Mick, Congratulations, so you found someone with a similar name what are the odds of that. When you are reduced to digging up dirt, it stems from the fact that you are trying to change the nature of the discussion.
FYI, I am a security specialist. I've previously worked with the Australian Federal Government designing software and infrastructure security for multi-million dollar projects to support National Security. In fact, I do most of my consultancy work for government. I see Roger has remained quiet, so I am assuming he either does not want to address the issue or is subject to a National Security letter. These questions remain: 1. Why does Tor appear to fit so well with a large scale espionage program that was implemented around the same time (namely PRISM)? 2. Why, given the publication of details about PRISM, were moves not made to secure the Tor network? 3. Why is there so much hostility to these questions, including character attacks and ad hominems? 4. Is Tor an elaborate scam by the US military? (perhaps along with Bitcoin???) 5. Why, given the simplicity of the solution, was hosting not an internal service in Tor right from the start? As I have eluded to before, it does seem to me that Tor was designed to integrate into the US espionage apparatus and present itself as solution to anonymity, when in fact, it was ensuring complete traceability to the US government and selected partners. Let me be clear on this, I do not think this was an unfortunate accident. Regards, Mark McCarron Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:41:55 +0100 From: m...@rlogin.net To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and Anonymity On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:11:18 +0100 Mark McCarron <mark.mccar...@live.co.uk> allegedly wrote: > Roger, > > I see that you were quite quiet whilst ad hominem attacks were being > made against me. But I will put that to one side for the moment. > > As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and > people like yourself have a conflict of interest. The main funding > appears to come from the US military. It appears to many of us, that > the software has been deliberately kept weak to traffic analysis to > support US intelligence operations. In fact, it seems to 'fit like a > glove'. Further, that the issue of traffic analysis has been > discussed in convoluted terms as a means of keeping that way. Hiding > from traffic analysis is not rocket science, nor does it require > endless reams of papers and speeches on packet obfuscation. > > Given that you are the head guy, I want to know what is going on? If > your reply consists of the stock answer, "well this is complex", keep > in mind that I am a security specialist too and know that to be > untrue. > > I don't mean to be confrontational in any way, but the credibility of > this project is on the line here. > /breaking my own rule "It appears to many of us" - who is this "us"? You don't speak for me, nor apparently for many others on this list. And are you any relation to the Mark McCarron referenced at [1] and [2]? [1] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/366503.html [2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/09/weve_found_the_perfect_solution/ Best Mick (oh, and BTW, there is a difference between "effect" and "affect" -ref: your email of 27 June @10:53:46) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 -- 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
