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

Re: [tor-talk] Tor and solidarity against online harassment

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:20:12 -0500
Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:23:42PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> > > You might like
> > > https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#Backdoor
> > > 
> > > We won't put backdoors in Tor. Ever.
> > 
> > 	LOL! 
> > 
> > 	You work for the pentagon and are subjects of the US state.
> > 
> > 	The US government has secret 'courts'  and secretly forces
> > its subjects to tamper with all kinds of 'security'  systems, in the
> > 	name of 'national security'.
> > 
> > 	Whatever public declamations you make carry very little
> > weight.
> Hello Mr. Tor hater,

	Well Roger, your very first sentence is baseless name calling.
	You've already lost. Again.

	Like I previously said, if I'm a 'tor hater'  you are lover of
	the murdering US government, which also happens to be your

> We get funding from a variety of groups, including US government
> groups. We do not "work for the pentagon" 

	Yes you do. You are 'funded' by the 'department of war' or
	'department of defense'  or department of mass murder


	"The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States
	Department of Defense, "

	I'm glad I cleared the confusion up for you. You're welcome. 

> but that is a separate
> discussion and it shouldn't derail this one.
> We are indeed subjects of various governments,

	tor is a project of the pentagon. All 'key' 'developers'  are
	subjects of the US governemnt. 

> and some of those
> governments have indeed been doing quite bad things lately. The notion
> of a secret law makes me sick.

	That's so touching. But irrelevant. Also, there were no secret
	laws when you started working on tor?

> But when it comes to governments secretly forcing us to do things, no,
> there *is* a choice. And that's why we're telling you we have made
> this choice: No backdoors. Ever.

	So, your 'argument' is baseless repetition of a baseless
	assertion? Impressive. 

> To quote the faq entry, which Nick and I wrote in 2004 and it remains
> true today:
> "We think that putting a backdoor in Tor would be tremendously
> irresponsible to our users, and a bad precedent for security software
> in general."

	Hm. I think this is the fourth time you've repeated that?

> They can't make us put backdoors in. But they can make things
> miserable for us if we don't go along with it 

	At least some truth. Now, given the fact that things aren't
	'miserable' for you...

>-- see the Lavabit case
> for an example (and hopefully one where people learned a lesson about
> centralization too). 

	Funny that you mention lavabit since lavabit was a scam from
	day zero.


	Also, quite funny that you mention 'centralization' since tor is
	 centralized. Well, of course, centralization is just what one
	 would expect from miliary projects. ABC of political

> That's a major part of why I try to keep talking
> to the folks who might try to force us into something -- 

	Oh yes. Those nice fellows at the fbi, pentagon, nsa, whatever
	are going to pay so much attention to what you have to
	say...especially if it goes against their interests.

> to explain
> that it won't work, and that it will backfire because then *their*
> colleagues, who need privacy too, will have fewer options, 

	Except that's false. The US government can use tor
	to spy on its 'targets' and use other means for 'secure'
	communications. It's a win-win situation!

>to remind
> them that there are other jurisdictions in the world, and so on.
> Thankfully, and I'd like to think in part because of this directed
> advocacy, it has never come to this decision point for us. That is,
> to be clear, nobody has yet tried to force us, with secret laws or
> otherwise, into undermining Tor.


	You are again asserting that you've not been 'served' some kind
	of secret order which is secret by definition. 

	Talk about circular (lack of) logic...

> Now, you're right, these are just words. 

	Correct. Thanks for finally conceding the point. You could have
	saved yourself some typing...

> That's why we try to do all
> of our development in public, and the source code is open, and the
> research communities are active and public, and we engage with many
> communities in person at a wide variety of conferences.

	Non sequitur. From the premise "public source" it doesn't
	follow "no secret orders".

> Please do
> continue to audit and observe and help find potential problems in Tor
> and the ecosystem of software around it.
> We've been working on Tor for more than a decade, and in that time the
> world has been becoming a worse place in many ways for privacy and
> free speech. 

	And who's to blame? Your government =) 

>Haters are going to hate, 

	And murderers are going to murder. And US govt employees are
	going to come up with laughable excuses for what they do, et

>I accept this, but for the
> rest of you: thanks for continuing to help us and to support privacy!
> No backdoors. Ever.

yes brother! You've finally proven that jesus rules the universe.
Repetition is the key to truth. Or is it the key to propaganda? 

> --Roger


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