the most annoying thing about Juan

Mirimir mirimir at
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> 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
> 	that.

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
*huge* problem.

>>> 	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
> 	proceeding? 

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 mailing list