the most annoying thing about Juan

[Rayzer]

> 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 at riseup.net
> <mailto:mirimir at riseup.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 07/19/2016 03:38 PM, juan wrote:
>     > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:40:20 -0600
>     > Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net <mailto:mirimir at 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?
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6994 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160720/db4174b5/attachment-0002.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160720/db4174b5/attachment-0002.sig>