the most annoying thing about Juan

[Sean Lynch]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:02 AM 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. 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: 4424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160720/8db5d2bf/attachment-0002.txt>