5 ms·

To his credit, I'd guess he's not sharing his bona fides because doing so would jeopardize the program he alleges to be involved in, and there isn't a particula

To his credit, I'd guess he's not sharing his bona fides because doing so would jeopardize the program he alleges to be involved in, and there isn't a particular reason to doubt the veracity of his claim by virtue of his creating an anonymous account to protect said program. While his passion for the issue has made his message more aggressive than you'd like, don't dismiss his claim because you believe he's just full of piss and vinegar. Looking past the totally unrelated arguments about his identity, I don't have any difficulty believing what he's said. I know several folks in American academia who have stated unequivocally that the amount of computing power and data analysis ability available to them would make Dr. Evil blush. Let's be honest and set emotional responses and character assault aside here. If you take the emotion out of what he said, can you honestly say the rest of it is bullshit? It rings true to me, and he's right: if academia, which is generally held by the public to be above the sort of cloak and dagger stuff that happened with Tor, lost its way and tossed their ethics out the window ... Well, that's a Bad Thing in ways we can only begin to understand. Who's left for us to trust?

tptacek 11y ago
It is totally fine if they disagree with me. What's not fine is the way they chose to express their disagreement: by taking umbrage at the idea that anyone, let along the author of a Bingo Card site, would have an opinion contrary to theirs. I don't even think I disagree with the second part of 'AMEDICALRe's root comment. But of course, that comment has very little to do with what Patrick actually said. Patrick is responding to the fact that an anti-surveillance tool that chose as its adversaries all the world's governments was broken for a sum of money any angel investor in SFBA could have coughed up.
- spdustin 11y ago
  Fair enough. But I would argue that qualifying Tor as a group targeting world governments is a bit dramatic. That may be propagandist commentary on their part - they're entitled to make it, and people still use Tor in spite of it - but isn't the primary intention of Tor to preserve free speech and anonymity, and to offer protection from persecution (or prosecution) by nation-states that seek to quell dissent? And if all the worlds' governments are truly the stated target of Tor, why on earth should an American academic institution insinuate itself into that battlefield? For that matter, given the stated powers of our governments network and data analysis engines, why were they even needed?
  - mentat 11y ago
    They provided information "on that battlefield" that shows that Tor is wholly inadequate to "offer protection from persecution by nation-states". If you're in a place where your life is on the line and you think Tor will help you, this shows clearly that is incorrect. That is useful, even critical information, since lives depend on it. Maybe you don't know the source or the method but the output is very valuable.
    - mtgx 11y ago
      That's only somewhat true, though. Russia tried to break Tor's anonymity and failed. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/russia-s-plan-to-crack-tor-crumbles http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/russia-s-p...
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    > I would argue that qualifying Tor as a group targeting world governments is a bit dramatic. That may be propagandist commentary on their part - they're entitled to make it, and people still use Tor in spite of it - but isn't the primary intention of Tor to preserve free speech and anonymity, and to offer protection from persecution (or prosecution) by nation-states that seek to quell dissent? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Surely, if the primary intention of Tor is to protect users from persecution by nation-states, then their adversaries are world governments?
- gingerlime 11y ago
  > was broken for a sum of money any angel investor in SFBA could have coughed up. perhaps nitpicking, and a bit tangential to this debate, but I can't imagine the $1m on its own would be enough to break it. I imagine they have some fairly beefy research budget with an existing infrastructure with a substantial computing power and prior research experience to begin with. So quite a tall giant to stand on. If I had to guess, the $1m was only there to cover time spent on this very specific task at hand, and for allocating researchers' time away from other tasks...
doktrin 11y ago
I find it weird that such a seasoned academic researcher would completely gloss over the distinction between academia and an FFRDC.

tptacek 11y ago

It is totally fine if they disagree with me. What's not fine is the way they chose to express their disagreement: by taking umbrage at the idea that anyone, let along the author of a Bingo Card site, would have an opinion contrary to theirs. I don't even think I disagree with the second part of 'AMEDICALRe's root comment. But of course, that comment has very little to do with what Patrick actually said. Patrick is responding to the fact that an anti-surveillance tool that chose as its adversaries all the world's governments was broken for a sum of money any angel investor in SFBA could have coughed up.

spdustin 11y ago
Fair enough. But I would argue that qualifying Tor as a group targeting world governments is a bit dramatic. That may be propagandist commentary on their part - they're entitled to make it, and people still use Tor in spite of it - but isn't the primary intention of Tor to preserve free speech and anonymity, and to offer protection from persecution (or prosecution) by nation-states that seek to quell dissent? And if all the worlds' governments are truly the stated target of Tor, why on earth should an American academic institution insinuate itself into that battlefield? For that matter, given the stated powers of our governments network and data analysis engines, why were they even needed?
- mentat 11y ago
  They provided information "on that battlefield" that shows that Tor is wholly inadequate to "offer protection from persecution by nation-states". If you're in a place where your life is on the line and you think Tor will help you, this shows clearly that is incorrect. That is useful, even critical information, since lives depend on it. Maybe you don't know the source or the method but the output is very valuable.
  - mtgx 11y ago
    That's only somewhat true, though. Russia tried to break Tor's anonymity and failed. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/russia-s-plan-to-crack-tor-crumbles http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/russia-s-p...
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > I would argue that qualifying Tor as a group targeting world governments is a bit dramatic. That may be propagandist commentary on their part - they're entitled to make it, and people still use Tor in spite of it - but isn't the primary intention of Tor to preserve free speech and anonymity, and to offer protection from persecution (or prosecution) by nation-states that seek to quell dissent? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Surely, if the primary intention of Tor is to protect users from persecution by nation-states, then their adversaries are world governments?
gingerlime 11y ago
> was broken for a sum of money any angel investor in SFBA could have coughed up. perhaps nitpicking, and a bit tangential to this debate, but I can't imagine the $1m on its own would be enough to break it. I imagine they have some fairly beefy research budget with an existing infrastructure with a substantial computing power and prior research experience to begin with. So quite a tall giant to stand on. If I had to guess, the $1m was only there to cover time spent on this very specific task at hand, and for allocating researchers' time away from other tasks...

doktrin 11y ago

I find it weird that such a seasoned academic researcher would completely gloss over the distinction between academia and an FFRDC.