On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Steve Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a > > Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google > > Docs client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow > > doing this, wouldn't it be easy to see? > > This addresses the idea at hand, but does put words in Arne's mouth as > he did not mention Tor here. >
Firstly, even if I was putting words in Arne's mouth, this is not a personal attack. That being said, I wasn't putting words in his mouth. I'm inferring that he is referring to de-anonymization through Tor, and in fact I know that he is based on our off-list discussion. I don't think he would deny this. > > > In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google behind > > this concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you > > will need to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to > > adapt to your personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. > > This reads into Arne's motivations as a person for having the idea. > He stated in our off-list discussion that distrust of Google as an organization was his motivation (he contrasted Google with the political organization behind PiratePad, which he believed was trustworthy). Again, I don't think he would deny this. > > These are all very weak arguments. > > This is an argumentative thing to say. I think it's already clear that > you find these arguments weak. > That is true, I was frustrated because Arne had started his email with an ultimatum - and my email would probably have been better without it. However, saying arguments are weak is not a personal attack, it is an attack on the arguments. > > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical > > arguments (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather > > by animosity towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made > > that clear to everyone. > > This reads into Arne's motivations as a person, reiterates your already > very clear position that his arguments did not convince you, and > dismisses his feelings. > I'm not reading into Arne's motivations as a person, I'm referring to what Arne said in the paragraph I'm responding to, in which he stated his motivations. > > You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few > > years Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there > > really is no reason not to. > > "no reason not to" dismisses Arne's decision. > If by "dismisses" you mean that I disagree with Arne's decision, then you are correct, but I'm allowed to disagree with his decision. Again, not about him as a person, it's about his arguments. > But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the project > > should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just admitted > > are driven by personal animus towards me. > > This also accuses Arne. I'm stating my opinion that he is not behaving constructively, just as you are stating your opinion that I am not behaving constructively. I think you're entitled to state your opinion and so am I. You're criticizing me for doing what you're doing. > > The purpose of this project is to ensure that people have the freedom > > to communicate without fear of reprisal or censorship. I don't see > > how any of this serves that purpose. > > This dismisses bringing up objections to conduct. > I'm not dismissing anything, I'm stating my opinion that this debate doesn't further the goal of the project. That doesn't mean we can't have the debate. Again though, it isn't a personal attack on Arne. Ian. -- Ian Clarke Founder, The Freenet Project Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
