3 ms·

IF we take the strict differences of the phrasing, we could say he's reasonably withholding information by request. Incorporated with the timeframe, this could

by grrowl 12y ago

IF we take the strict differences of the phrasing, we could say he's reasonably withholding information by request. Incorporated with the timeframe, this could be anyone — but given his response and the extra 250+ twitter followers today, he's probably been reminded the cost of drawing conjecture in public.

draugadrotten 12y ago
I am thinking this guy is very exact and precise in his phrasing, especially with regards to a canary. He's a crypto-geek, anarchist and running an exit node and this crowd knows Alice is not Bob. He knows what he says will be scrutinized by thousands. Why wouldn't he be very careful in what he says? Based on his first canary vs the last, he could, as you say, "reasonably" be withholding information on request. Perhaps terrorists, kitty pr0n or the threat of jail is reason to him. Good resons, who knows. He could also be under the control of someone that asks him to add new, lie or modify information. Worse reasons, perhaps. Either way his first canary reminded us that whatever he says now needs to be treated as possible disinformation.
- cesarb 12y ago
  > He knows what he says will be scrutinized by thousands. Why wouldn't he be very careful in what he says? Because he's under time pressure? If his paranoia was true (after all, paranoia doesn't mean they aren't after you), he could have had little time to get his message out before he would have lost his network access. At that moment, timeliness would have been more important than precision; what mattered was that the directory authority operators and mirror users knew that his servers were potentially compromised.
- grrowl 12y ago
  Further, his subsequent posts to the mailing list[1] are missing the canary entirely, but everything has been addressed except for: > 3. The DC has confirmed via Twitter that the servers were not "accessed". Having been raided in the past I know indeed they can be forced under Dutch law not to inform clients of raids, but I don't feel this may be the case. With that being said, a chassis intrusion indicator still must be addressed and I cannot find it in the logs anymore. The DC company are not the people who I directly interact with however so I am still awaiting a direct response form those we host the server with. Either way, it's not a direct raid or seizure, if anything a backdoor installed by someone at the DC, but honestly at this point you have to accept the possibility and either accept/balance/mitigate the risk or get new hardware. [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-December/036084.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-Decembe...

by grrowl 12y ago

draugadrotten 12y ago

I am thinking this guy is very exact and precise in his phrasing, especially with regards to a canary. He's a crypto-geek, anarchist and running an exit node and this crowd knows Alice is not Bob. He knows what he says will be scrutinized by thousands. Why wouldn't he be very careful in what he says? Based on his first canary vs the last, he could, as you say, "reasonably" be withholding information on request. Perhaps terrorists, kitty pr0n or the threat of jail is reason to him. Good resons, who knows. He could also be under the control of someone that asks him to add new, lie or modify information. Worse reasons, perhaps. Either way his first canary reminded us that whatever he says now needs to be treated as possible disinformation.

cesarb 12y ago
> He knows what he says will be scrutinized by thousands. Why wouldn't he be very careful in what he says? Because he's under time pressure? If his paranoia was true (after all, paranoia doesn't mean they aren't after you), he could have had little time to get his message out before he would have lost his network access. At that moment, timeliness would have been more important than precision; what mattered was that the directory authority operators and mirror users knew that his servers were potentially compromised.
grrowl 12y ago
Further, his subsequent posts to the mailing list[1] are missing the canary entirely, but everything has been addressed except for: > 3. The DC has confirmed via Twitter that the servers were not "accessed". Having been raided in the past I know indeed they can be forced under Dutch law not to inform clients of raids, but I don't feel this may be the case. With that being said, a chassis intrusion indicator still must be addressed and I cannot find it in the logs anymore. The DC company are not the people who I directly interact with however so I am still awaiting a direct response form those we host the server with. Either way, it's not a direct raid or seizure, if anything a backdoor installed by someone at the DC, but honestly at this point you have to accept the possibility and either accept/balance/mitigate the risk or get new hardware. [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-December/036084.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-Decembe...