Holy fuck you're still talking? Give it a rest buddy.
Juan: > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:35:44 -0400 > Paul Syverson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> More details on the history at >> https://www.acsac.org/2011/program/keynotes/ >> >>> >>> I mean we don't need to repeat yet again that tor is a >>> project of the US military. As such it doesn't make >>> sense for it to be 'decentralized'. >> >> For the technical reasons behind the degree and nature of >> centralization and decentralization, see the above paper and the Tor >> design paper. Also note that ironically the first few major design >> versions made purely by govt. employees were actually more >> decentralized. E.g. see the above paper, also >> http://www.onion-router.net/Archives/TNG.html >> It was only when we moved to the Tor design, that we moved to being >> a bit less P2P with directory authorities. > > > And what point are you making with all that hand waving? 'a bit > less p2p'? That's some technical language. > > >> >> For more technical arguments why this is in practice more secure than >> other designs known at the time see >> http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#danezis-pet2008 and >> http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#entropist > > > Even assuming that the central servers are more > 'secure' (although that's vague - more secure for whom > against what kind of attacks) the fact remains that centralized > control over the network is something obviously in line with > the political objectives of your employers. > > > > >> >> But by all means please continue justifying everything you say based >> on what you tenaciously are sure some large organizations must intend > > Is your contention that your employers don't have any purpose > at all? Or that the government responsible for a global > surveillance system (among many other sick crimes) also pays you > to counter them? lol > > See, you can play that game only so far. You can pretend to be a > 'technician' who knows nothing about politics only so far. > > On the other hand I do realize that you are just playing a part > here, for your audience of lackeys. > > Obviously you are not going to admit that you are just a tool > of the US military providing them with resources to 'spread > democracy' in 'oppressed countries'. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change > > > > >> rather than the technical design reasons that have been published and >> publically vetted by the best scientific and technical researchers on >> the planet > > > Oh boy. Are you arrogant. > > By the way, have you and your friends received any national > security letter lately? > > >> from the most respected advanced institutions in every >> country. What could they possibly add to the truly dizzying intellect >> manifest in your arguments to date? >> >> Apologies to others for failing to resist feeding the troll. > > > > So, you have nothing but name calling. And funnily enough whine > about 'ad hominems'. Unintentional self-parody at its best. > > > > >> Guess I'm >> tired. Here's a little ad hominem of my own: Moritz started it. >> >> aloha, >> Paul >> >> >> > > -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
