[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] Tor and Financial Transparency
At 02:31 PM 9/11/2013 -0400, Paul Syverson wrote:
> Most people involved in creating Tor
>including, e.g., Andrew Lewman, now Executive Director, of the Tor
>Project Inc. first got involved simply by volunteering constructive
>suggestions/code/design/etc of one sort or another and then growing
>into a larger position. For anyone looking to help, see for example
>Second, people who make clueful constructive criticisms of design are
>usually amongst the best to ask for help in improving designs. Sorry
>if what I said offended by leading you to infer that I thought you
>coud be such a person.
In that case, thanks for suggesting I might be clueful in technical matters, but I'm sorry to disappoint you. I don't think I am.
And basically, I think the problem that Tor attempts to solve is a political problem. Thus, it needs a political solution.
>> >> > But you know what? I never said tor was 'subverted' by the US
>> >> > government. Tor isn't 'subverted' - it just flawed...by design.
>> >> Fair enough, if that's what you believe, then please make your own
>> >> thing. Create something better than Tor.
>> >Right exactly.
>> Wrong exactly. The argument that I can't comment on what you
>> do unless I run a multimillion sofware project (and 'better'
>> than Tor) is invalid.
>Another straw man. Nobody said that. You _did_ say that Tor was flawed
>by design without offering any support of that claim.
I don't think my claim was unsuported. But let me try again.
Tor cannot protect individuals from organizations that can monitor 'big' parts of the internet. Organizations such as the US government, for instance. In that sense Tor is flawed.
I understand that the flaw is an inherent limitation of the way Tor works and it hasn't been put there 'on purpose'. But the fact remains, it is a bug, or feature, of Tor's design.
>> >Right. And since no doubt at some point Juan Garofalo or someone else
>> >in this discussion will yet again "discover"
>> But I didn't claim I discovered anything, and if you think I
>> learned about Tor's history yesterday, you are mistaken.
>No idea what you have learned when, only what you say. My goal here
>though was to preempt anyone participating in or reading the thread
>making such a "discovery" hence "Juan Garofalo or someone else in this
>discussion". This seemed a valid concern since you mentioned repeatedly
>a U.S. government role but did not at all mention that larger history.
I understand that the connections between Tor and the US military are public.
"it was designed by U.S. government employees and contractors based on technology invented by U.S. government employees."
Right. That is public knowledge, but regardless of those facts being public, the implications are the same.
The US government is a criminal organization. The biggest on earth. It's a criminal organization even according to its own twisted standards - they pretend for instance that their criminal spying activities are 'bound' by 'law' and restricted to so called 'national security' but that is not the case.
So the question remains. Why should Tor be trusted given its connections to such an organization as the US military and given how US 'moral' standards operate.
And let me preempt you. The above criticism is pretty valid. Whether you consider it 'constructive' or not is up to you, but if you're interested in true free speech (among other things) you might want to think about the political side of the problem, not just the technical side.
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to