On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 04:17:44PM -0500, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > >As long as funding doesn't come with strings, there's no problem with > >accepting it. > Very true - more so w/ people already using Tor or those that would never > look at how Tor is funded. > But if some sayings were ever true, it's, "Perception is reality," and > "You're judged by the company you keep." > > People on the outside looking in, see an organization, whose primary purpose > is to provide means to protect privacy, *especially* from gov't agencies, > but the major portion of their funding comes FROM a gov't agency. > > I'm sorry - but no matter how much I or anyone else loves Tor, to many > "thinking" outsiders, it would appear quite fishy (if they know that funding > fact). "It just don't look right." > I think it's fishy - _& I like Tor_. If I'd actually known that fact before > I used it, I'd have thought something wasn't right. > > It may be, if they really want to grow the Tor user base (continually), it > may have to appeal to a broader audience, for many of whom the funding > source issue may well be a stumbling block.
Very true. In Russia, question "do you know who funded torproject?" (assuming US gov.) arises constantly in disputes about the safety of tor. It is a very stupid argument. But with anti-American sentiment in mind, it sounds convincing for people not versed in the matter. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
