the most annoying thing about Juan

[juan]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:54:34 -0600
Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:


> >>
> >> But frightening people from using Tor, 
> > 
> > 
> > 	I am not frightening anyone. I'm telling people the truth.
> > Had people like Ulbricht assumed that tor was fucked he wouldn't be
> > 	roting in jail right now, for instance.
> 
> If he had done it without Tor, he would have been in jail a lot
> sooner!
> 
> It is likely that he pushed his luck too far using Tor.


	A lot of people in the silk road forum liked to brag about how
	clever they were and how good tor was...


> 
> >> when there are no viable
> >> alternatives, is also at best irresponsible. 
> > 
> > 
> > 	You know there are alternatives. You just were promoting
> > 	vpns a couple of days ago on tor-talk (and I'm glad you
> > were)
> 
> Nested VPN chains are also vulnerable to global adversaries.

	Of course. I never suggested otherwise. The point is, they are
	vulnerable more or less like tor is, but at least they don't
	have some of tor's downsides.


> It may be
> that all low-latency anonymity systems that can scale to many users
> are vulnerable to global adversaries.

	Yes, that sounds pretty likely.


> 
> >> Even if Tor is more or
> >> less useless against US military, it still protects users against
> >> other adversaries. And arguably it even protects most users from US
> >> military, if only because they're not important enough to focus on.
> > 
> > 
> > 	Tell that to freedom hosting and all the rest. I can keep
> > going in circles, you know, constantly refuting your propaganda...
> 
> Yes, we do keep coming back to the same circular discussion, don't we?


	I think you know all the stuff I keep repeating as well as I
	do, or perhaps even better. You just don't want to draw any
	radical conclusion...


> > 	YOU ARE MISAPPLYING THE ARGUMENT and I already explained
> > why, twice. Or perhaps ten times. Tor is backdoored by design. GPAs
> > 	have access to the backdoor.
> 
> That's not really a backdoor. 

	Maybe I'm not fully complying with the technical definition of
	backdoor, but regardless of the name we use, tor works as if it
	was 'backdoored' by the people who created it. They can
	deanonimize people. It's not as easy as calling an actual
	backdoor in the code, but it can be done anyway.



> You argue that Tor is vulnerable to
> global adversaries, and was designed that way. But it's not just Tor.

	True. But I never said "it's just tor" either...

> It seems that all low-latency anonymity systems that scale to
> numerous users are vulnerable to global adversaries.

	Yes.



> > 
> > 	Cosmic bullshit.
> 
> I'm just saying that you don't know for sure. 


	You can of course ask for imposible levels of proof. Do you
	want videos of meetings between syverson and his pentagon
	bosses?


> You may think that you
> do. But there's just too much uncertainty. You said as much in another
> thread. 

	What I said is there's too much uncertainty for people who want
	to pretend that tor is 'reasonably' safe. THEY have the burden
	of proof and THEY can't prove their claims because there are
	lots of possible failure points. 

	If you are selling something that is complex, and even you
	 don't even fully understand, then that's too bad...for
	you! You can't get a free pass because *your* system is complex.

	PLUS, there's a fair amount of evidence illustrating failures.
	Ever heard about Ross Ulbricht? Freedom hosting? Agora? Sybil
	attacks? 2015 FBI attack? (I'm not even keeping up with the
	news)



> The issue is what to do when there's uncertainty. We disagree.
> 

	Yeah well.


> >>> 	The 'backdoor' in tor is simply the fact that the US
> >>> military has sabotaged the internet.
> >>
> >> Actually, they pretty much invented it ;)
> > 
> > 
> > 	Oh yes. We lived in the stone age before the US miliary
> > 	invented duct tape.
> 
> Pretty much ;) At least, initial development of computers was mainly
> driven by military.


	Ah yes. The more broken windows, the more economic development
	we get. 



> >>
> >> I wonder if they have AIs yet. That would be amazing!
> > 
> > 
> > 	Yes, kurzweil is an AI. He's as clever as google's spam
> > filter.
> 
> I was pointing to the difficulty of interpreting global intercepts.


	I don't think you need an 'AI'(whatever you imagine them to be)
	to count packets or match timing/patterns.




> > 
> > 	Hm, I misread the part about evil? The US military uses tor
> > for evil, there's nothing 'hypothetical' about that. Is that what
> > 	you are saying?
> > 
> > 	So the only hypothetical part would be tor actually
> > working...
> 
> Yes. I thought that was clear.

	Yes, my bad.



> > 	Would a real anonimity network make it possible to actually
> > 	cause substantial damage to the government? In that case it
> > 	might be worthwhile to try it. Perhaps.
> 
> More than damaged, I want to see governments gone.

	And you think the pentagon is funding a system that could cause
	even a bit of damage to them?

> 
> > 	But would any government create something that can be used
> > to destroy it? Obviously not, so your hypothetical is just
> > 	diversion (in the 'military' sense). Sorry.
> 
> Sure they would. Nuclear weapons, for example. 

	So how are you going to destroy government using nuclear
	weapons? (which you don't have access to anyway)


> Or biological warfare,
> which is now pretty much doable at home.

	Well, chemical weapons are pretty much doable at home too and
	were not directly created by the government. They are a basic
	application of 19th century commercial chemistry. 

	But all this is beside the point. 


> Or personal computers and the
> Internet :)

	The internet is a tool for total domination. 



> 
> >> I'm just wanting to clarify your position.
> 
> Thanks.
>