[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Summer of Privacy

On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:35:40 +1000
Zenaan Harkness <zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 4/6/15, Juan <juan.g71@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:51:31 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness <zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.


	"1995: Initial work on Onion Routing begins, funded by ONR." 

	I'm guessing 'ONR' is this http://www.onr.navy.mil/

	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'.

> 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 

	I don't need to 'verify' anything I think. The brutal nature of
	the US government has been documented for hundreds of years I
	believe ('america' 'founded' as a slave society for starters).
	Tor was created by the US military and is a tool of the US

	And my comment wasn't actually based on any moral
	consideration anyway. My point was that since tor is a tool of
	the US military, they want and have (necessarily centralized) 
	control over it. That is all. 

>- 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, 

	I don't think there's any trust model to magically solve here.

	Tor is a centralized network, while there are other networks
	that are not. I2p and freenet are not centralized, unlike
	tor, I believe. (Phantom too?) 

> 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?

	lol =P 

	I'm not completely sure what you mean by TSOC? I'm
	guessing something related to "theater special
	operations command" but that doesn't fit too well. 

	Anyway, I'm not a professional developer of protocols, not to
	mention again that decentralized protocols already exist.

> > 	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.

	Regarding tor, I think the answer is definitely not. With
	respect to google, maybe, but...did you read Assange's article? 

> 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.

	Maybe google was a bit better than other search engines at some
	point but I don't think that explains their current 'success'.

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

	according to wikipedia....

	"...Page and Brin...own about 14 percent of its shares but
	control 56 percent of the stockholder voting power through
	supervoting stock." 

	I think you need to add the 'voting power' of that guy schmidt
	as well. The guy has a 'net worth' of 8300 milions. That prolly
	buys him some 'control'  over gaagle. 


> The hackers (fellow humans I do note), take the money, dilute their
> ownership, and (most significantly) dilute their control. 

	See above...

	Also, did you read Assange's article? =P 

> 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.

	Doesn't look as if schmidt and his accomplices are running
	anywhere? Except to meetings at the pentagon prolly.

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

	I don't think they are interested in wealth at this point.
	What they obviously want is power. 

> 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;

	Yep. And the google capos seem to be textbook examples of that

> 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?

	I don't have any central plan, but as far as I'm concerned I'm
	not tolerating any more bullshit...

	So all this laughable tor-google propaganda, I laugh at. 

> 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.

	Or camouflage. 

> 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.

	That seems to be part of the problem but regardless, people
	doing wrong things are not justified. Another facet of the
	problem is that people with bad intentions and good
	organization can prey upon people who lack such organization. 

	Basically it's the organized government (and its partners in
	crime like google) against disorganized people.

	But then again 'we' or I am supposed to believe in the good
	intentions of the US military and google? Pretty please...

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

	Yeah, but that is partially like blaming the victim. 

> -----
> > 	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.

	Well, you know what I think of them haha.

> 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

tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to