Tor, the pentagon's cyberweapon

[Karl]

You say the same things over and over without dialogue way more
clearly than others do.  I don't get it at all.  Anything else I
should know?

On 10/13/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:11:18 -0400
> Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> punk, it's not helpful to tell people not to use tor.
> 	
> 	of course it is. Tor is garbage and it has to go.
>
>> tor _increases their anonymity_.
>
> 	you don't know that. At best tor gives some deniability.
>
>
>> it _is_ helpful to make sure they know they are _still not fully
>> anonymous_ using it.
>
> 	that's right, people should know that they can't 'trust' tor. And so why
> use something you can't 'trust'?
>
>
>>  We want people using tor, and  understanding that they are still not
>> anonymous.
>
> 	no 'we' don't want people using tor. Unless by 'we' you mean US govcorp.
>
>
>> The increased anonymity reduces the random harm, and increases the flow of
>> free information.
>
> 	you're ignoring the harm that tor causes.
> 	
>
>>
>> > 	anyway, if you want to make something that actually works, don't
>> > bother
>> > with tor's source but start with the 'conceptual' design. Notice that
>> > one of
>> > tor's core 'features' is a handful of 'directory authorities' (owned by
>> > the
>> > pentagon of course) - but even if the handful of servers that control
>> > the
>> > network would not be owned by the enemy, they would still be
>> > problematic.
>>
>> Do you assume that 'feature' can't be pulled out?  last i looked it
>> was more educational institutions than the pentagon, dunno.
>
> 	The 'directory authorities' work for the US military. You can call them
> 'educational institutions' or sausages or anything else. Their name doesn't
> change their nature.
>
>
>
>