[tor-talk] Tor in the media

[z9wahqvh]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Ted Smith <tedks at riseup.net> wrote:

> List administrators, you have dedicated significant resources towards
> stopping censorship, and I understand that you don't want to use the
> banhammer lightly, but any unkempt garden inevitably becomes a bed of
> weeds, and this is something you need to kill NOW.
>
>
It's going nowhere. Name-calling is a remarkable response to my question. I
am not about to unleash any kind of invective or condemnation of Tor on
this list.

Further, I have already made clear that I believe the evidence from the
Ulbricht prosecution, as well as observations of the Silk Road itself,
raise some very real concerns about the most common uses of technology like
Tor. I am not "pretending" to be on your side, or not. I am trying to
understand.

on this list, supporters frequently call negative statements about Tor
"FUD." They refer--you yourself have--to the "great majority of uses" of
Tor.

I have read the websites. I have read the lists. I am an open-minded
person. They do not appear to provide support for these statements,
although they frequently dismiss those who make them. I am asking, how do
you know?

That is a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Provide me with
a simple answer that makes sense and I will believe it, or at least report
it.

The fact that this has turned into name-calling and requests for censorship
(go right ahead, I mostly listen and read here anyway), but that nobody has
even tried to explain how they know what "the majority of uses" of Tor are,
or how they know that it is "FUD" to talk about its negative uses, does not
lead me to believe that these statements actually are easy to support.

I am not here to support Tor or to bash it. I am here to learn. I and the
people I work with write things. Sometimes they are critical, sometimes
supportive, usually both. I am interested in facts, not opinions. I try to
report the facts I find.