[tor-talk] Historically speaking, what was the U.S. navy /military

[Juan]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:56:33 +0200
Alexandre Guillioud <guillioud.alexandre at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would risk a dumb question : how can it be 'controlled opposition"
> when their (NSA) capacities to listen to whoever they want on tor
> havn't been demonstrated nor refuted ?


	Have you ever heard or read this sentence :  "Absence of
	evidence is not evidence of absence" ? 

	It's not just some kind of cute casse-langue. It's a basic
	epistemologic principle, if you will.


	Do you think the fact that you(and I) know almost nothing about
	what the nsa does means they do nothing? 


	Ever heard of a guy called Snowden? How much stuff has he
	allegedly gotten from the nsa? And what percentage of that
	stuff has been releaseed to the public?   Do you want me to
	spell the implications more clearly? 

	Also, you can even search this list for posts by syverson
	commenting on tor 'limitations' 




> 
> Le mercredi 29 juillet 2015, Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:32:56 +0000
> > Virgil Griffith <i at virgil.gr <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >>      Historically speaking, what was the U.S. navy /military
> > >>      ntending to use Tor for?
> >
> > me:
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly the same things they use it for right now.
> > >
> > >       Communications for their murdering operations, spying,
> > >       propaganda.
> > >
> > >       Spread of american fascism.
> >
> >
> >         addendum : a Pretty Good Name (PGN) and description for tor
> > is 'controlled opposition'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org <javascript:;>
> > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> >