows that tor can't protect people from the 
> US government.
>
>Actually, we see from the documents that they cannot deanonymize all
>people, all of the time; they must target. So actually, it *does*
>protect people from instantly falling into the pitfalls related to
>dragnet surveillance. You're avoiding this and it is totally silly.
>
> > Which actually shouldn't be surprising since tor is a tool of the US
> > government.
>
>The Tor Project is a 501c3 non-profit. As a company, we're not tools of
>anyone and as a tool, tor, is similarly not a tool of the US government.
>Your statements indicating otherwise are just rude and uninformed.
>
> >
> >       As to your 'efforts being futile' - that's not my wording. 
> Depending on
> > what your ends are, your efforts are certainly not futile...
> >
>
>Could you possibly be more of an asshole, Juan?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>     I see no reason to believe that the NSA can't find out 
> who's who in the
> >>> tor network.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the leaked documents that specifically state this fact might
> >> clue you into their capabilities?
> >
> >
> >       Oh, come on. Again "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
> >
>
>How does that old quote go? "That which is presented without evidence
>may be dismissed without argument." Yeah, exactly.
>
> >>
> >> I encourage you to read them:
> >>
> >>   http://media.encrypted.cc/files/nsa/
> >
> >       I've already seen a few of them. No, I obviously don't 
> think that those
> > prove anything. Did I mention that "absence of evidence is not evidence of
> > absence"?
>
>
>The NSA and the GCHQ ran a real operation to deanonymize someone. Do you
>understand how they attempted to do this? Do you understand the evidence
>presented or will you continue to ignore it?
>
> >
> >       And while we're it, did I miss any leaked documents 
> discussing traffic
> > analysis of tor? There should be some no?
>
>Yes, you did - read the above documents already? The CES summer school
>document discusses some of this and it is sadly very poor research. The
>open community, such as Aaron's recent paper, is much much further
>ahead. This is what we expect - this is why we work with an open
>research community so seriously.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Contained in those files, I see no evidence for your assertions. Aaron's
> >> paper is good but as Al said, feel free to show us some evidence that
> >> you've used it to break Tor!
> >
> >
> >       I really can't believe you wrote that. You think I'm that stupid?
>
>I'm giving you some credit - break it, already?
>
> >
> >       The way to 'break' tor, that is, find things like the 
> location of, say,
> > freedom hosting and silk road, is to monitor traffic. I obviously can't do
> > that. Your government can obviously do that.
> >
>
>Can you please explain to everyone how they found the location of the
>Silk Road? Hint: it wasn't Tor, it was his extremely bad operational
>security and using... a VPN!
>
> >       Please.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   plus, schneier, greenwald and partners don't seem to have too much
> >>>>> credibility at this point
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     Because they have access to a lot of information they are not
> >>>     publishing, and have close ties to the establishment.
> >>
> >> Wait, they have access to information, that they publish, story by story
> >> and that means that they're not credible? That is hilariously strange
> >> reasoning.
> >
> >
> >       What's hilarious is your attempt at twisting what I said.
> >
>
>You criticize the only people working to inform the public and you
>degrade their honor without having real information about their
>specifics. Do you live under threat for your work? Do you live in exile
>from your home country? Do you do anything that matters where someone
>else has some criticisms because they don't have a full view on your
>entire life or because they misunderstand something about what is
>presented in public?
>
> >
> >> The information is coming out as quickly as people are able
> >> to make sense of it.
> >
> >
> >       Oh really. I need to be spoon fed by computer illiterate 
> greenwald? That's
> > cool...
> >
> >       And how do these superior people gauge the rate at which the inferior
> > people they spoon fed are able to consume what they are given? Just
> > curious...
> >
>
>Ah, I see - you're basically just green with envy? Well, get in line, eh?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>     Plus, isn't the latest news that greenwald was bribed/bought by ebays
> >>> owner, who happens to be the typical fake american 'libertarian' (he's
> >>> actually a mercantilist conservative - see what kind of 'free' market
> >>> ebay is)
> >>
> >> No, the latest news is that Glenn still has nouns of steel and is still
> >> publishing incredible news on a regular basis.
> >
> >
> >       OK...
> >
>
>You could actually demonstrate that you see that Glenn, Laura and others
>have taken real risks by doing anything at all to inform us. The way
>that you behave, it is a wonder that they take such risks with people
>who are so cynical and ungrateful as their peanut gallery. Lucky for the
>rest of humanity that for every dozen people spending their energy being
>so unkind, as you are, we have thousands who appreciate their efforts.
>
>All the best,
>Jacob