the most annoying thing about Juan
Rayzer
rayzer at riseup.net
Wed Jul 20 09:36:44 PDT 2016
> 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: <https://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: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160720/db4174b5/attachment-0003.sig>
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list