On 07/23/2017 02:52 PM, z9wahqvh wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Maybe funded, as in past tense. The current Tor project is not dependent > at all on US government funding that I can see. If you can prove > otherwise, please post the proof. > > > proof is right there on Tor's own site. there is still substantial US > government funding. according to the Tor Project "Sponsors" page > (https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en > <https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en>), current funders > include: > > -- the Open Technology Fund (https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq > <https://www.opentech.fund/page/faq>), a subsidiary of the Broadcasting > Board of Governors (http://www.bbg.gov/, > https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/ > <https://www.bbg.gov/who-we-are/mission/>), a long-time sponsor of Tor, > and the US government agency that sponsors the various "Radio Free" > projects and has deep ties to CIA and other parts of the intelligence > apparatus; > -- the National Science Foundation, the science funding body of the > Federal government.
So strictly speaking, I was a bit off the mark. However, I think neither the OTF nor the NSF are able to exert the kind of pressure that #$%&#$ was asserting to be the reason that there is no chaff-filled network feature in Tor. And it still means #$%&#$ was probably wrong on this statement: > which makes sense, since the CIA, DIA, DOD and NSA fund the creation > of the Tor network but of course the conspiracy theorists and the people like #$%& who insist I work for the US government (a huge laugh given my past, BTW) are going to say that NSF money and CIA/DIA/DOD/NSA money are the same, yada yada yada, bullshit bullshit bullshit (to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic). > NSF is pretty basic-science oriented and the grants that funded those > are publicly available & probably not for general operating funds. Right. In other words, it's not laundered NSA money to put a subtle backdoor in despite what #$%& is going to try to tell us. Glad we're clear on that. > also of note is that while that page says US State Dept funding ended in > 2016, for some reason it remains listed under "Current sponsors." hard > to tell what "current" means since the page isn't dated. at any rate, > State was still a funder as of the latest annual Financial Report. This is the one that worries me a bit. Now I'd rather the State Department not fund Tor, but the timing of the drop-off says a lot. (Hint: What happened at the end of 2016?) -- Shawn K. Quinn <[email protected]> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
