Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and Anonymity

[Mark McCarron <mark.mccarron@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, let's put this another way.  On a planet, approaching almost 7 billion people, a network exists (Tor) that once had a substantial illegal content available (i.e. child porn, rape and snuff videos, etc.).  Then governments, such as the UK government, announce GCHQ was to assist in cleaning up the dark web.

Within a matter of months, not a single site can be found anywhere on the planet on the Tor network.

Then we also have Snowden, who informs of us PRISM.  An espionage program designed to provide a global view that was developed in parallel to Tor and it just so happens that this is Tor's Achilles heel.

Whether or not you accept the first part of the analysis is irrelevant, what really matters is the latter part and that Tor appears to be designed to integrate into the US espionage apparatus, rather than protect people from it.  Even when this is pointed out, no one makes any moves to correct the situation.

That pretty much tells everyone what they needed to know about Tor and its developers.

Regards,

Mark McCarron

> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:02:24 +1000
> From: zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and	Anonymity
> 
> OK, I'll bite :)
> 
> On 6/30/14, Juan <juan.g71@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
> > Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> >> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
> >> >sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
> >> >the network going truly dark.
> >> >
> >> > Deal with it.
> >>
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> I've tried to tolerate the conspiracy theories / trolling here, since
> >> there are legitimate worries to be had about what attacks various
> >> adversaries may have come up with, even if the way you're expressing
> >> them isn't winning you many friends. But ad hominem attacks are not
> >> appropriate for this list, and they will get you removed from it if
> >
> >
> > 	@ Mark
> >
> > 	Looks like my case has finally and completely been made
> > 	for me, by Roger.
> >
> > 	You´ve been officially threatened by one of the ´leaders´ of the
> > 	´tor family´ for (unlike me) politely point out tor´s obvious
> > 	flaws.
> >
> >
> > 	As a side note, I am suprised at the blatant contradicion
> >
> > 	Roger : ¨I've tried to tolerate the conspiracy theories /
> > 	trolling here¨  <-- thats a 100% chemically pure ´ad hominem´
> >
> > 	and then
> >
> > 	¨But ad hominem attacks are not appropriate for this list¨
> >
> > 	I rest my case...though I´ll throw a bit more evidence in =P
> >
> > 	
> > 	¨Mick¨ wrote ¨Personally I shy away from feeding trolls.¨
> > 	<--name calling/ad hominen.
> >
> > 	
> > 	¨zeenan¨ wrote  ¨I suggest you save some dignity and
> > demonstrate a genuine attempt to contribute meaningfully in any way.¨
> >
> > 	That line ^^^^^^ looks pretty insulting to me.
> >
> > 	And you also got an anonymous lunatic rant/attack from
> > 	antispam06@xxxxxxx  (that was from a tor zealot who is  really
> > 	pissed off, it seems)
> >
> > J.
> 
> Juan, it's all very well for you to jump in now,
> but you are neglecting the OP - as in, the Original
> Post(er) - for reference, here it is in all its factual
> support and unambiguous and simple assertions
> (my comments are from me, I am not a mathematician,
> statistician nor Tor programmer):
> 
> On 6/26/14, Mark McCarron <mark.mccarron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I have been examining the number of what would normally
> > be deemed as illegal sites sites on Tor.
> 
> Statement 1: speaks to an anecdotal, one man,
> personal "study"; no facts; no references.
> 
> 
> > Eliminating the narcotics trade, as these tend to be
> > intelligence agency backed enterprises,
> 
> Assertion 2: anecdotal, "tend to be"; no facts;
> no references.
> 
> 
> > a serious decline has been noted
> > across the board.
> 
> Assertion 3: assumption or anecdote, "has been noted",
> "across the board"; no facts; no references.
> 
> 
> > This would tend to suggest that exposure is common place
> > and users no longer feel safe.
> 
> Conclusion 4: conclusion based on personal anecdote;
> no facts; no references.
> 
> 
> > In the more serious categories, such as child porn and violent
> > sexual material, no functioning open sites remain and many
> > of the sites that require registration are crippled.
> 
> Assertion 5: anecdote, no sites, no research presented;
> no facts; no references.
> 
> 
> > The entire planet has been scrubbed.
> 
> Statement 6: I call this emotionally-laced hand-waving;
> no facts; no references.
> 
> 
> > This, it would seem, indicates that Tor has been compromised
> > on a global scale with very little fanfare or moves to correct
> > the situation.
> 
> Conclusion 7: generic conclusion asserting possible ill intention
> on part of Tor devs - I call this "fishing by (implied) accusation",
> aka "hoping or assuming that [I] might flush out something
> devious by making (possibly personal) accusations";
> no facts; no references.
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any insights into the problem?
> 
> And now McCarron calls for meaningful help/ insights/ responses?
> 
> Juan, _and_ McCarron, you MUST be kidding me!
> 
> 
> > Regards,
> > Mark McCarron 		 	   		
> 
> 
> So don't get me wrong Juan, I'd love to know whether or not all these
> assertions, assumptions and anecdotes by McCarron are either true or
> false, or at least founded in some facts arising from something,
> anything that I could personally verify or test.
> 
> This is NOT the case here by McCarron! McCarron has provided NOTHING
> in this regard.
> 
> McCarron continued in like fashion throughout this thread.
> 
> Someone such as myself is unable to verify, prove or disprove or
> otherwise respond intelligently to ANYTHING McCarron has stated.
> 
> Someone such as myself is unable to gain ANY meaningful or testable
> data, information, conclusion or otherwise from what McCarron has
> stated!
> 
> Due to this all the above, someone such as myself is therefore unable
> to meaningfully contribute to McCarron's "DISCUSSION" because either:
> A) there is a bunch of assumed (by McCarron) knowledge which I don't
> have, and which McCarron has not provided even references for, or
> B) McCarron is doing nothing other than fishing by assertion, aka
> "hand-waving with a mission"!
> 
> Juan, given the challenges and responses brought to McCarron in this
> thread, McCarron has persistently failed to provide ANYTHING
> whatsoever that is researchable or verifiable or testable, to someone
> such as myself, to be able to in any way relate to or verify what he
> is saying in any sort of scientific manner.
> 
> Juan, the most McCarron put to us was some self-glorification "I am a
> contractor on multi-million dollar government security projects,
> listen to me I have wonderful anecdotes to share and I KNOW what I'm
> saying is true!" Or could be. Or ...
> 
> Juan, in the face of all the above, it is, in my personal estimation,
> a pretty fair call, at this point, to name McCarron's behaviour as
> troll-like. He may be genuine; he may be sincere; he may have
> legitimate points; he may have valid personal "intuition".
> 
> BUT, he has provided NOTHING in THIS thread, to someone such as
> myself, to be able to evaluate ANYTHING of what HE has said.
> 
> That, in my world, is a troll. I have been guilty of that myself in
> the past, and I thank those who have shown me patience in such
> circumstances.
> 
> Regards,
> Zenaan
> -- 
> 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
 		 	   		  
-- 
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