11–20 of 36 posts
How is a scheduled shutdown (2016-08-31) a "torpedoing"?
It is Alliterative Tor Torpedoes Tonga Perhaps they could've even gone further Top Torian Torpedoes Tonga Tech
In a project focused on privacy, vague unclear statements of this sort convey a certain implication. There is, of course, no way to be sure what is intended, and that is rather the point.
How is a scheduled shutdown (2016-08-31) a "torpedoing"?
The Register, in the tradition of British rags, uses somewhat hyperbolic/clickbaity headlines. You'll note that torpedoing isn't used in the copy, just the heading. I agree, though; for someone who (a) is a volunteer and (b) is doing it because he dislikes the direction of the organization, this is a remarkably civil disentangling.
If you haven't read about it, read the post mortem on the Lavabit page.
To me, it's very likely that the government demanded backdoors in TOR code itself, or backdoor access to critical TOR infrastructure (bridge nodes, directory authority, large exit nodes, ...), all under gag orders that forbid any mention of this to the public.
Probably in the interest of 'national security'.
Can't be sure, of course, but I would not feel comfortable with using TOR for anything sensitive anymore.
what events? It would be great if he spoke openly, so people not following tor very intensively would know what is so concerning. Yes, I am living under a rock.
The Appelbaum crisis is the most recent public drama, but that's mostly a settled matter and a fall has already been taken for it. It would be fairly strange to do this now over that incident.
Given which, it looks like someone involved with a privacy project is refusing to disclose their motives for shutdown, but also shutting down slowly and openly, the way you wouldn't if someone was knocking on your door. This is an ambiguous outcome to almost everyone.
To me, this feels a lot like what transpired with https://lavabit.com/ . Of course, that was a service operated by a company, not a open source software and a distributed network, but there might be paralells. If you haven't read about it, read the post mortem on the Lavabit page. To me, it's very likely that the government demanded backdoors in TOR code itself, or backdoor access to critical TOR infrastructure (brid…
So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of suits leaned on him to "cooperate".
That said, iirc, as long as you own your entry node and its a public node...Tor remains secure since the only successful attacks have all required someone to be in control of the entry node you use to connect to the Tor network (at least, the attacks intended to expose end users).
Appelbaum and the board are out. So now I'm curious. What about recent events have transpired in a way that he has to cut ties? Does the organization still housecleaning to do? The Tor leadership jumped on the grenade, presumably clearing the area for everyone else. Is there an entirely different angle that I'm missing? Because that vague of a post only implies one.
what events? It would be great if he spoke openly, so people not following tor very intensively would know what is so concerning. Yes, I am living under a rock.
To me, this feels a lot like what transpired with https://lavabit.com/ . Of course, that was a service operated by a company, not a open source software and a distributed network, but there might be paralells. If you haven't read about it, read the post mortem on the Lavabit page. To me, it's very likely that the government demanded backdoors in TOR code itself, or backdoor access to critical TOR infrastructure (brid…
To me, this feels a lot like what transpired with https://lavabit.com/ . Of course, that was a service operated by a company, not a open source software and a distributed network, but there might be paralells. If you haven't read about it, read the post mortem on the Lavabit page. To me, it's very likely that the government demanded backdoors in TOR code itself, or backdoor access to critical TOR infrastructure (brid…