Do you think the NSA and the Navy are the same organization?
--
Al Billings
http://www.openbuddha.com
http://makehacklearn.org
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
Even if I drop the composition, the picture is still odd. Organization M has
the goal of spying
At 09:07 AM 9/17/2013 +0200, you wrote:
Do you think the NSA and the Navy are the same organization?
Well, they obviously are not the same organization in a strict sense.
Rather, they are two departments of the organization known as US military
which in turn is at the core of the
You are turning organizations composed of many disparate organization, with
their own people, directives, motives, etc. into monolithic entities. That does
your argument (such as it is) a disservice and people can see through it pretty
easily.
--
Al Billings
http://www.openbuddha.com
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:18:45 +0200
Al Billings alb...@openbuddha.com allegedly wrote:
You are turning organizations composed of many disparate
organization, with their own people, directives, motives, etc. into
monolithic entities. That does your argument (such as it is) a
disservice and
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 07:55:08PM -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:
[SNIP]
There's an interesting ambiguity here, it seems. First it's
stated that onion routing doesn't protect against 'big' (in
network terms) adversaries. But then no hard data is given
about
- Original Message -
From: Juan Garofalo juan@gmail.com
But I didn't say there can be no adequate answer. What I'm saying is that
given A and B,
initial distrust is a rational response. I don't think this rational distrust
can
be described as an ad hominem.
Regardless
I have yet to see other than an ad hominem argument in your
statements, Roughly,
A. Entity x is evil.
B. Entity x funded the building of y.
C. If A and B are true, there can be no adequate answer
to Why should we trust y?*
D. Therefore, we cannot trust y.
But I didn't say there
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:32:58PM +, mirimir wrote:
[SNIP]
That sums it up well, I think.
Given Tor's design, numerous parties, including many sets of bitter
enemies, can cooperate to provide common anonymity. The design is open,
so all parties can identify weaknesses and contribute
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Syverson wrote:
I told him that the fascinating
technological problems and the pontential to better protect people and
their activities was nice, but the real attraction was to create a
context where people who were sure they should hate
are skeptical of
the Tor project have been called conspiracy theorist and
accused of wearing 'tin foil hats'. I was asked if I was
'taking my meds' and politely asked to fuck off. This
thread's subject was at some point changed to SPAM Re:
[tor-talk] Tor
On 09/14/2013 01:12 PM, Paul Syverson wrote:
SNIP
I have yet to see other than an ad hominem argument in your
statements, Roughly,
A. Entity x is evil.
B. Entity x funded the building of y.
C. If A and B are true, there can be no adequate answer
to Why should we trust y?*
D.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:59:55PM -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:
At 02:31 PM 9/11/2013 -0400, Paul Syverson wrote:
Most people involved in creating Tor
including, e.g., Andrew Lewman, now Executive Director, of the Tor
Project Inc. first got involved simply by volunteering constructive
At 09:33 AM 9/12/2013 -0400, you wrote:
On 09/12/2013 03:13 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
I made a concrete point. Tor doesn't protect individuals from
particular* governments. You replied with a general truism of sorts : It's
better to have more security than less security. Well, yeah,
] Tor and
Financial Transparency.
All that seems more in line with 'ad hominems' perhaps? You know the
basic structure : What X says is invalid because X is a conspiracy theorist
wearing a tin foil hat and he didn't take his meds!
Oh, and to top it off, seems that you
On 09/12/2013 12:31 AM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
I broadly agree with you (as I assume everyone does) that Tor is still
worthwhile even though it doesn't try to defend against the global
passive adversary. However, I think you made a number of overreaching
statements in your defense of
Anyhow, I've made my one comment per month, for better or for worse.
Considering the private email response I have received from Juan, it
probably was not a useful effort on my part to engage.
For what it's worth : I didn't mean to send you a private message. For
some reason your
On 09/12/2013 03:13 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
I made a concrete point. Tor doesn't protect individuals from
particular* governments. You replied with a general truism of sorts : It's
better to have more security than less security. Well, yeah, true. But that
doesn't address my
For some reason, just the message to which I'm responding below out of
this entire thread got caught in a spam trap that I rarely check (once
every month or three) because it very rarely catches messages I
want. The thread has long ago moved on. I respond inline below, but
feel free to ignore.
On
At 02:31 PM 9/11/2013 -0400, Paul Syverson wrote:
Most people involved in creating Tor
including, e.g., Andrew Lewman, now Executive Director, of the Tor
Project Inc. first got involved simply by volunteering constructive
suggestions/code/design/etc of one sort or another and then growing
into
Hey Juan. I feel like I have something to add to this discussion, even though
generally, as others have said, this is not a new discussion.
Juan Garofalo juan@gmail.com wrote:
Tor cannot protect individuals from organizations that can monitor
'big' parts of the internet. Organizations such
I broadly agree with you (as I assume everyone does) that Tor is still
worthwhile even though it doesn't try to defend against the global
passive adversary. However, I think you made a number of overreaching
statements in your defense of Tor, some quite dangerous, and I want to
call those out
that being said, yea, there is a problem with the global passive
adversary that we have to assume NSA and friends to be. and i don't
really see a viable technical solution so far. not saying there aren't
any, mind you.
First of, I'll admit to not being as technically as savvy as most of
you, but
Graham Todd:
First of, I'll admit to not being as technically as savvy as most of
you, but I've recently seen a copy of Liberte Linux 2012.3 and this
claims that ALL connections a torrified and this is what I'm after in
an anonymity set of software.
You may be interested in Whonix (self-ad)
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:47:42AM +, adrela...@riseup.net wrote 1.4K bytes
in 0 lines about:
: I think The Tor Project has not enough time/man power/money to grant
: more support to such projects, but I can not speak for them.
Tails gets some money because we get to know, meet up with, and
The Doctor:
On 08/30/2013 06:19 AM, mick wrote:
unhelpful. When the abuse is aimed at refuting what could be
seen as conspiracy theory, I think you may be in danger of adding
fuel.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that any response at all,
or nor response at all are considered
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 08:41:13AM -0400, Ted Smith wrote:
Until you can find a better funding source in the US than the DoD,
that's a reality we'll all have to live with.
You should try calling your congressperson and asking them to support
legislation to defund the military-industrial
At 02:14 PM 8/29/2013 -0700, you wrote:
This conversation is a little tired.
The tinfoil hats are going to see any funding of Tor by the US government as
evidence that Tor is really a front for it and/or pwned by it.
So if facts can't be denied, and basic principles of politics and
So if facts can't be denied, and basic principles of politics and
economic 'incentives' can't be denied, the best course of action is to call
any critics tin foil hats.
So you're a critic?
Ok, Mr Critic: the source code is public. The protocol is public. The
architecture is public. The
Juan Garofalo:
At 02:14 PM 8/29/2013 -0700, you wrote:
This conversation is a little tired.
The tinfoil hats are going to see any funding of Tor by the US government as
evidence that Tor is really a front for it and/or pwned by it.
So if facts can't be denied, and basic
At 02:16 AM 8/30/2013 -0700, you wrote:
Juan Garofalo:
At 02:14 PM 8/29/2013 -0700, you wrote:
This conversation is a little tired.
The tinfoil hats are going to see any funding of Tor by the US government
as evidence that Tor is really a front for it and/or pwned by it.
So if
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:16:06 -0700
Mike Perry mikepe...@torproject.org allegedly wrote:
Anyway, I would ask that you attempt at least one of the following:
1. Respect our efforts on this front. We're doing our best with what
we have
2. Provide citations to support your conspiracy
At 11:19 AM 8/30/2013 +0100, you wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:16:06 -0700
Mike Perry mikepe...@torproject.org allegedly wrote:
Anyway, I would ask that you attempt at least one of the following:
1. Respect our efforts on this front. We're doing our best with what
we have
2. Provide
On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 07:34 -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:
By the way, my original point was that if Tor people believe that
their funding scheme is not going to raise a red flag in the minds of
'ordinary people', they are mistaken.
Until you can find a better funding source in the US than the
30.08.2013 Juan Garofalo:
At 02:16 AM 8/30/2013 -0700, you wrote:
Juan Garofalo:
At 02:14 PM 8/29/2013 -0700, you wrote:
This conversation is a little tired.
The tinfoil hats are going to see any funding of Tor by the US
government as evidence that Tor is really a front for it and/or
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:16:06 -0700
Mike Perry mikepe...@torproject.org wrote:
3. Find better meds
4. Go fuck off
Personal attacks like this are unacceptable. Let's keep it mature and
civil, even in the face of immaturity and incivility on other sides.
--
Andrew
http://tpo.is/contact
pgp
Original Message -
From: Juan Garofalo juan@gmail.com
Seriously what? You don't understand that baseless name calling shows that
you don't have a leg to stand on?
No more games, please. As has been pointed out, the source code is public.
Make your case if you have one.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 04:38:21PM +0200, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
30.08.2013 Juan Garofalo:
At 02:16 AM 8/30/2013 -0700, you wrote:
Juan Garofalo:
At 02:14 PM 8/29/2013 -0700, you wrote:
[snip]
1. Respect our efforts on this front. We're doing our best with
what we have 2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/30/2013 06:19 AM, mick wrote:
unhelpful. When the abuse is aimed at refuting what could be seen
as conspiracy theory, I think you may be in danger of adding fuel.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that any response at all, or
nor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/29/2013 05:14 PM, Al Billings wrote:
Is there likely to be a meeting of the minds or just a really long
thread that proves nothing to anyone? :-)
Doubtful. People believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of
the evidence.
And now,
On 08/30/2013 12:41 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 07:34 -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:
By the way, my original point was that if Tor people believe that
their funding scheme is not going to raise a red flag in the minds of
'ordinary people', they are mistaken.
Until you can find
At 11:33 AM 8/30/2013 -0400, Paul S. wrote:
1. Respect our efforts on this front. We're doing our best with
what we have 2. Provide citations to support your conspiracy
theories of Tor's subversion
Tor is funded by the US government. Your own sources.
Indeed, it is.
Right. And
On 8/29/13, Al Billings alb...@openbuddha.com wrote:
This conversation is a little tired.
Is there likely to be a meeting of the minds or just a really long thread
that proves nothing to anyone? :-)
Tor's a 501 entity, it's books are reasonably open and subject
to data correction when pointed
On 08/30/2013 10:06 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
At 11:33 AM 8/30/2013 -0400, Paul S. wrote:
SNIP
See all the research on the issues trade-offs, threats, designs,
etc. that Tor Project Inc. employees, government employees,
university and corporate researchers, and lots of others have done
Juan Garofalo:
For what it's worth : trying to have a diverse and big user base, and
providing security for all users seems to be impossible. You either provide
relatively good security for a small number of sensitive users, or relatively
lax security for 'general' users.
i have
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:02:24AM -0700,
bm-2d9whbg2vekslcsgbtplgwdlqypizsq...@bitmessage.ch wrote 1.8K bytes in 0 lines
about:
: Thanks; please see https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9614.
Updated and closed. And the website is pushed live with the new commit.
--
Andrew
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/transparency-openness-and-our-2012-financial-docs
And to address the next question, the parts of the US and Swedish
Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy
and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future. Don't assume that
the
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Juan Garofalo juan@gmail.com wrote:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/transparency-openness-and-our-2012-financial-docs
And to address the next question, the parts of the US and Swedish
Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong
Hi Juan,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Juan Garofalo juan@gmail.com wrote:
You seriously think people are going to believe that? I mean the
bit
parts of the US and Swedish Governments...want to see strong
privacy
and anonymity exist on the Internet
So, this is
At 03:22 PM 8/29/2013 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Juan,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Juan Garofalo juan@gmail.com wrote:
You seriously think people are going to believe that? I mean the
bit
parts of the US and Swedish Governments...want to see strong
privacy
and anonymity
The fact that there are power struggles between different government
factions doesn't mean government isn't 'monotholitic' for a lot of practical
purposes.
better worded :
Government can still be 'monolothic' in a practical sense, despite
power struggles between different
This conversation is a little tired.
The tinfoil hats are going to see any funding of Tor by the US government as
evidence that Tor is really a front for it and/or pwned by it.
Others are going to disagree, pointing out that money is spent in public on
items on a roadmap.
Is there likely to
http://i.imgur.com/i7HvtHy.jpg
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 17:27 -0300, Juan Garofalo wrote:
The fact that there are power struggles between different government
factions doesn't mean government isn't 'monotholitic' for a lot of practical
purposes.
better worded :
Government can still be 'monolothic' in a
I noticed that the Tor Project's 2012 Financial Report from
https://www.torproject.org/about/findoc/2012-TorProject-FinancialStatements.pdf
notes that what appears to be Tor's largest single source of funding is a
$876K U.S. Department of Defense grant obtained via the Stanford Research
Institute
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:18:31 -0700
bm-2d9whbg2vekslcsgbtplgwdlqypizsq...@bitmessage.ch wrote:
Despite this transparency on Tor's own website, Tor's Sponsors page
at https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en currently lists
its largest donor as an anonymous NGO.
Isn't SRI an
Thanks; please see https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9614.
Can anyone working for the Tor Project comment on its U.S. Department of
Defense funded activities beyond what appears when searching for
N66001-11-C-4022 (the number of the award from the Tor Project's 2012
Financial
56 matches
Mail list logo
