the most annoying thing about Juan
Mirimir
mirimir at riseup.net
Thu Jul 21 03:14:24 PDT 2016
On 07/21/2016 03:00 AM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:54:45 -0600
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I totally agree with you on that. I want Tor Project to put more
>> disclaimers and warnings on their front page.
>
> Yeah. Just like used car dealers do =)
>
> I want the tor project to explain what tor is, exactly. To
> explain what the state is, how it is funded. To explain
> what the US state is, what it has done and what it does.
>
>
> And to finally explain that they, the tor project, work for
> those motherfucking psychos known as the American State, helping
> their imperial project while vomiting hypocritical nonsense
> about 'human rights' and 'oppresed womyn'
>
> Let me know when they behave like decent humans being and do
> that.
At this point, I'd settle for some disclaimers and warnings about
vulnerabilities, and links to resources for addressing them.
>>> Now, think how much trust people who don't even trust
>>> themselves deserve.
>>
>> Tor is open source, so trusting software doesn't depend entirely on
>> trusting coders.
>
> Come on, not that one...
It ain't perfect, but it's better than nothing.
>>> The 'traffic analysis' of tor is not even crypto. It's
>>> based on IXPs taps, not on fancy math and number crunching.
>>
>> It's based on intercepts _and_ "fancy math and number crunching".
>
> No. It's timing, counting packets that kind of thing. Nothing
> fancy. I suppose they have dedicated hardware to do that sort
> of correlation, well call that 'number crunching' if you want...
Not that simple. Maybe not "fancy", but there's a *lot* of data. And
when you look for correlation at such scales, false positives are a
*huge* problem.
>>> There isn't any fallacy there. They weaken crypto because
>>> that serves their ends.
>>>
>>> And if they need a 'secure' cypher they won't use any of the
>>> ones they sabotaged.
>>>
>>> But, again, this doesn't apply to tor.
>>
>> You are very suspicious ;)
>
>
> Yes. Do you 'trust' them? =)
I don't trust anyone :)
>>>>> So are you arguing that well-designed backdoors are OK? Or are you
>>>>> just arguing that US military are dumb enough to think so. That
>>>>> they're so confident about their superior capabilities?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The latter seems perfectly plausible to me. Groupthink.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the US military are dumb. If you do, then you
>>> are not thinking as correctly as you should.
>>
>> They have done some pretty stupid things.
>
>
> For instance? I think 'stupid' in this context would mean
> "things that reduced their power and influence". I don't think
> the power of the US military, which is of course the heart of
> any state, is decreasing. Quite the contrary. So, I'd describe
> as rather clever in their little brown-children-murdering game.
They did succeed in taking down the Soviet Union, by forcing it to
bankrupt itself and disappoint its population. But I think that they've
consistently fucked up in the Middle East. Generally, they focus too
much on short-term objectives, and set themselves up for eventual
failure. They count too much on brute force.
> Look the US military blew up the WTC to have an excuse to
> impose a global 'cyber' police state. How's their little plan
> proceeding?
Short term, it's doing OK. Long term, probably not so good.
I suspect that the Chinese have pwned them hard.
More information about the Testlist
mailing list