On 8/29/13, Al Billings <[email protected]> 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 out. There will be anonymous donors. And donors from all sides and for all reasons. Tor is open source, it's actively developed, debugged and outfitted. It drives, adds, and embodies a lot of the state of the art in the field. It's got a lot of eyeballs on it from various places. If the money corrupts and it begins failing to perform as advertised, someone's going to call it out in a technical fashion in mail, in papers, in a conference talk... and it will be forked, or abandoned, or defunded and pitchforked by the donors and users who have been conned. That con's really hard to pull off and risky when most of the people involved are out in the open. As such, Tor doesn't deny or gloss over design limitations, lack of fitness for particular adverse scenarios, or its roadmap beyond the time needed to create decent papers or mail out blurbs about them. Money is given for people to do something useful with it. I don't think it matters where the money comes from or whether it's directed, so long as the product is in the open for evaluation and choice. And that there's some reasonable accounting as to how the total input was spent and that it matches up with results observed in the output product. Trolling on about this is just a stupid waste of time. Tor is useful and I have no problem with the Tor project. [No, I've not yet looked at the expenses to see if these millions in corrupt funds are being spent on hookers and blow. If so, please send an invite to the next party ;-] -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
