That article is four years old. This claim I heard in an interview from him for his book that just came out (he got a bunch of e-mails through FOIA requests, as I understand it), and isn't addressed by this "very concise refutation." And some of the claims seem a little bit of a stretch (using the "Gate" suffix is a nod to Gamergate?
Isn't it more plausible that this is the same reference to Watergate that's been applied to every political scandal since 1973?). And it seems like that article mostly agrees with all the factual claims it examines but disagrees with the interpretation or their level of significance, rather than exposing anything as a falsehood.
> That still doesn't contradict the fact that using Tor is better than not.
Is it a fact? If Tor achieves nothing for someone trying to hide from the government except announcing that you have something you want to hide (is that the case? I don't pretend to be certain, but it seems possible) then I'm not sure it's better.
I haven't really had time to go through everything, so I was just going by what I remembered from the interview. The idea that they were sharing zero-days seemed like a big deal but I didn't really see which one he was referring to skimming those earlier, so I didn't bother linking. The other point he harped on a lot was them taking marching orders (for instance, that the application should be localized for Farsi during a time when the US was looking to promote dissenters in Iran).
I am reading the book now so I feel like I'll have a better judgment once I've finished. I didn't find your Twitter exchange very illuminating either way.
Can he give a legitimate source for that very serious claim? Note how he overplays a lot of things that are publicly and openly known. Yes, the Tor Project got funding at various points in time from the state department to improve "human rights" and "freedom of speech" around the world, especially certain countries deemed hostile to the US. So what? Yes, Roger Dingledine publicly stated (in a CCC talk) that he gave a talk at the NSA and another one at the GCHQ. So what? Does that mean that he's suddenly an NSA shill that will try to implement a backdoor in Tor for the simple reason that he gave a talk to them?
If the Internet is such a surveillance threat, and Tor doesn't help, why doesn't this Yasha Levine point to a single alternative?
He's just a FUD spreader, as demonstrated on the other posts, so just move on. If you think Tor isn't a technical solution then please provide alternatives.
So? It was just an example to show how Mr. Yasha misrepresents and twists facts to fit his preconceived conspiracy theory.
> Is it a fact?
Yes, because of the three hops design.
> If Tor achieves nothing for someone trying to hide from the government except announcing that you have something you want to hide (is that the case?
Millions of people use Tor nowadays that the mere fact that you connected directly to the Tor network doesn't reveal much. Not to mention that there are ways to hide the fact that you're using Tor thanks to pluggable transports.
As I said, I don't see anything in that article that makes me think that "Mr. Yasha" twisted any facts; simply that the author of the article doesn't agree with his interpretation.
> As I said, I don't see anything in that article that makes me think that "Mr. Yasha" twisted any facts; simply that the author of the article doesn't agree with his interpretation.
Are you joking? He wrote entire paragraphs on Tor in his book to push his thesis and you're thinking that it comes down to a matter of differing "interpretations".
That's an unfounded accusation. Micah Lee wrote a very concise refutation of his smear campaign.[1]
> I would be sure someone couldn't pierce the veil of anonymity.
That still doesn't contradict the fact that using Tor is better than not.
[1] : https://micahflee.com/2014/12/fact-checking-pandos-smears-ag...