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

[Juan <juan.g71@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
	employer. 

	
> 
> 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

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

	"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.

	http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/


	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
	 philosophy.



> 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.

	LOLOL!

	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
	cetera. 

>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
> 

--Juan


-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk