the most annoying thing about Juan

[juan]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 01:52:11 -0600
Mirimir <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> 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. 

	It certainly is 'technical', pretty basic, and you must be
	as aware of this just as I am, so I don't understand why you
	want me to repeat it. Trolling? Bah.

	But here it goes again! Pay fucking attention.

	The US military is a 'global adversary' - they have enough taps
	on cables, exchanges, ASs, whatever, to be able to deanonimize
	tor users. Especially so called 'hidden' services. 

	
	On the other hand, people like, say, Ross Ulbricht, don't have
	taps on the global fiber infrastructure, don't have access to
	IXPs, can't hack routers, etc. Get that? 

	Furthermore the only psychos who have that level of access to
	the 'infrastructure' are the syverson psychos, the US military. 
	
	The US military can spy on all the planet - no other national
	government can do that. That why they can safely use tor, and
	no one else can.

	

> So it sounds like just an assumption.
> 
> >> It's the same argument that we make about encryption
> >> generally. 
> > 
> > 	No it is not. You are *misaplying* the argument. 
> > 
> > 
> >> 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 ;)


	No fallacy. YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT.



> 
> So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK?

	They can be OK, and I don't care for any 'general theory' about
	backdoors anyway - I'm just talking about or. 

	The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US military
	has sabotaged the internet.


> Or are you
> just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. 

	I don't think they are the dumb ones here...


> That
> they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
> 

	Yep. There's nothing surprinsing about that.



> >> As I understand Juan's position, that wouldn't work for him.
> > 
> > 	What wouldn't work? 
> 
> Let's assume, hypothetically, 


	Sorry Mirimir, if you first acknowledge facts, then I might
	entertain your hypotheticals. 


> that Tor is secure for everyone. And
> let's acknowledge that US military uses it for evil.


	Are you trolling me? 



> 
> If that were so, would you use and recommend Tor?
> 
> Or would you reject it, because it's used for evil?
>