[tor-talk] Tor Summer of Privacy

[Speak Freely]

Holy fuck you're still talking? Give it a rest buddy.



Juan:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:35:44 -0400
> Paul Syverson <paul.syverson at nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> More details on the history at
>> https://www.acsac.org/2011/program/keynotes/
>>
>>>
>>> 	I mean we don't need to repeat yet again that tor is a
>>> 	project of the US military. As such it doesn't make
>>> 	sense for it to be 'decentralized'.
>>
>> For the technical reasons behind the degree and nature of
>> centralization and decentralization, see the above paper and the Tor
>> design paper. Also note that ironically the first few major design
>> versions made purely by govt. employees were actually more
>> decentralized. E.g. see the above paper, also
>> http://www.onion-router.net/Archives/TNG.html
>> It was only when we moved to the Tor design, that we moved to being
>> a bit less P2P with directory authorities. 
> 
> 
> 	And what point are you making with all that hand waving? 'a bit
> 	less p2p'? That's some technical language. 
> 
> 
>>
>> For more technical arguments why this is in practice more secure than
>> other designs known at the time see
>>  http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#danezis-pet2008 and
>>  http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#entropist
> 
> 
> 	Even assuming that the central servers are more
> 	'secure' (although that's vague - more secure for whom
> 	against what kind of attacks) the fact remains that centralized
> 	control over the network is something obviously in line with
> 	the political objectives of your employers. 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
>>
>> But by all means please continue justifying everything you say based
>> on what you tenaciously are sure some large organizations must intend
> 
> 	Is your contention that your employers don't have any purpose
> 	at all?  Or that the government responsible for a global
> 	surveillance system (among many other sick crimes) also pays you
> 	to counter them? lol 
> 
> 	See, you can play that game only so far. You can pretend to be a
> 	'technician' who knows nothing about politics only so far.
> 
> 	On the other hand I do realize that you are just playing a part
> 	here, for your audience of lackeys. 
> 
> 	Obviously you are not going to admit that you are just a tool
> 	of the US military providing them with resources to 'spread
> 	democracy' in 'oppressed countries'.
> 
> 	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
> 
> 	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
> 
> 	
> 
> 
>> rather than the technical design reasons that have been published and
>> publically vetted by the best scientific and technical researchers on
>> the planet
> 
> 
> 	Oh boy. Are you arrogant.
> 
> 	By the way, have you and your friends received any national
> 	security letter lately?
> 
> 
>> from the most respected advanced institutions in every
>> country. What could they possibly add to the truly dizzying intellect
>> manifest in your arguments to date?
>>
>> Apologies to others for failing to resist feeding the troll. 
> 
> 
> 	
> 	So, you have nothing but name calling. And funnily enough whine
> 	about 'ad hominems'.  Unintentional self-parody at its best. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Guess I'm
>> tired.  Here's a little ad hominem of my own: Moritz started it.
>>
>> aloha,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
> 
>