[tor-talk] Tor and solidarity against online harassment

[Juan]

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
> >>>>>> https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#Backdoor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We won't put backdoors in Tor. Ever.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	LOL! 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	You work for the pentagon and are subjects of the US
> >>>>> state.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	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
> >>>>> weight.
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >> 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? =)

	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. 


> 
> > 	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? 


> 
> > 	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.

	Good.


> 
> >> 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
> counter?
	
	To clarify, just in case. My analysis isn't "just
	words". It's a sound analysis. 

	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".



> 
> 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.

	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...



>You and your associates

	WHat associates are those? 


> 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 =)



> 
> > 	Even Roger knows better than that...
> 
> I'm not interested in debating.
	
	Oh. And what are you doing, exactly, when you reply to my
	messages?


> It would be repetitious and boring.

	Yeah...


J.