Fair enough. But I would argue that qualifying Tor as a group targeting world governments is a bit dramatic. That may be propagandist commentary on their part - they're entitled to make it, and people still use Tor in spite of it - but isn't the primary intention of Tor to preserve free speech and anonymity, and to offer protection from persecution (or prosecution) by nation-states that seek to quell dissent? And if all the worlds' governments are truly the stated target of Tor, why on earth should an American academic institution insinuate itself into that battlefield? For that matter, given the stated powers of our governments network and data analysis engines, why were they even needed?
They provided information "on that battlefield" that shows that Tor is wholly inadequate to "offer protection from persecution by nation-states". If you're in a place where your life is on the line and you think Tor will help you, this shows clearly that is incorrect. That is useful, even critical information, since lives depend on it. Maybe you don't know the source or the method but the output is very valuable.
That's only somewhat true, though. Russia tried to break Tor's anonymity and failed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/russia-s-p...
Re:Why the Tor attack matters
by thaumasiotes on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:38AM
(#10564875)
> I would argue that qualifying Tor as a group targeting world governments is a bit dramatic. That may be propagandist commentary on their part - they're entitled to make it, and people still use Tor in spite of it - but isn't the primary intention of Tor to preserve free speech and anonymity, and to offer protection from persecution (or prosecution) by nation-states that seek to quell dissent?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Surely, if the primary intention of Tor is to protect users from persecution by nation-states, then their adversaries are world governments?
Re:Why the Tor attack matters
by gingerlime on Saturday November 14, 2015 @05:36AM
(#10565226)
> was broken for a sum of money any angel investor in SFBA could have coughed up.
perhaps nitpicking, and a bit tangential to this debate, but I can't imagine the $1m on its own would be enough to break it.
I imagine they have some fairly beefy research budget with an existing infrastructure with a substantial computing power and prior research experience to begin with. So quite a tall giant to stand on. If I had to guess, the $1m was only there to cover time spent on this very specific task at hand, and for allocating researchers' time away from other tasks...
I don't even think I disagree with the second part of 'AMEDICALRe's root comment. But of course, that comment has very little to do with what Patrick actually said. Patrick is responding to the fact that an anti-surveillance tool that chose as its adversaries all the world's governments was broken for a sum of money any angel investor in SFBA could have coughed up.