On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 05:59 -0700, coderman wrote: > @ioerror "@jamesrbuk Stop suppressing the story on Tor." > @ioerror "@smarimc @guardian The Guardian is sitting on a story about Tor - > I'll do one better: @jamesrbuk refused to show us the story/docs." > > > this begs two questions: > > 1. is this story pending polish and expected to be published at some point > in the near future? [alan rusbridger says Tor story not suppressed?] > > 2. if this story truly is suppressed / killed, is it because of undue, over > broad US/UK government pressure, or is it because the story included > detailed technical aspects of how Tor is monitored[0] in the context of > international counter-terrorism and other "data sharing"? From earlier: "The Guardian is currently sitting on several stories because GCHQ and the White House have asked them to do so. What cowards." https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/385560100334608385 > who else or what organizations might be able to compel some guidance in the > case of reality of #2? > > > > 0. by technical details of Tor analysis, this may cover capabilities such > as, traffic confirmation via active interruption of client networks, or > protocol attacks leveraging relays under their control for circuit > manipulation, or even widespread circuit linking via prevalent points of > privileged access to backbone links and internet facilities monitored by > the intelligence community. -- Sent from Ubuntu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk