Instead of only bashing tor, why not discuss the alternatives?
zen at freedbms.net
Thu Jul 21 02:48:20 PDT 2016
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:58:47AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> Tor, likewise, should not be less secure than it could be. Multiple
> transfer hops (as opposed to the current one-hop),decoy (a given
> packet 'explodes' into multiple packets, maybe only one is 'real')
> transfers, padded with adjustable filler traffic, etc, should have
> been added by now. Why the delay?
AIUI, there current stated reason is "we do those things we get funding
for, and we've never been able to get funding for these particular
things" - although the cynic in me can't help think that they are
failing to properly apply the funding they get/ failing to make the
'proper' (perhaps semi-devious) funding applications.
Of course the basic problems are:
1) GPAs/ USA monitors the whole world's internet
2) the CIA/USA/NSA is the only one currently funding Tor to any decent
We got a long way to go..
More information about the cypherpunks