dark web briefest intro - was Re: educate me Please

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 07/23/2017 02:52 PM, z9wahqvh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com
> <mailto:skquinn at rushpost.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent
>     at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove
>     otherwise, please post the proof.
> 
> 
> proof is right there on Tor's own site. there is still substantial US
> government funding. according to the Tor Project "Sponsors" page
> (https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en
> <https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en>), current funders
> include:
> 
> -- the Open Technology Fund (https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq
> <https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq>), a subsidiary of the Broadcasting
> Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/,
> https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/
> <https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/>), a long-time sponsor of Tor,
> and the US government agency that sponsors the various "Radio Free"
> projects and has deep ties to CIA and other parts of the intelligence
> apparatus; 
> -- the National Science Foundation, the science funding body of the
> Federal government.

So strictly speaking, I was a bit off the mark. However, I think neither
the OTF nor the NSF are able to exert the kind of pressure that #$%&#$
was asserting to be the reason that there is no chaff-filled network
feature in Tor.

And it still means #$%&#$ was probably wrong on this statement:

> which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation
> of the Tor network

but of course the conspiracy theorists and the people like #$%& who
insist I work for the US government (a huge laugh given my past, BTW)
are going to say that NSF money and CIA/DIA/DOD/NSA money are the same,
yada yada yada, bullshit bullshit bullshit (to the tune of The Battle
Hymn of the Republic).

> NSF is pretty basic-science oriented and the grants that funded those
> are publicly available & probably not for general operating funds.

Right. In other words, it's not laundered NSA money to put a subtle
backdoor in despite what #$%& is going to try to tell us. Glad we're
clear on that.

> also of note is that while that page says US State Dept funding ended in
> 2016, for some reason it remains listed under "Current sponsors." hard
> to tell what "current" means since the page isn't dated. at any rate,
> State was still a funder as of the latest annual Financial Report.

This is the one that worries me a bit. Now I'd rather the State
Department not fund Tor, but the timing of the drop-off says a lot.
(Hint: What happened at the end of 2016?)

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170723/83bbf63e/attachment.sig>