[tor-talk] Tor and solidarity against online harassment
mirimir at riseup.net
Tue Dec 16 01:45:03 UTC 2014
On 12/15/2014 01:43 PM, Juan wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:51:04 -0700
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2014 06:33 PM, Juan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:18:29 -0700
>>> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2014 01:43 PM, Juan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:20:12 -0500
>>>>> Roger Dingledine <arma at mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:23:42PM -0300, Juan wrote:
>>>>>>>> You might like
>>>>>>>> We won't put backdoors in Tor. Ever.
>>>>>>> You work for the pentagon and are subjects of the US
>>>>>>> The US government has secret 'courts' and secretly
>>>>>>> forces its subjects to tamper with all kinds of 'security'
>>>>>>> systems, in the name of 'national security'.
>>>>>>> Whatever public declamations you make carry very little
>>>> Well, who do you work for, then?
>>> Whatever work I do is none of your business since it has
>>> nothing to do with politics.
>> So you say ;)
> Yes. You don't trust me? You are not implying you believe in
> your own 'conspiracy theories' eh? =)
I trust as little as possible ;)
But hey, there was no reason to go there, and I apologize.
> But here's the thing. It's trivial for Roger and friends to
> look me up in any of their .mil databases. So they know or
> can easily know.
> You as a 'fan' of some project of the US state may not have that
> kind of info but rest assured other people do.
There's little doubt that Tor is the strongest low-latency anonymity
system around for general Internet browsing. Maybe, unfortunately,
that's not saying much. But I'm not a "fan". Tor is a tool, and a good
tool at that, but there are limitations.
I believe that it's prudent to hide Tor use behind nested VPN chains,
given that the NSA etc are logging all connections to it. I also
believe, for stronger anonymity, especially against global adversaries,
that it's prudent to tunnel VPNs and/or JonDonym through Tor.
>>> But you asked your loaded question anyway. Since I call out
>>> the 'democratic' 'liberal' americunt tor project I must work for
>>> somebody else? The chinese? The muslamic terrists? Moscow?
>>> Take your pick.
>> OK, I was just curious to see what you'd say.
> Fine. And? What conclusion do you draw from my answer?
I conclude that it doesn't matter ;)
>>> No, the fact that I laugh at the US government, its
>>> lackeys, and its sick propaganda doesn't mean I work for any other
>>> political organization. I am politicallly independent. Something you
>>> might not be.
>> Nope. I'm total freelance.
Hey, thanks :)
>>>> Your arguments have little weight without evidence that Tor has
>>>> been tampered with on behalf of the US government.
>>> Whatever you say bro. Notice how you're unable to counter
>>> any single thing I said. That's why you
>>> <SNIP>ed my whole message.
>> I snipped your interchange with Roger because I have nothing new to
>> add. Roger says: "No backdoors. Ever." And you argue that statements
>> by American subjects who work for its government can't be trusted.
>> But as you and Roger seem to agree, it's all just words. What's to
> To clarify, just in case. My analysis isn't "just
> words". It's a sound analysis.
Those are issues that all Tor users should be aware of. But the line
between healthy paranoia and FUD can get fuzzy. And FUD doesn't just
hurt Tor. It hurts people who need anonymity, and either end up using
something weaker, or using nothing at all, or are left with using Tor
that's been weakened by FUD.
> The tor project is hardly to be trusted and people saying
> "trust us, we're the good guys" are pretty much mocking the
> audience. *Their* assertions are "just words".
Again, it's not the words that matter. It's the open code, the open
network, the freedom to investigate, probe and even attack. What matters
are observable facts, not just the words.
>> My point, which you sidestep, is that it's past time for you to
>> produce some evidence for backdoors in Tor.
> Did I ever state "there are backdoors"? No I didn't. You
> are asking for evidence to back up something I never said.
OK, so why would association with the US government matter, but for
backdoors and intentional weakness? Moral taint? That's arguably
irrelevant, considering the diversity of Tor's user base ;)
> On the other hand, what would a backdoor in tor or similar
> software look like? I'm guessing there are no 'backdoors' in
> tor, only 'bugs'. I think it's called "plausible deniability"
> or something like that...
True. But first, we need to find stuff that needs denied. Actually, we
ought to just focus on getting bugs and design deficiencies fixed.
>> You and your associates
> WHat associates are those?
It's an old habit from academia ;)
>> are free to inspect the source code, to probe the network as you like
>> with your relays and clients, and to do whatever else you can
>> imagine. Go for it.
> Why on earth should I do other people's work? Help the
> propaganda efforts of the US government? Please =)
Maybe because you're committed to freedom? And by that, I don't mean the
US-government-approved version :)
>>> Even Roger knows better than that...
>> I'm not interested in debating.
> Oh. And what are you doing, exactly, when you reply to my
I'm trying to shift the conversation from debate to science.
>> It would be repetitious and boring.
Sorry, that was rude. But we have been saying the same stuff to each
other for at least a year on this list, and perhaps for some time longer
in other forums. I'm just looking for a way out of the loop :)
More information about the tor-talk