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

[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. 

	So, yes, that shows that tor can't protect people from the US government.
Which actually shouldn't be surprising since tor is a tool of the US
government. 

	As to your 'efforts being futile' - that's not my wording. Depending on
what your ends are, your efforts are certainly not futile...



> 
>> 	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". 

> 
> 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"? 


	And while we're it, did I miss any leaked documents discussing traffic
analysis of tor? There should be some no?

> 
> 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? 

	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. 

	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. 


> 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...



> 
>> 
>> 	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...



> 
> All the best,
> Jacob
> 
>