On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:20:12 -0500 Roger Dingledine <a...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:23:42PM -0300, Juan wrote: > > > You might like > > > https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#Backdoor > > > > > > We won't put backdoors in Tor. Ever. > > > > LOL! > > > > You work for the pentagon and are subjects of the US state. > > > > The US government has secret 'courts' and secretly forces > > its subjects to tamper with all kinds of 'security' systems, in the > > name of 'national security'. > > > > Whatever public declamations you make carry very little > > weight. > > Hello Mr. Tor hater, Well Roger, your very first sentence is baseless name calling. You've already lost. Again. Like I previously said, if I'm a 'tor hater' you are lover of the murdering US government, which also happens to be your employer. > > We get funding from a variety of groups, including US government > groups. We do not "work for the pentagon" Yes you do. You are 'funded' by the 'department of war' or 'department of defense' or department of mass murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon "The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, " I'm glad I cleared the confusion up for you. You're welcome. > but that is a separate > discussion and it shouldn't derail this one. > > We are indeed subjects of various governments, tor is a project of the pentagon. All 'key' 'developers' are subjects of the US governemnt. > and some of those > governments have indeed been doing quite bad things lately. The notion > of a secret law makes me sick. That's so touching. But irrelevant. Also, there were no secret laws when you started working on tor? > > But when it comes to governments secretly forcing us to do things, no, > there *is* a choice. And that's why we're telling you we have made > this choice: No backdoors. Ever. So, your 'argument' is baseless repetition of a baseless assertion? Impressive. > > To quote the faq entry, which Nick and I wrote in 2004 and it remains > true today: > "We think that putting a backdoor in Tor would be tremendously > irresponsible to our users, and a bad precedent for security software > in general." Hm. I think this is the fourth time you've repeated that? > > They can't make us put backdoors in. But they can make things > miserable for us if we don't go along with it At least some truth. Now, given the fact that things aren't 'miserable' for you... >-- see the Lavabit case > for an example (and hopefully one where people learned a lesson about > centralization too). Funny that you mention lavabit since lavabit was a scam from day zero. http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/ Also, quite funny that you mention 'centralization' since tor is centralized. Well, of course, centralization is just what one would expect from miliary projects. ABC of political philosophy. > That's a major part of why I try to keep talking > to the folks who might try to force us into something -- Oh yes. Those nice fellows at the fbi, pentagon, nsa, whatever are going to pay so much attention to what you have to say...especially if it goes against their interests. > to explain > that it won't work, and that it will backfire because then *their* > colleagues, who need privacy too, will have fewer options, Except that's false. The US government can use tor to spy on its 'targets' and use other means for 'secure' communications. It's a win-win situation! >to remind > them that there are other jurisdictions in the world, and so on. > > Thankfully, and I'd like to think in part because of this directed > advocacy, it has never come to this decision point for us. That is, > to be clear, nobody has yet tried to force us, with secret laws or > otherwise, into undermining Tor. LOLOL! You are again asserting that you've not been 'served' some kind of secret order which is secret by definition. Talk about circular (lack of) logic... > > Now, you're right, these are just words. Correct. Thanks for finally conceding the point. You could have saved yourself some typing... > That's why we try to do all > of our development in public, and the source code is open, and the > research communities are active and public, and we engage with many > communities in person at a wide variety of conferences. Non sequitur. From the premise "public source" it doesn't follow "no secret orders". > Please do > continue to audit and observe and help find potential problems in Tor > and the ecosystem of software around it. > > We've been working on Tor for more than a decade, and in that time the > world has been becoming a worse place in many ways for privacy and > free speech. And who's to blame? Your government =) >Haters are going to hate, And murderers are going to murder. And US govt employees are going to come up with laughable excuses for what they do, et cetera. >I accept this, but for the > rest of you: thanks for continuing to help us and to support privacy! > No backdoors. Ever. yes brother! You've finally proven that jesus rules the universe. Repetition is the key to truth. Or is it the key to propaganda? > > --Roger > --Juan -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
