dawuud: > >> I think it is worth remembering that there isn't evidence there is a >> global passive adversary at the moment, even if certain agencies and >> organizations clearly aspire to be one. > > Quite so. It is well established that these so called agencies do not > aspire to be passive. Or perhaps you simply typed the word "passive" by > shear force of habit and instead meant to convey "suffiently global > adversary". :) >
I was mostly commenting on the use of the word "passive", but I agree with you that "sufficiently global adversary" is perhaps a better word. Doesn't a lot of it depend on context anyway? How can we quantify something like this? _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
