On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 04:17:44PM -0500, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
As long as funding doesn't come with strings, there's no problem with
accepting it.
Very true - more so w/ people already using Tor or those that would never
look at how Tor is funded.
But if some sayings were ever true, it's,
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 03:52:05PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
If Torproject ending it's close ties w/ U.S. military funding (by some
means) isn't important for it's reputation appearance to the broader
internet community, I'm not sure what is.
The code is open for inspection so it's not an
On 6/16/14, Артур Истомин art.is...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 03:52:05PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
If Torproject ending it's close ties w/ U.S. military funding (by some
means) isn't important for it's reputation appearance to the broader
internet community, I'm not sure what
Ordinary people do not know this word code (especially open
source). They believe that the piper calls the tune. And in fact it
is very difficult to argue with such a statement without falling into
the technical details (code is open)
code is open means NOTHING, so sorry - just look at
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:00:24AM +0200, Öyvind Saether wrote:
Ordinary people do not know this word code (especially open
source). They believe that the piper calls the tune. And in fact it
is very difficult to argue with such a statement without falling into
the technical details (code
16.06.2014 03:59, Griffin Boyce:
Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
Money is money; independent from the source.
Money (especially donations to non-profits) are perceived to have
politics attached to it. After Hurricane Katrina, there was a bit of an
uproar after Kuwait offered to donate
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:00:24 +0200
Öyvind Saether oyvi...@everdot.org wrote:
Ordinary people do not know this word code (especially open
source). They believe that the piper calls the tune. And in fact it
is very difficult to argue with such a statement without falling
into the technical
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:41:32 +
Артур Истомин art.is...@yandex.ru wrote:
Very true. In Russia, question do you know who funded torproject?
(assuming US gov.) arises constantly in disputes about the safety of
tor. It is a very stupid argument.
Not at all. It is a perfectly
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:17:44 -0500
Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
On 6/15/2014 2:08 PM, Mirimir wrote:
It was OK for the founding fathers to be extreme militants, but no
one can do it after that, or they'll go to jail.
I'm not saying Tor Project (by themselves) should start a
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:43:06 +
Артур Истомин art.is...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:00:24AM +0200, Öyvind Saether wrote:
Ordinary people do not know this word code (especially open
source). They believe that the piper calls the tune. And in fact
it is very difficult
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:28:06PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:41:32 +
Артур Истомин art.is...@yandex.ru wrote:
Very true. In Russia, question do you know who funded torproject?
(assuming US gov.) arises constantly in disputes about the safety of
tor. It is a very
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:26:43PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:43:06 +
Артур Истомин art.is...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:00:24AM +0200, Öyvind Saether wrote:
Ordinary people do not know this word code (especially open
source). They believe that the
On 6/17/14, Juan juan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:41:32 +
Артур Истомин art.is...@yandex.ru wrote:
Very true. In Russia, question do you know who funded torproject?
(assuming US gov.) arises constantly in disputes about the safety of
tor. It is a very stupid argument.
On 6/17/14, Juan juan@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:17:44 -0500
Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
People on the outside looking in, see an organization, whose primary
purpose is to provide means to protect privacy, *especially* from
gov't agencies, but the major portion of
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.is wrote:
- Looked into legality of receiving a large financial donation from a
country on the US Treasury embargoed list. Unsurprisingly, we cannot
accept such a donation due to the source.
It's the law in the USA. Regardless
On 6/14/2014 10:40 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On 06/14/2014 03:21 AM, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
That has to be a violation of your rights.
It's the law in the USA. Regardless of how one feels about it, it's
currently against the law.
The citizen resided in a country as listed as a State
On 06/15/2014 10:03 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
On 6/14/2014 10:40 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On 06/14/2014 03:21 AM, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
That has to be a violation of your rights.
It's the law in the USA. Regardless of how one feels about it, it's
currently against the law.
The
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
Where such a transaction would not benefit the country, or even the private
donor, in any
financial, military, political manner, etc.; only promoting access to free
speech information,
which in all likely hood, could
On 6/15/2014 2:08 PM, Mirimir wrote:
The law is the law, and (acting openly) the choices are compliance, or
noncompliance on principle. But see above.
No, the law is often temporary, until someone has the guts to stand up
(100's, maybe 1000's of times, in the last 150 yrs, in U.S. alone).
This
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014, at 10:17 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
But if some sayings were ever true, it's, Perception is reality,
err, no it isn't. Maybe on the quantum level.
GD
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To
Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
Andrew wrote:
- Looked into legality of receiving a large financial donation from a
country on the US Treasury embargoed list. Unsurprisingly, we cannot
accept such a donation due to the source.
Money is speech, isn't it? It's just a promise.* If that is true,
On 06/15/2014 12:50 AM, krishna e bera wrote:
What about forming an international consortium to shepherd Tor, so that
developments can come from and be funded in multiple jurisdictions?
This would also remove some of the odour that any US-based project emits
on international and virtual
Andrew wrote:
# Highlights
(...)
- Looked into legality of receiving a large financial donation from a
country on the US Treasury embargoed list. Unsurprisingly, we cannot
accept such a donation due to the source.
That has to be a violation of your rights.
Whatever country gives you money
Mirimir:
On 06/14/2014 01:21 AM, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
If payed contribution is ruled out for that donor (whoever that is),
because of its country how could the money get to you? Maybe the donor
gives it to some middle-man that is not on the blacklist. The middle-man
then transfers
On 6/14/2014 2:21 AM, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
Andrew wrote:
# Highlights
(...)
- Looked into legality of receiving a large financial donation from a
country on the US Treasury embargoed list. Unsurprisingly, we cannot
accept such a donation due to the source.
That has to be a
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
I'm not a legal or embargo rules expert, but I wonder if an embargoed
country or individuals in it, giving money to a non-profit for which they
receive nothing valuable, or that benefits the country financially,
On 14-06-14 01:00 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
I'm not a legal or embargo rules expert, but I wonder if an embargoed
country or individuals in it, giving money to a non-profit for which they
receive nothing valuable, or
On 6/14/2014 5:50 PM, krishna e bera wrote:
On 14-06-14 01:00 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
I'm not a legal or embargo rules expert, but I wonder if an embargoed
country or individuals in it, giving money to a non-profit
On 06/14/2014 06:29 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
SNIP
It's OK for an organization dedicated to providing anonymity to protect
users - everywhere, in no small part from various gov't agencies, to
take major funding from... a gov't agency. Yet, that organization can't
take *private* donations from
On 06/14/2014 03:21 AM, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
That has to be a violation of your rights.
It's the law in the USA. Regardless of how one feels about it, it's
currently against the law.
The citizen resided in a country as listed as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism,
On 6/14/2014 7:56 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 06/14/2014 06:29 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
SNIP
It's OK for an organization dedicated to providing anonymity to protect
users - everywhere, in no small part from various gov't agencies, to
take major funding from... a gov't agency. Yet, that organization
On 06/14/2014 09:42 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
On 6/14/2014 7:56 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 06/14/2014 06:29 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
SNIP
It's OK for an organization dedicated to providing anonymity to protect
users - everywhere, in no small part from various gov't agencies, to
take major funding
On 06/14/2014 09:40 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On 06/14/2014 03:21 AM, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
That has to be a violation of your rights.
It's the law in the USA. Regardless of how one feels about it, it's
currently against the law.
The citizen resided in a country as listed as a
33 matches
Mail list logo
