His actual statement: > Tor is having a fit of institutional pique that researchers are compromising the network's privacy guarantees by, well, looking at it.

His actual statement: > Tor is having a fit of institutional pique that researchers are compromising the network's privacy guarantees by, well, looking at it. > If you write security software, and you're not praying that loyal opposition hits you with everything they've got, you're not doing security > Tor is intended to be, and is marketed as, robust against nation state adversaries. It cannot possibly be so if it worries about academics. Two interpretations: 1. It's OK to go after Tor. This is dead wrong - attacking a network without permission is very bad form. Maybe it's OK to do the equivalent of checking to see if someone's front door is locked (this is a grey area), but only if you intend to warn them that their door's unlocked. Going through their stuff is obviously unethical (and probably illegal). 2. Tor should be more permissive, encouraging more attacks from researchers. Obviously, the researchers crossed the line when they started gathering user data. But Tor should only be upset that the attack went too far, not that the attack succeeded. I'm not sure of the context - was the Tor community pissed off that researchers found a weakness, or pissed off that the weakness was exploited? Twitter is a pretty poor platform if you want nuance, so it's probably best to be charitable in your interpretations of what people say there.