the most annoying thing about Juan
mirimir at riseup.net
Thu Jul 21 03:14:24 PDT 2016
On 07/21/2016 03:00 AM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>> I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more
>> disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
> Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =)
> I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To
> explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain
> what the US state is, what it has done and what it does.
> And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for
> those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping
> their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense
> about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn'
> Let me know when they behave like decent humans being and do
At this point, I'd settle for some disclaimers and warnings about
vulnerabilities, and links to resources for addressing them.
>>> Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust
>>> themselves deserve.
>> Tor is open source, so trusting software doesn't depend entirely on
>> trusting coders.
> Come on, not that one...
It ain't perfect, but it's better than nothing.
>>> The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's
>>> based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching.
>> It's based on intercepts _and_ "fancy math and number crunching".
> No. It's timing, counting packets that kind of thing. Nothing
> fancy. I suppose they have dedicated hardware to do that sort
> of correlation, well call that 'number crunching' if you want...
Not that simple. Maybe not "fancy", but there's a *lot* of data. And
when you look for correlation at such scales, false positives are a
>>> There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because
>>> that serves their ends.
>>> And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the
>>> ones they sabotaged.
>>> But, again, this doesn't apply to tor.
>> You are very suspicious ;)
> Yes. Do you 'trust' them? =)
I don't trust anyone :)
>>>>> 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.
>>> I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you
>>> are not thinking as correctly as you should.
>> They have done some pretty stupid things.
> For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean
> "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think
> the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of
> any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe
> as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game.
They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to
bankrupt itself and disappoint its population. But I think that they've
consistently fucked up in the Middle East. Generally, they focus too
much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual
failure. They count too much on brute force.
> Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to
> impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan
Short term, it's doing OK. Long term, probably not so good.
I suspect that the Chinese have pwned them hard.
More information about the cypherpunks