On 05/03/2015 08:09 PM, Juan wrote: > On Sun, 03 May 2015 18:36:12 -0600 > Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 05/03/2015 04:58 PM, Juan wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 May 2015 21:14:35 -0600 >>> Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I won't quote much, but I can't resist sharing this: "And it’s a >>>> matter of record that Ed [Snowden] trusted his life to Tor, because >>>> he saw from the other side that it worked." >>>> >>> >>> >>> Huh? 'trusted his life', how? It's a matter of record that >>> you are quoting a guy making a baseless assertion in some random >>> blog. >> >> He initially reached out to Glenn and Laura via Tor (Tails, as I >> recall reading). >> If the NSA has totally pwned Tor, they would >> arguably have detected that. > > > For starters when he contacted Poitras he was still working for > the american nazi government. He wasn't in any 'watch > list' (rather he was the one making such lists) - His actions > were not 'detected' because nobody was interested in 'detecting' > them. > > So, there goes your theory...
Well, if I were running the fucking NSA, I'd make sure that all staff and consultants were on high-priority watch lists. Snowden wasn't the first, you know. He was one of few idealists, though. Most of the rest were just in it for the money. >> We know that they focus on encrypted >> stuff, and one would hope that they monitor their staff and >> consultants. > > I don't think so. Snowden was 'one of them'. >From what I've read in Bamford's books, it doesn't work like that. Being "one of them" puts you under more scrutiny, not less. >> But then, maybe it's all bullshit. I certainly have no inside info. > > > Also, Snowden didn't plan to remain anonymous and didn't remain > anonymous except for a few days. So, there isn't any evidence > of tor working, except for a few days, at best. Although even > that is unwarranted. I think that it was more than a few days. It took a while for Glenn to get up to speed with encryption, as I recall. > Bottom line, this "trusted his life to Tor" is just cheap > rhetoric. That's arguable, I admit. Would they have actually killed him? Probably not, at least at first. But I still like it, cheap rhetoric or not :) >>>> I wonder what the haters say to that. Actually, I know: "He's a >>>> double agent, and it's all a con." Amirite? >>> >>> >>> Snowden keeps sounding like an american nationalist. That's >>> a big red flag. >> >> He's clearly an American nationalist. He's said repeatedly that he >> released stuff through reporters, rather than directly, in order to >> reduce the risk of hurting US interests. >> Is that a "red flag"? I would >> have rather seen it all, but de gustibus non est disputandem ;) > > > Yes, I think it's a red flag. I'm guessing you disagree(?) but > I don't know exactly how to read your remark about different > people and different tastes... Yes, I was disagreeing. But even if it were a "red flag", what would that signify? Don't the documents speak for themselves? Why do we care about his politics, philosophy, etc?
