Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#2While I can appreciate the measured tone in TFA, at some point you've got to take a step back and ask what the hell is going on. This instance reeks of an egregious conflict of interest and this response is negligent on behalf of the board.
The current TOR Board scenario is akin to having a known child-abusing relative babysit your own kid, catching them inexplicably sitting with the kid alone in a darkened room in a state of undress, then saying:
"Well, this is strange.. but we can't prove you were planning anything malicious this time around. As you were, mate!"
Sometimes a harsh response is warranted to preserve integrity of that which is important. This is one of those times.
My confidence in TOR was already kind of low, now how can I trust and be assured the lack of firm response isn't due to integrity already being compromised and no longer the main priority?
The public trust in TOR is EVERYTHING the project has*.
* had
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#3While I can appreciate the measured tone in TFA, at some point you've got to take a step back and ask what the hell is going on. This instance reeks of an egregious conflict of interest and this response is negligent on behalf of the board . The current TOR Board scenario is akin to having a known child-abusing relative babysit your own kid, catching them inexplicably sitting with the kid alone in a darkened room in…
Hard disagree. The measured tone in TFA is how adults debate issues. Invoking phrases like "child-abusing relative" and "kid alone in a darkened room in a state of undress" is the kind of hyperbole that sites like Twitter and HN love to employ that reduce the quality of conversations and how threads turn into shouting matches.
Ask yourself how the hyperbole you engage in leads to "curious conversation", how you're "assuming good faith", and how you're "eschewing flamebait". Because TFA seems to invoke curious conversation and good faith and your hyperbolic analogies just seem like ideological-battle oriented flamebait.
> Sometimes a harsh response is warranted to preserve integrity of that which is important. This is one of those times.
I'm pretty sure this is explicitly against "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
P.S. As a long time HN reader/user, these hyperbolic flamebait comments in the service of political ends are exactly the kinds of comments that I find degrade this site the most. When people complain about this site turning into Reddit, it's these kinds of comments I think about.
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#4While I can appreciate the measured tone in TFA, at some point you've got to take a step back and ask what the hell is going on. This instance reeks of an egregious conflict of interest and this response is negligent on behalf of the board . The current TOR Board scenario is akin to having a known child-abusing relative babysit your own kid, catching them inexplicably sitting with the kid alone in a darkened room in…
Hard disagree. The measured tone in TFA is how adults debate issues. Invoking phrases like "child-abusing relative" and "kid alone in a darkened room in a state of undress" is the kind of hyperbole that sites like Twitter and HN love to employ that reduce the quality of conversations and how threads turn into shouting matches. Ask yourself how the hyperbole you engage in leads to "curious conversation", how you're "a…
OPs comment wasn’t just off the cuff emotionally charged rhetoric though. They acknowledged that there are times for a measured response, and there are times that a measured response is inappropriate. That outrage and pitchfork wielding are appropriate responses. They made the case that this was one of those times.
I agree.
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#5While I can appreciate the measured tone in TFA, at some point you've got to take a step back and ask what the hell is going on. This instance reeks of an egregious conflict of interest and this response is negligent on behalf of the board . The current TOR Board scenario is akin to having a known child-abusing relative babysit your own kid, catching them inexplicably sitting with the kid alone in a darkened room in…
Tor was taken over by the CIA a while ago when they purged the old hacker board for "inappropriate behavior towards women": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/jacob-app...
You know, the same thing they did to Assange. I wonder how that's going. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/28/assa-j28.html
>Key witness against Assange admits to lying in exchange for US immunity
Oh yeah.
But hey, we might have destroyed one of the crown jewels of free software because the CIA played SJWs like a fiddle but at least we're good people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4hh1YhDfbA
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. The measured tone in TFA is how adults debate issues. Invoking phrases like "child-abusing relative" and "kid alone in a darkened room in a state of undress" is the kind of hyperbole that sites like Twitter and HN love to employ that reduce the quality of conversations and how threads turn into shouting matches. Ask yourself how the hyperbole you engage in leads to "curious conversation", how you're "a…
OPs comment wasn’t just off the cuff emotionally charged rhetoric though. They acknowledged that there are times for a measured response, and there are times that a measured response is inappropriate. That outrage and pitchfork wielding are appropriate responses. They made the case that this was one of those times. I agree.
Bring enough people together with varied enough opinions and each of them will feel their own personal deep concerns are worth wielding pitchforks for. Eventually every conflict will involve pitchforks and the temperature of any discussion will be high enough that all you have are flames whereupon conflicts will just be hidden from public view and taken care of under the table so as not to risk the public flames of wrath.
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#7Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. The measured tone in TFA is how adults debate issues. Invoking phrases like "child-abusing relative" and "kid alone in a darkened room in a state of undress" is the kind of hyperbole that sites like Twitter and HN love to employ that reduce the quality of conversations and how threads turn into shouting matches. Ask yourself how the hyperbole you engage in leads to "curious conversation", how you're "a…
OPs comment wasn’t just off the cuff emotionally charged rhetoric though. They acknowledged that there are times for a measured response, and there are times that a measured response is inappropriate. That outrage and pitchfork wielding are appropriate responses. They made the case that this was one of those times. I agree.
The comment would have been better without the strained analogy.
One counter argument to the gp might be something like: this is exactly the kind of expertise The Tor Project should want to consult.
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#9If you are using Tor, seriously ask yourself if it's a good idea to install software that was developed by DARPA and has never solved the exit node problem.
Re: Tor Project Board Member is CEO of Company Selling Capability for Attribution
#10While I can appreciate the measured tone in TFA, at some point you've got to take a step back and ask what the hell is going on. This instance reeks of an egregious conflict of interest and this response is negligent on behalf of the board . The current TOR Board scenario is akin to having a known child-abusing relative babysit your own kid, catching them inexplicably sitting with the kid alone in a darkened room in…
Hard disagree. The measured tone in TFA is how adults debate issues. Invoking phrases like "child-abusing relative" and "kid alone in a darkened room in a state of undress" is the kind of hyperbole that sites like Twitter and HN love to employ that reduce the quality of conversations and how threads turn into shouting matches. Ask yourself how the hyperbole you engage in leads to "curious conversation", how you're "a…
Why are you attacking the commenter's character and chose not to respond to a single concern they brought up? They've asked some good questions and AFAICT they're legitimately concerned and only acting in good faith.
Your claim that they've violated HN guidelines is misplaced, at best.
Who's side are you on? Are you defending the guy with conflicting interests who is on the board and simultaneously selling a tor removal kit?