- The "PCAP" data, email addresses, etc that they sell comes from them running malware samples on their own infrastructure. It's not based on captured Internet data.
- The web page addresses etc that they sell are the results of automated vulnerability scans and honeypots, not captured Internet data.
- The netflow data they sell is captured from real ISP traffic, but it is a small sample (only 1 in 10,000 netflows is captured), and it can't identify individual websites if they use a CDN or shared hosting infrastructure (which most websites do).
I have no clue how true these claims are, but those are the claims.
> But of course, not actively endangering our users is a low bar. It is reasonable to raise questions about the inherent disconnection between the business model of Team Cymru and the mission of Tor which consists of private and anonymous internet access for all. Rob Thomas's reasons for choosing to resign from the board are his own, but it has become more clear over the months since our initial conversation how Team Cymru's work is at odds with the Tor Project's mission
If 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.
This is such an odd comment. ARPANET and by extension DARPA are embedded in the origin story of the Internet and I'm sure DARPA will continue to fund fringe technologies that emerge to change the way we communicate into the future.
It isn't, in and of itself a reason for suspicion on the level implied, nor would I argue above and beyond baseline healthy suspicion in anything.
While 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*.
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.
>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
csande17|3 years ago
In short, they claim that:
- The "PCAP" data, email addresses, etc that they sell comes from them running malware samples on their own infrastructure. It's not based on captured Internet data.
- The web page addresses etc that they sell are the results of automated vulnerability scans and honeypots, not captured Internet data.
- The netflow data they sell is captured from real ISP traffic, but it is a small sample (only 1 in 10,000 netflows is captured), and it can't identify individual websites if they use a CDN or shared hosting infrastructure (which most websites do).
I have no clue how true these claims are, but those are the claims.
cma|3 years ago
jacooper|3 years ago
Looks like he was going to get fired anyway.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
crtasm|3 years ago
The Motherboard piece mentioned is: https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pnkw/us-military-bought-ma...
ravenstine|3 years ago
sirsinsalot|3 years ago
It isn't, in and of itself a reason for suspicion on the level implied, nor would I argue above and beyond baseline healthy suspicion in anything.
prego_xo|3 years ago
But seriously, the exit node issue is a real sore thumb.
wolfendin|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
ipaddr|3 years ago
jacooper|3 years ago
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pnkw/us-military-bought-ma...
Didn't google deprecate/stop prioritizing AMP? so why are they still using it?
Is it because Its an opportunity to track users so use it as longer as possible?
metadat|3 years ago
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
Karrot_Kream|3 years ago
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.
thrown_22|3 years ago
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