[tor-talk] Tor Summer of Privacy

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 4/6/15, Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:51:31 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>
>> - full decentralization model for TOR
>
> 	I doubt that's something the US military is going to favor. I'm

I too seriously doubt that.

> 	guessing that having a bunch of 'directory authorities' under
> 	their full control was one of the basic design requirements.

Well, I haven't read a lot, but I think there was this history of TOR
where a couple of blokes did what made most sense to them at the time,
and the government (I would attribute "opportunistically") chose to
fund that.

Pro-actively supporting/funding those technologies which are useful to
big-govt-self, in this case TOR, could be attributed as having malice,
but I tend to the "schizophrenic nature/ conflicting interests" side
of the debate.

Notwithstanding, TSOC is a prime opportunity, Juan (hint hint, nudge
nudge) to verify or otherwise disprove your "primary intent is one of
malice" position - if a well-written design document (including an
as-yet-unsolved trust model which you magically solve) for dir-auth
de-centralization gets rejected for a couple years in a row, your
hypothesis is then proven, and we'd all have a wonderful data point on
the evil-ness of the TOR-backers-and-string-pullers.

Until then, I do (hint hint, nudge nudge), encourage you to write up
your TSOC project proposal :) :)

Please. Please do. Please pretty please with cherries on top please?


> 	On a somewhat related note, has google or any other big and
> 	corrupt american organization pretending to care about 'freedom'

Unrelated to but prompted by your question, I assert the following:
Google, (and I think TOR) started as a hacker- or uni- sponsored
"let's try this concept" project.

Ie, started by one or a few hackers with a great idea and usually
spouting (and I use the word spouting here intentionally) good and
magnanimous intentions (eg Google's "do no evil" as they used to say).

Concept works, within its parameters.

Concept takes off due to overwhelming (yet relative) effectiveness
(within its parameters) as  compared with existing 'solutions' for the
problem domain.

Funding offers comes in, with prerequisite of diluting ownership, and
most significantly, diluting control.

The hackers (fellow humans I do note), take the money, dilute their
ownership, and (most significantly) dilute their control. The
share-sale contract, at this stage usually private (I'm thinking
google and most startups here), usually carries condition(s) that
further funding be accepted, or at least, more of the same happens, in
particular with the IPO. Now there are shareholders. These
shareholders are superannuation hedge-funds, government bodies
(through proxies) such as the NSA, FBI etc, and more similarly-good
goodness (please note facetious tone at this point in my typing).

If the original developers/ controllers of the new-fangled concept
didn't lose control in the first round(s) of funding, they certainly
do at the IPO stage.

Basically, most humans take the money and run.

I.e., most humans are greedy, and put their personal wealth ahead of principle.

Thus becoming a large company carries with it:
- personal cashing out of the founders;
- the sociopathic nature of companies;
- diluted control;
- control of said company through acts of government;
- control by those with the most money (to buy the shares, or to have
enough group- or individual share-voting control to put in place
chosen sock-puppets (evil doers) at the helm of said companies;
- concentrated control in the hands of those entities which act
sociopathically (shed a tear, I do);

If one or more of the founders continue at the helm of such
sociopathic-by-nature-and-by-founding-constitution entities, then it
can be reasonably inferred that such founders are inherently with that
same nature;

witness the nature of humans; the five passions, the seven deadly
sins, a rose is a rose by any cow pat you see.

So for the thinking man (man in the generic sense, including woman,
but in particular, being s/he who has come of age within themselves,
which is different to actual physical age), what to do?

If we want a better future in 30 years, how can we achieve that?

Public statements of commitment to do no evil (does google even
pretend to say that any more at a corporate slogan level?), evidence
possible underlying good intention.

What is the next step?

Bind oneself (oh ye powerful tech hacker for freedom) to make no
compromise of means, for any purported ends.

Here is one example from which I draw some limited personal inspiration:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email

That's a tough road to hoe though. I say it's the only road worth
walking. I wish there were more. Often I experience emotional
satisfaction from the enslavement of humans - when so many fall, fail
to act in interests beyond self, I see that the way things are, is the
way they ought to be - humans --ought-- to be enslaved, since they do
not understand their own enslavement, which they appear to willingly
and enthusiastically work diligently and rush towards.

How is to one feel anything but "yeah, enslavement is entirely
appropriate for this lot called humans"??

-----

> 	ever published some kind of study or 'paper' shedding light on
> 	what % of 'the net' is under surveillance (and to what extent)?
> 	I mean, google must know something about that kind of
> 	'infrastructure' eh?
>
> 	That would be a somewhat interesting read instead of the usual
> 	self-congratulating propaganda. It would be interesting to see
> 	how far the american cancer has spread.

As I've pointed out above, the cancer is in humans. The corporations,
and those who control and run them, are simply humans, humans lacking
in will to put principle ahead of personal profit.

Is the real problem the problem of we humans?

Frankly, from what I see in the world, the TOR guys are, within
certain parameters, doing reasonably well. I may be seeing a total
illusion, and I can neither prove nor disprove my feelings on the
matter.

So what am I left with, with proof of nothing? The existential
question, eh? I am left with myself and my memories of my actions and
feelings. Which memories and feelings would I like to take with me
from this world? (no, I'm not going to debate that which I can neither
prove nor disprove).

May your life experiences be worth remembering, fellow humans.
Zenaan