On 07/01/2016 08:41 PM, juan wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:55:42 -0600
> Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>> Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> As much as I sympathize for victims of criminal states, I believe
>>>>>> that anonymity systems are essential for protecting privacy and
>>>>>> freedom. I also believe that they may eventually reduce state
>>>>>> power substantially. Although that's seeming more and more like
>>>>>> a dream.
>>>>>
> 
>>
>> Yore reading comprehension sucks ;)
> 
>       I don't think so. 
> 
>>
>> Read the fucking paragraph that you quoted. It says nothing about Tor.
> 
>       Dude! Context!
> 
>       The whole discussion was about tor! And at some point
>       you said 
> 
>       "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state
>       power substantially" 
> 
>       "They" stands for "anonymity systems" which in this
>       'context' basically means tor. Even more so since you keep
>       repeating that tor is the best system 'we' have.

As I said, your reading comprehension sucks. Or you're just twisting
shit to pretend that you're right.

>       So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce
>       state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY
>       DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems
>       like a dream. 
>       
>       So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your
>       allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the fact
>       that tor doesn't work.

It works for many people.

>       Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely
>       yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power? No.
>       Especially tor, a creation of the state.

So you keep saying.

>> It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're apparently
>> saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you?
> 
>       Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular.

Yes, but statements about anonymity systems generally aren't limited to
Tor.

>> But right now, Tor is the best we have. 
> 
>       Yeah. You said so a couple of times...
> 
> 
>> So we use it, with suitable
>> precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?
>>
>       
>       I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the 'free'
>       tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and apparently
>       don't care much about the real price of the system. 

No, I don't care about the "real price of the system". Why should I?

And, as I said before, people that you hate would be using any effective
anonymity system. So you might as well get over it.

>       I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay away
>       from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk
>       'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause.

The Pentagon is everywhere, dude ;)

Reply via email to