Re: [tor-talk] Cloak Tor Router

[hellekin <hellekin@xxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 11/03/2014 04:06 PM, l.m wrote:
>
> So I can laugh at you when your buyers  realize how
> stupid they were for not reading the Tor manual.
> 
> [snip]
>
> Who the hell 
> wants anonymity and actually trusts their networking equipment?
> 
*** Everybody who didn't peruse the anonlib, and/or buy hardware
off-the-shelf.  That's a lot of people.

This attitude of disdain of yours is prejudicial to the countless people
who need some privacy and cannot have it because they have no clue how
to do it themselves, and they were thrown into a technological world
where engineers didn't bother building privacy-friendly technology.

If you are among the people who can trust their networking equipment
because you built it, configured it, tested it, and eventually can
change it whenever you feel like you should, then obviously, the Cloak,
or any box aimed at non-technicians is simply not for you.

So yes, you're part of the technical elite, and then what?  Does that
mean other people can't enjoy the benefit of their Constitutional Rights
at all, because engineers failed to encode them in the technology that's
sold all over the world?

If a router can provide a minimum of privacy, why wouldn't people go for
it?  Obviously, the Anonabox demonstrated that there's a lot of demand
for online privacy, and no matching skills from the buying side.

Going from zero protection to something is better than nothing at all.
As far as anonymity is concerned, there's no technical solution to it.
One has to work hard and tight to preserve their anonymity.  So probably
the Cloak shouldn't claim anonymity, but keep their claims in check with
reality, and be happy with privacy.  Or rather, provide a more explicit
threat model, where the term "anonymity" is contextualized and the model
is understandable by non-technicians.

I see no reason to spit on initiatives that try to bring solutions, even
if the solutions are not to your taste.  When there are false claims and
an obvious will to deceit, be my guest and kick ass.  But not everyone
has your skills nor your understanding of limitations, and civil
conversation can help a lot more people to learn from your wisdom than
any argument of authority.

And if you cannot trust your FREE HARDWARE network equipment, you have
an impossible problem to solve, and have to make your own.  So, dear
l.m, let me guess: you use off-the-shelf hardware most of the time.  how
do you know there's no backdoor in it?  Even if you do, how many people
do you think can achieve that kind of scrutiny?

Regards,

==
hk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=VI78
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
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