On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 06:34:36PM -0700, Mirimir wrote: > On 03/30/2019 01:40 PM, Punk wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:06:07 -0400 > > grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> " > >> DEFEND AGAINST SURVEILLANCE > >> Tor Browser prevents someone watching your connection from knowing > >> what websites you visit. All anyone monitoring your browsing habits > >> can see is that you're using Tor. > >> " > >> > >> This is false [1], and intentionally preloaded > >> with [use case and definitional] weasel words [2]. > > > > > > Good to see that there's at least one voice telling the truth. > > > > On the other hand, we have Mirimir's comment.... > > > > "....Tor works well enough that implementing one of the newer designs > > seems unlikely" > > > > > > LMAO!!!! Tor works 'well enough' mirimir? Well enough for whom? I do > > agree that tor works well enough though. It works well enough as NSA > > controlled opposition. Is that what you meant? > > I mean "well enough" in the sense that nobody (as far as I know) has > seriously started implementing one of the newer, and arguably better, > anonymity systems. Such as ... > > HORNET, a system that enables high-speed end-to- > end anonymous channels by leveraging next generation network > architectures. HORNET is designed as a low-latency onion routing > system that operates at the network layer ... > Chen et al. (2015) > > ... or ... > > Riffle, a system for bandwidth- and computation-efficient anonymous > communication. Riffle addresses the problems of DC-Nets and verifiable > mixnets, while offering the same level of anonymity. > Kwon (2015)
DC-Net? verifiable mixnet? > Anyway, that statement doesn't represent my opinion on Tor's merits. > It's just an observation on what's happened. Or what hasn't happened, as > it were.
